In re The Estee Lauder Co., Inc. Securities Litigation
- Subramanian
- 1:23-cv-10669
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In re Estee Lauder Securities Litigation: Judge Subramanian granted plaintiffs’ discovery motion and ordered further negotiations over custodians and search terms.
The Lead Plaintiffs and Defendants in the securities litigation, particularly their obligations and positions concerning the scope of document discovery.
What happened
In In re The Estee Lauder Co., Inc. Securities Litigation, the lead plaintiffs asked the court to require defendants to search for and produce documents from January 1, 2020, through April 30, 2024, with a longer period for certain requests. They said those documents could help show whether statements about sales were misleading and whether defendants knew about the alleged use of the gray-market practice known as daigou.
The plaintiffs said the parties had repeatedly discussed the dispute but remained at an impasse. They argued that documents from before and after the class period could provide evidence about what defendants knew, whether statements were false or misleading, and whether the alleged conduct caused losses. The plaintiffs also said defendants had produced no substantive documents yet.
Judge Arun Subramanian granted the plaintiffs’ motion. He directed the parties to continue meeting about the appropriate number of document custodians and search terms. If they could not resolve those issues, he ordered lead trial counsel and client representatives to appear in person on August 15, 2025, so the court could address the remaining disputes.
The detailed version
- In re The Estee Lauder Co., Inc. Securities Litigation · No. 1:23-cv-10669
- Subramanian
- Aug. 6, 2025
Background
Lead Plaintiffs filed a letter motion concerning a discovery dispute with Defendants. Discovery is the pretrial exchange of relevant, nonprivileged information. The dispute concerned the “Relevant Time Periods” for which Defendants would search for and produce documents responsive to Lead Plaintiffs’ requests.
The class period identified in the filing ran from February 3, 2022, through October 31, 2023. Lead Plaintiffs requested document searches beginning January 1, 2020, and continuing through April 30, 2024. They also requested searches through February 28, 2025, for Request Nos. 7, 25, 26, and 33.
Parties’ Positions
Lead Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants made false or misleading statements and omissions during the class period concerning Estée Lauder’s use of “daigou,” described in the filing as a gray-market sales practice prevalent in Asia. They argued that pre-class-period documents could show when Defendants began relying on daigou and what they knew about its effect on sales. They argued that post-class-period documents could shed light on the alleged fraud, continuing declines in Asia travel retail sales, and whether the alleged conduct caused losses.
Lead Plaintiffs stated that the parties had conferred by telephone, exchanged correspondence, and held a lead-trial-counsel conference, but had not resolved the relevant-time-period dispute. They said Defendants had offered to search 2020 documents from only two custodians and to limit most other discovery to later years. They also said Defendants had offered to produce post-class-period documents only for 90 days after the class period. The filing stated that Defendants had produced no substantive documents as of that time.
Ruling
Judge Arun Subramanian granted Plaintiffs’ motion. The court directed the parties to continue meeting about the appropriate number of custodians and search terms and stated that it expected the attorneys to resolve those issues. If they could not, the court ordered lead trial counsel and client representatives to appear in person on August 15, 2025, at 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time to address the remaining issues. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion at Docket 85.
The brief court ruling does not expressly state whether the court ordered production under every specific relevant-time period requested in the plaintiffs’ letter. It expressly grants the motion and directs further discussions concerning custodians and search terms.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.