Broomes v. Fullbeauty Brands Operations
- Kandis Westmore
- 3:24-cv-03558
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Broomes v. Fullbeauty Brands, Judge Westmore terminated a discovery letter and ordered the parties to meet and confer about interrogatories.
The named Plaintiffs and Fullbeauty Brands Operations, LLC, particularly their dispute over interrogatory responses and the scope and form of discovery.
What happened
In Amanda Broomes, et al. v. Fullbeauty Brands Operations, LLC, the parties filed a joint letter about Plaintiffs’ interrogatories. Fullbeauty Brands had objected that discovery might not be appropriate while its motion to compel arbitration was pending. That motion was later resolved, requiring arbitration for only one of the six named Plaintiffs.
The court terminated the discovery letter rather than resolving the interrogatory dispute. Because the defendant had said it was willing to supplement its responses if the case continued, the court ordered the parties to meet and confer about whether supplementation would resolve the dispute.
Judge Westmore also questioned whether Plaintiffs’ requested discovery was too broad and whether some interrogatories improperly combined multiple requests, potentially exceeding the 25-interrogatory limit. If the parties could not resolve the issues, the court ordered them to file a new joint discovery letter complying with the court’s standing order.
The detailed version
- Broomes v. Fullbeauty Brands Operations · No. 3:24-cv-03558
- Kandis Westmore
- Dec. 17, 2025
Background
On September 3, 2025, the parties filed a joint discovery letter concerning Plaintiffs’ interrogatories. One of Fullbeauty Brands’ main objections was that discovery might not be appropriate while its motion to compel arbitration was pending. On December 11, 2025, the presiding judge resolved that motion, ruling that arbitration was required for only one of the six named Plaintiffs. The case was then referred to Judge Westmore for discovery matters.
Court’s Action
The court terminated the discovery letter. It did not decide the underlying interrogatory dispute. The court noted that Fullbeauty Brands had stated it was “amenable to supplementing its response” if the litigation proceeded, and it ordered the parties to meet and confer about whether supplementation would resolve the dispute.
Discovery Guidance
The court questioned whether Plaintiffs’ request for discovery concerning “all merchandise that has been offered and/or sold” on Eloquii.com was appropriate, given the stated limits of the class definition. The court also indicated that interrogatories seeking nine to sixteen types of information for every product, including one seeking twelve types of information for each day of the class period, appeared improperly compound and could quickly exceed the 25-interrogatory limit. The court suggested that the parties consider whether other discovery methods would be more suitable.
Next Step
If the parties could not resolve their issues, the court ordered them to file a joint discovery letter complying with Judge Westmore’s standing order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.