Hamzeh v. Pharmavite LLC

Background

The case was referred to Judge Peter H. Kang for discovery matters. The court considered a joint letter brief about a dispute between Guity Hamzeh and Pharmavite LLC. The court resolved the dispute without oral argument.

The parties agreed that the relevant period for electronically stored information, or ESI, was January 1, 2017, to the present. Hamzeh argued that Pharmavite was refusing to produce ESI from non-custodial sources during that period. Pharmavite responded that it had produced, and was not withholding, non-custodial ESI obtained through agreed search terms. Pharmavite said the narrower dispute concerned Sales Data and Exemplars.

Pharmavite defined Sales Data as spreadsheet information compiling sales information from internal databases or sources. It argued that Sales Data was relevant only from January 25, 2020, to the present because it concerned damages and information before the limitations period was not relevant to damages. Hamzeh argued that the limitations period should not restrict discovery and relied on a ruling in a similar, co-pending case. Pharmavite argued that the issue of Sales Data had not been addressed in that ruling and cited authority concerning sales information outside a limitations period.

Pharmavite defined Exemplars as every version of every product label on which Hamzeh and proposed class members could have relied when purchasing the products during the limitations period. Pharmavite argued that Exemplars were outside the agreed ESI process.

Court’s Analysis

The court found that Pharmavite appeared not to be categorically refusing to produce non-custodial data from January 1, 2017, and had agreed to produce that data under the ESI protocol and agreed search terms. Because it was unclear whether that production was complete, the court ordered Pharmavite to file a status report by September 11, 2026, describing the completion status of the non-custodial ESI production from January 1, 2017, to the present and identifying the non-custodial sources.

The court treated the Sales Data differently from ordinary ESI production. It concluded that Hamzeh had not shown why Sales Data from before January 25, 2020, was relevant to the discovery issues or proportional to the needs of the case. The court noted that later developments could provide a reasonable basis for seeking pre-limitations-period Sales Data, including sales numbers tied to marketing decisions. If that occurred, the parties were ordered to meet and confer about a production protocol.

For the Exemplars, the court found that Pharmavite had not adequately supported its position that the labels were outside the ESI protocol. Pharmavite did not cite authority supporting that exemption and did not show that producing labels from January 1, 2017, to January 25, 2020, would be unduly burdensome or disproportionate. The court also noted that the parties apparently agreed that Pharmavite could produce samples rather than every duplicative label.

Ruling

The court DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE Hamzeh’s motion to compel Pharmavite to produce Sales Data predating the limitations period. The court GRANTED Hamzeh’s motion to compel Pharmavite to produce Exemplars from January 1, 2017, to January 25, 2020. The court also ordered Pharmavite to include in its September 11, 2026 status report the status of producing those additional Exemplars. The order resolved docket entry 138.