Gardner v. Starkist Co.
- William Orrick
- 3:19-cv-02561
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 10
In Gardner v. StarKist Co., Judge Orrick granted in part and denied in part a request for overseas discovery from StarKist’s parent.
The order directly affected the plaintiffs, StarKist Co., and StarKist’s parent company, Dongwon Industries Co. Ltd. It allowed some discovery from Dongwon, required StarKist to produce specified information, and denied or deferred other discovery requests.
What happened
Gardner v. StarKist Co. is a class action by tuna purchasers who allege StarKist’s claims that its products are dolphin-safe and sustainably sourced are misleading. The plaintiffs sought documents from StarKist’s parent company, Dongwon Industries Co. Ltd., which is headquartered and incorporated in the Republic of Korea.
The court granted the request for documents about boats supplying tuna to StarKist, their fishing methods, their captains and observers, compensation, and StarKist’s payments to Dongwon. It denied the request for communications between Dongwon and StarKist about dolphin safety and related fishing practices because StarKist could produce those documents less burdensomely, and it ordered StarKist to produce them instead. The court denied other requests, including requests for broader information about dolphin harm, complaints, policies, and tuna storage; the denial of requests about Dongwon’s general fishing practices was without prejudice.
Judge William H. Orrick ordered the plaintiffs to submit a revised request. He said the plaintiffs could seek broader information later if, after reviewing the produced documents, they had a good-faith reason to believe those documents were unreliable, insufficient, or inadequate.
The detailed version
- Gardner v. Starkist Co. · No. 3:19-cv-02561
- William Orrick
- Jan. 29, 2021
Background
The plaintiffs are purchasers of StarKist tuna from various states. They allege that StarKist’s promises that its tuna products are dolphin-safe and sustainably sourced are false or misleading. Earlier orders allowed the fraud claims against StarKist to proceed past the pleading stage. The court had dismissed Dongwon Industries Co. Ltd., StarKist’s parent company, from the case with prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction.
The plaintiffs moved for issuance of a letter rogatory, which is a request from a United States court to a foreign court to obtain evidence. They sought documents from Dongwon about its procurement of tuna for StarKist, its use of purse seine nets, fish aggregating devices, and longlines, and dolphin harm or deaths connected to its tuna fishing. StarKist opposed the motion, arguing that the requests were irrelevant, disproportionate, duplicative of discovery StarKist had agreed to provide, or an attempt to bring Dongwon back into the case.
Court’s Analysis
The court applied the federal discovery rule requiring requested information to be relevant to a claim or defense and reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. It found good cause for requests 4 through 8, which sought information about boats supplying tuna for StarKist products, those boats’ fishing methods, their captains and observers, related compensation, and StarKist’s compensation to Dongwon for supplying tuna. The court concluded that evidence from Dongwon about the fishing practices used to obtain StarKist’s tuna could be relevant to the plaintiffs’ claims.
Request 16 sought communications between Dongwon and StarKist about dolphin safety, bycatch, fish aggregating devices, and fishing methods. The court concluded that the plaintiffs were entitled to this discovery but denied the request for a letter rogatory because StarKist could produce the information less burdensomely. The court ordered StarKist to produce the information covered by request 16.
The court denied requests 10 through 13, which sought broader information about Dongwon’s fishing practices, without prejudice at that juncture. The plaintiffs had not yet reviewed the materials StarKist and Dongwon would produce in response to requests 4 through 8. The court said it would consider broader discovery later if the plaintiffs had a good-faith reason to believe the produced materials were unreliable, insufficient, or inadequate and StarKist continued to object.
The court denied requests 1 through 3, 9, and 14 through 15 because the plaintiffs had not explained why the requested information was relevant or necessary to their claims. Those requests concerned matters including dolphin harm in Dongwon’s broader procurement activities, complaints, separate storage of tuna, Dongwon’s internal dolphin-safe policies, and systems for tracking tuna’s chain of custody.
Disposition
The court granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs’ motion to issue a letter rogatory. Request numbers 4 through 8 were granted. Request number 16 was denied to the extent that StarKist could produce the information less burdensomely, and StarKist was ordered to produce it. Request numbers 10 through 13 were denied without prejudice. Request numbers 1 through 3, 9, and 14 through 15 were denied. The plaintiffs were ordered to submit a revised letter of request in accordance with the order.
Judge William H. Orrick signed the order on January 29, 2021.
Read the full 10-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.