V.Y. v. Instant Brands, Inc.

Background

The parties filed a joint discovery letter brief. V.Y. moved to compel Instant Brands, Inc. to provide additional documents responsive to request for production number 1 and complete responses to six interrogatories.

Document request

Request for production number 1 sought documents concerning the design, manufacture, testing, and quality control of the product at issue. V.Y. argued that Instant Brands had not produced documents identified in its initial disclosures. Instant Brands stated that Guangdong Midea Consumer Electric Manufacturing Co., Ltd. was the product’s manufacturer and might possess responsive documents.

The court explained that the dispute could depend on whether documents in Midea’s possession or custody were within Instant Brands’ “control,” meaning Instant Brands had the legal right to obtain them upon demand. The parties had not addressed that issue. Instant Brands also reported producing 401 additional pages, but V.Y. did not discuss whether that supplemental production was sufficient. Because the court lacked enough information to evaluate the dispute, it did not resolve the request for production. Instead, it ordered the parties to meet and confer under the applicable standing order. If they could not agree, they could submit a new joint letter of no more than three pages by February 18, 2021. If V.Y. claimed that Instant Brands had the legal right to obtain documents from Midea, V.Y. had to provide supporting evidence.

Interrogatories

The court found Instant Brands’ responses to interrogatories 5, 6, 7, 15, 22, and 23 deficient. These questions concerned Instant Brands’ own actions and communications, rather than information held by Midea or another entity. For example, interrogatory 5 asked Instant Brands to identify design specifications it had discussed with manufacturers concerning safety devices for the Instant Pot Duo 60 V2 pressure cooker. The court concluded that this information was within Instant Brands’ own knowledge and that V.Y. was entitled to complete answers identifying all such discussions or stating that none occurred. The court reached the same conclusion for the other five interrogatories and ordered Instant Brands to serve amended responses within seven days of the order.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part the discovery letter brief, without prejudice. The ruling required amended responses to the six interrogatories, but directed further discussion and possible additional briefing concerning request for production number 1. Judge Donna M. Ryu signed the order.