Nacarino v. Chobani, LLC

Background

The order addressed the parties’ discovery dispute about Chobani’s supplemental responses to Elena Nacarino’s first set of interrogatories (written questions) and requests for production (requests for documents). The underlying case concerns Chobani’s vanilla-flavored Greek yogurt and whether its label violates a Food and Drug Administration regulation.

Rulings on Discovery

1. Chobani did not have to respond further to requests seeking information about “Qualified Vanilla Products” or “Unqualified Vanilla Products.” Those terms covered Chobani yogurts, coffee creamers, and milks that the order said were not at issue. The court found that the labels and ingredients of those other products were not relevant.

2. For the yogurt at issue, all three identified container sizes—32 ounces, 5.3 ounces, and a four-pack of 5.3-ounce containers—were relevant. The order noted that the products were alleged to have a common, uniform label and that the proposed class was not limited to purchasers of one container size. Chobani had to amend its responses by May 6, 2022.

3. Some discovery requests used Nacarino’s definition of “Vanilla Flavoring,” which included examples such as vanilla extract, vanillin, and ethyl vanillin. Because Chobani disputed whether two of those examples provide a vanilla flavor, the court found that the definition made factual and possibly legal assumptions affecting the case. Nacarino had to amend the definition. Until then, Chobani did not have to respond further to requests using that term.

4. Chobani had agreed to identify the supplier of the “natural flavors” listed as ingredients in its vanilla-flavored Greek yogurt. The court ordered Chobani to do so by May 6, 2022.

5. For Interrogatories 6 and 9, Chobani had agreed to produce documents from which the answers could be determined. The court ordered Chobani to produce those documents by May 6, 2022. After reviewing them, Nacarino could seek an order requiring amended answers if the answers were not readily apparent.

6. Chobani had to answer Interrogatory 17, which asked it to identify companies or products it believed competed with the yogurt for market share. The court found that Nacarino was asking for Chobani’s perceived competitors in vanilla-flavored Greek yogurt, not merely a list of companies selling yogurt. The answer was due by May 6, 2022.

7. The court rejected Chobani’s position that Nacarino first had to agree to an electronic discovery protocol, search terms, and custodians. The court ordered Chobani to take the initiative because it was better positioned to identify employees likely to possess responsive electronically stored information and to determine how to locate, review, and produce it. Chobani had to select likely custodians, search their records, produce the responsive information it found, and disclose the custodians and search terms used. Chobani could use targeted search terms but had to test and modify them if necessary. Nacarino could request additional custodians or search terms if she specifically explained why they were likely to produce responsive information. If she met that burden, Chobani had to conduct further searches. Chobani had to complete the first two steps by May 20, 2022.

Disposition

Judge Alex G. Tse entered the discovery order and stated that any unresolved or new discovery issues could be presented in later joint statements, although the parties were expected to resolve most disputes by meeting and conferring first.