Lin v. Solta Medical, Inc.

Background

Hsin Lin brought a products-liability action against Solta Medical, Inc., alleging that she suffered severe second-degree burns after receiving a skin treatment in Taiwan that used a Thermage CPT device manufactured by Solta. The operative complaint asserted claims including defective design, negligence, and breach of express and implied warranties. A previously named co-defendant was dismissed from the case.

Lin had served written discovery requests in November 2022, and Solta was still responding. The court had twice extended the fact-discovery deadline. The parties later stipulated to extend the deadline for completing depositions and responding to already-issued discovery requests to February 26, 2024, but that stipulation did not permit new fact-discovery requests.

Lin also served deposition notices under Rule 30(b)(6), which allows an organization to designate witnesses to testify about information known to the organization, along with document requests. Before scheduling those depositions, Lin took the position that she would not proceed until Solta had produced all documents responsive to her earlier requests. Lin then filed an administrative motion asking to issue new written discovery through the amended discovery cutoff.

Parties’ Positions

Lin argued that she had been diligent because Solta had been slow to produce responsive materials and because the continuing production might reveal additional relevant information. Solta argued that Lin had already had ample time to serve additional requests, including during two prior schedule extensions, and had not identified what new discovery she sought.

Court’s Analysis

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) permits a court to modify a discovery schedule for “good cause.” The court explained that this standard primarily examines the diligence of the party seeking the change. If that party was not diligent, the inquiry ends.

The court concluded that Lin had not shown diligence. She did not identify the information she hoped to obtain through new requests or explain why her existing requests did not already cover those subjects. She also did not show that Solta’s allegedly delayed responses had revealed new categories of relevant information that she could not have pursued earlier. The court stated that merely speculating about what future document production might reveal did not establish diligence. In addition, Lin had delayed pursuing discovery by postponing the deposition schedule.

The court noted that Solta was continuing to produce documents responsive to the existing requests and that Lin could challenge the sufficiency of those responses through negotiations, joint discovery letters, or motions to compel if necessary. The court also addressed a dispute over whether the defined term “DOCUMENTS” included emails, noting Lin’s representation that it did.

Disposition

The court denied Lin’s administrative motion to modify the discovery schedule. The order did not authorize new written discovery.