Chen v. Vesync Corporation

Background

This discovery order resolves a dispute over Rick Chen’s subpoena to non-party Dyson, Inc. The subpoena sought documents concerning third-party product testing that Dyson submitted to the National Advertising Division of the Better Business Bureau as part of a 2023 challenge involving Vesync. Chen narrowed the request to the applicable test reports.

Vesync asked the court to quash, meaning cancel, the subpoena and to issue a protective order. Vesync argued that the test results were confidential, covered by California’s mediation privilege, and irrelevant to Chen’s claims. Chen’s claims involve alleged false or misleading statements and omissions concerning Vesync products. The opinion states that Chen purchased a Levoit Core 300 True HEPA Filter Air Purifier in 2020 and a replacement filter later that year, and alleged that the products did not meet the HEPA standard until at least August 4, 2023.

Relevance and Burden

The court found the test results relevant because they concerned the same air-purifier models at issue in the case. The results could provide information about product performance and changes in performance by date of manufacture in relation to Vesync’s product representations. The court also stated that the potential class size and applicable statutory period could depend on purchase or manufacture dates and on the product’s filtration performance.

The court found that the testing was proportional to the needs of the case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1). It concluded that the probative value of the test results outweighed the prejudice or expense to Vesync.

Mediation Privilege

The court applied California privilege law because Chen asserted state-law claims. Under California Evidence Code section 1119, mediation privilege can protect evidence, statements, admissions, and writings made for or during a mediation or mediation consultation. Vesync had the burden to establish that the privilege applied.

The court rejected Vesync’s argument that the reports were privileged merely because they were submitted in connection with the National Advertising Division proceeding. The court found no indication that the documents or submission invoked mediation privilege at the time of that proceeding. It also was not persuaded that the National Advertising Division proceeding was a mediation because the National Advertising Division issues a final decision rather than helping the participants reach a mutually acceptable agreement.

The court further concluded that, even if the proceeding could be treated as mediation, the testing was not conducted for that purpose. The testing occurred before the proceeding, and the opinion states that the challenge was initiated only after Dyson obtained the results and considered other options. The court therefore found that the requirements for mediation privilege were not satisfied.

Confidentiality and Disposition

The court found good cause to protect the confidentiality of the test results because the materials submitted to the National Advertising Division were confidential under its rules. It stated that a protective order would address Vesync’s legitimate confidentiality interests.

The court denied Vesync’s request to quash the subpoena. The parties were directed to meet and confer and jointly submit a protective order complying with the magistrate judge’s Civil Standing Order by April 16, 2024. After the court approved the protective order, Dyson was directed to respond to the subpoena as modified by Chen, limited to the test results produced in connection with the 2023 National Advertising Division proceeding and subject to the protective order. The opinion does not state that the protective order itself was already granted; it directs the parties to submit one for approval.