Valentine v. Crocs, Inc.

Background

This proposed class action concerns Crocs shoes made of 90% or more Croslite material. Plaintiffs Martha Valentine, Ruby Cornejo, and Tiffany Avino sought discovery while the case remained at the precertification stage. The class-certification discovery cutoff was April 26, 2024, and the motion for class certification was due May 31, 2024.

The court explained that discovery must concern nonprivileged matter relevant to a claim or defense and must be proportional to the needs of the case. Proportionality considers the importance of the issues, the amount at stake, the parties’ access to information and resources, the importance of the discovery, and whether its burden or expense outweighs its likely benefit. The court also noted that discovery before class certification generally focuses on issues such as the number of potential class members, common questions, typicality, and the proposed representatives’ ability to represent the class, although those issues can overlap with the merits.

Customer Complaints

Plaintiffs sought additional documents and customer complaints concerning shrinkage. They objected that Crocs had produced only a spreadsheet and argued that it omitted some email complaints, complaints before the proposed class period, complaints after mid-2023, retailer complaints, and complaints using the term “deformation.”

Crocs stated that it did not have a centralized database of customer communications and had spent weeks creating the spreadsheet from information it could gather from thousands of complaints made between 2019 and 2023. Crocs argued that it should not have to conduct another search, particularly because no class had been certified and plaintiffs had not shown that the spreadsheet was insufficient for their certification arguments.

The court denied plaintiffs’ request for additional customer and retailer complaints. It found that the request, even if relevant, was unduly burdensome and not proportional to the needs of the case. The court said plaintiffs had not adequately explained why complaints from before the proposed class period, complaints after mid-2023, broader searches for “deformation,” or retailer complaints were necessary, nonduplicative, and proportional. It also stated that the request for complaints held by third-party retailers was legally deficient because plaintiffs had not shown that Crocs possessed, controlled, or had custody of those complaints.

The court separately ordered Crocs to produce all nonprivileged materials, documents, electronically stored information, and other tangible things that Crocs reviewed or relied on to create the spreadsheet. The court explained that a responding party generally cannot satisfy a document request by producing only a summary. The parties were ordered to meet and confer about the timing and manner of that production by April 22, 2024.

Documents About Other Shoe Types

Plaintiffs sought shrinkage documents concerning Crocs shoes other than the Classic Clog and Classic Bae, the two models plaintiffs purchased. Plaintiffs argued that information about other products made from the same material could help establish the alleged defect, the temperatures and environments causing shrinkage, and Crocs’ knowledge of the defect.

Crocs argued that an earlier order had struck plaintiffs’ class claims concerning products they did not purchase and that plaintiffs therefore had no basis to demand discovery about other shoes. Crocs also stated that it had already produced substantial shrinkage materials concerning various Crocs shoes through search terms agreed upon by the parties.

The court denied plaintiffs’ request to compel additional documents about other Crocs shoes. It found that plaintiffs had not shown why the materials already produced were insufficient for their class-certification arguments. The court also found no basis to conclude that additional discovery about other Croslite shoes would produce unique information justifying the added burden and expense, particularly because Crocs had already searched for and produced documents addressing shoes beyond the two models at issue.

Finished-Shoe Testing Results

Plaintiffs sought a complete set of Crocs’ internal testing results concerning shrinkage of finished shoes. Plaintiffs argued that the results could provide class-wide evidence of shrinkage and evidence of Crocs’ knowledge.

Crocs argued that plaintiffs’ request would require compiling testing documents and data for every finished-shoe test at more than 30 factories, covering every type of shoe made at those factories over several years and potentially hundreds of millions of shoes. Crocs stated that it had already reviewed approximately one million documents identified through the parties’ agreed search and had produced the relevant responsive documents.

The court denied plaintiffs’ request to compel additional testing data. It found that plaintiffs had not explained why the testing materials already produced were insufficient or how the produced materials failed to address class-wide shrinkage and Crocs’ knowledge of the alleged defect. The court found no showing that testing of millions of additional Croslite shoes would provide unique information sufficient to justify the additional burden and expense.

Disposition

Judge Peter H. Kang denied the requests for additional customer and retailer complaints, additional shrinkage documents concerning other Crocs shoes, and additional finished-shoe testing data. The court ordered Crocs to produce the nonprivileged materials used to create the customer-complaint spreadsheet.