Premier Floor Care, Inc. v. Albertsons Companies, Inc.

Background

The order addresses a jointly filed letter brief concerning a discovery dispute near the end of fact discovery. Premier’s lawsuit asserts claims for breach of contract, civil conspiracy, and unfair competition against Albertsons Companies, Inc. and Safeway, Inc. Premier alleges that Safeway breached a master service contract and that Safeway engaged in a conspiracy involving Service Employees International Union and King Janitorial Equipment Services to disrupt the bidding process and cause Safeway to terminate Premier.

Premier said the important issues included whether Safeway had an understanding with King and the Union, or substantially assisted or encouraged activities affecting the bidding process, and whether Safeway’s decision reflected independent economic judgment. Based on deposition testimony, Premier sought three categories of documents: documents concerning “soft awards” communicated to King during the bidding process; store-manager reports concerning four picketing events; and documents concerning amendments or pricing changes to Safeway’s 2018 contract with King. Premier also sought another deposition concerning communications from store managers about the picketing events and modifications to the contract’s pricing terms. Premier stated that producing the corresponding documents would eliminate the need for that deposition.

Parties’ Arguments

The defendants argued that Premier’s requests were untimely because Premier had not identified a timely document request to which the requested materials were responsive. They also argued that the proposed deposition followed a recently served Rule 30(b)(6) notice, issued nine business days before discovery closed, and was an attempt to obtain written discovery after the deadline. The defendants maintained that they had produced everything captured by the parties’ agreed search protocol and that there was no basis to change that protocol.

The defendants further argued that the requests concerning the King agreement and communications about the demonstrations sought irrelevant or disproportionate information. They pointed to testimony that the 2018 King contract had no amendments or pricing adjustments and said Premier had already obtained that information through testimony and an interrogatory response. They also relied on Premier’s concessions and witness testimony concerning Safeway’s right to terminate the relationship and make request-for-proposal decisions based on any criteria, as well as testimony and allegations that Safeway called police to stop the protests.

Court’s Analysis

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1), a party seeking to compel discovery has the initial burden to show that the requested information is relevant to the claims or defenses and proportional to the needs of the case. The court found that Premier’s portion of the letter brief did not address the defendants’ arguments or persuasively establish relevance and proportionality. In the court’s view, Premier identified categories of information it wanted but did not connect the requests to any consequential fact underlying the claims or defenses.

Disposition

The court denied Premier’s request to compel the requested information. The order resolved the discovery dispute and did not reach the merits of Premier’s underlying claims.