Valentine v. Crocs, Inc.

Background

This putative class action was brought by Martha Valentine, Ruby Cornejo, and Tiffany Avino against Crocs, Inc. concerning shoes made of 90% or more Croslite material. The case had been referred to Magistrate Judge Peter H. Kang for discovery purposes. The order addressed three joint discovery letter briefs involving ten disputes, largely concerning discovery needed before the plaintiffs’ class-certification motion.

The court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1), which permits discovery of nonprivileged information relevant to a claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case. The court emphasized that relevance in discovery is broad but that discovery is not unlimited. It also explained that precertification discovery generally focuses on class-certification issues, although certification and merits issues can overlap.

Rulings on the Discovery Disputes

1. Sales data. The court found that Crocs’ previously produced spreadsheet might lack units-sold information for some reported periods and that Crocs had not produced a spreadsheet covering all of 2023 California sales. It ordered Crocs to provide units-sold information for the California sales data already produced by May 10, 2024, and all available California sales data for 2023, formatted to include units sold, by May 13, 2024. The court found that the plaintiffs’ request for additional sales discovery beyond those limits was unduly burdensome and not proportional to the needs of the case. The parties were also ordered to file a joint status report about the California sales production.

2. Pricing documents. The court ordered the parties to promptly meet and confer about a possible stipulation concerning whether the pricing information already produced was sufficient for the plaintiffs’ expert to create a damages model. It also ordered the parties to meet and confer about the definition of the products at issue. The court found that additional pricing documents beyond those already produced were not proportional to the needs of the case and denied the request to compel Crocs to conduct a further search for pricing documents.

3. Inspection of the plaintiffs’ shoes. The parties had agreed on the inspection location and tentative dates, and the court ordered them to comply with that agreement and resolve remaining logistical issues. The court denied the request for plaintiffs’ counsel to remain physically inside the room during the inspection, although counsel could be present when delivering and retrieving the shoes. The court ordered Crocs, at its own cost, to use a videographer to videotape the inspection without recording audio. The parties were to coordinate the camera setup, and Crocs’ counsel was required to ensure that no conversations or audio were recorded. The inspection was to be limited to nondestructive measuring, inspection, and photography.

4. Plaintiff Valentine’s receipts and electronic records. The court ordered plaintiffs’ counsel to search Plaintiff Valentine’s email account and eBay account for records concerning her purchase and shipment or receipt of the Crocs shoes at issue. The search was to include emails, communications, receipts, payment and shipping records or confirmations, and other electronic records. The documents found were to be produced no later than five business days before Valentine’s deposition, and the parties were to report on the issue in their joint status report.

5. Depositions of the named plaintiffs. For Avino and Cornejo, the court ordered the parties to comply with any agreements they had reached about deposition dates and locations. For Valentine, the court required plaintiffs’ counsel to provide a sworn declaration by May 10, 2024, stating whether she would remain outside the United States during May and identifying her travel dates in May and June. If that declaration was provided, Valentine was to be made available for a deposition by May 29, 2024, during normal daytime hours in the foreign location or at another agreed time. If it was not provided, she was ordered to appear for an in-person deposition in San Francisco during at least the final week of May. The parties were ordered to cooperate in scheduling the deposition.

6. Valentine’s shoes. The court ordered plaintiffs’ counsel to communicate with Valentine, her family members, or others who might have access to her San Francisco apartment to determine whether someone could locate and obtain the shoes for inspection. The parties were to report the status of that effort in their joint status report.

7. Marketing materials. The court found that the request for specified reports from third-party marketing vendors was targeted and proportional. It ordered Crocs to produce one copy of each quarterly, monthly, annual, or biannual market report received from the identified third-party vendors during the putative class period, to the extent the reports had not already been produced, by May 17, 2024. The parties were also ordered to meet and confer about the “Category Playbook” materials and report on that issue.

8. Customer complaints about “small size.” The court denied the plaintiffs’ request for a spreadsheet containing all data about customer complaints using the phrase “small size,” finding that the request was not proportional to the needs of the case. Because a narrower request would impose minimal burden, the court ordered Crocs to search its database and provide the total number of complaints containing “small size” by May 10, 2024.

9. Documents about product use. The court denied the request to require Crocs to conduct another search for documents about how consumers use Crocs products, including whether consumers use the shoes in hot and sunny environments. The court found the request not proportional in light of the agreed electronic-search terms and the volume of documents already produced.

10. Mold drawings. The court rejected Crocs’ trade-secret objection as moot and not well-founded because a protective order addressed trade-secret and confidentiality issues. The court ordered Crocs to promptly produce one exemplar mold drawing for at least the Classic Clog and the Bae as made and sold during the putative class period, and to identify any commercial software needed to access the drawings. The parties were to meet and confer about additional drawings if the plaintiffs identified a reasonable basis for seeking them.

11. Marco Piano’s deposition. The plaintiffs sought to depose Marco Piano as a fact witness, not as an additional witness designated under Rule 30(b)(6). The court ordered the parties to meet and confer to schedule his deposition by Zoom during the last week of May. They were also directed to consider whether supplemental interrogatory responses could reduce or eliminate the need for the deposition and to report the status in their joint status report.

Conclusion and Classification

The court stated that the disputes in the discovery letter briefs, along with disputes raised at the hearing, were resolved as ordered or withdrawn. It criticized the parties’ insufficient communication during their required meet-and-confer discussions and warned that it could impose additional procedures or sanctions, including monetary sanctions, if the problems continued.

This was a procedural discovery order, not a decision on the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims or on class certification. Magistrate Judge Peter H. Kang ordered some discovery, denied some requests, and directed further cooperation and reporting.