City of Wyoming v. Procter & Gamble Company

Background

The plaintiffs brought a proposed class action against companies that marketed and sold “flushable wipes.” They alleged that the wipes did not degrade as advertised and caused damage to sewer systems and wastewater treatment plants.

The plaintiffs moved to compel additional discovery from Kimberly-Clark Corporation. They sought documents from three existing custodians, the addition of three new custodians, and four additional search terms concerning certain Kimberly-Clark projects. U.S. Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung denied the motion in an oral ruling on February 9, 2018, finding that the plaintiffs had sufficient time to pursue these issues with Kimberly-Clark and the court. The plaintiffs objected to that ruling.

Plaintiffs’ Arguments

The plaintiffs argued that the magistrate judge overlooked Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(g), which requires attorneys to certify that discovery responses are complete, correct, made in good faith, and supported by a sound factual and legal basis. They asserted that Kimberly-Clark had intentionally limited its objections to avoid producing documents showing continuing problems with its wipes, particularly documents created after the complaint was filed.

The plaintiffs also argued that denying further discovery would unfairly prejudice their trial preparation. They asked the district court to require Kimberly-Clark to produce responsive documents through November 28, 2017, and to provide corporate witnesses for another deposition concerning documents they claimed had been improperly withheld.

Court’s Analysis

The district court reviewed the magistrate judge’s nondispositive pretrial ruling under the deferential standard in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a). The court could change the ruling only if it was clearly erroneous or contrary to law. The court also recognized that judges have broad discretion to manage discovery.

The court found that the plaintiffs had not shown that Kimberly-Clark’s discovery disclosures or responses were made in bad faith or lacked a sound factual and legal basis. The magistrate judge had noted that Kimberly-Clark’s productions already included hundreds of documents mentioning the proposed custodians and search terms, that an important chart had previously been produced, and that technical letters, scientific reports, and testing reports had been produced through December 1.

The court further agreed that the magistrate judge acted within his discretion in limiting discovery. The plaintiffs had known Kimberly-Clark’s position about the time period for responsive information for nearly a year and had enough time to raise the issues before discovery closed. The information about proposed custodians and search terms was also available to the plaintiffs before relevant depositions.

The court separately addressed the request to reopen Kimberly-Clark witnesses’ depositions. It denied that request and stated that it was not properly before the court because the plaintiffs had raised it for the first time in their objections, rather than before the magistrate judge.

Disposition

The court overruled the plaintiffs’ appeal and objection to the magistrate judge’s decision and affirmed the magistrate judge’s order. The court denied the plaintiffs’ request to modify the order and denied the request to reopen the depositions.