Vista Food Exchange, Inc. v. Comercial De Alimentos Sanchez S De R L De C.V.

Background

Vista alleged that it sold more than $750,000 in meat products to Comercial De Alimentos Sanchez S De R L De C.V., doing business as Comercial Sanchez, from January through November 2014, and that at least $698,902 remained unpaid. Vista brought claims for breach of contract, promissory estoppel, and unjust enrichment. Sanchez asserted that it paid Vista employee Eduardo Andujo Rascon, who allegedly kept the payments rather than giving them to Vista. The opinion states that Rascon was apparently deceased.

The order addressed two discovery motions. Sanchez sought additional interrogatory answers and documents from Vista. Vista sought a deposition of Sanchez’s corporate representative under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6), along with immediate production of documents.

Legal Standard

The court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1), which generally permits discovery of nonprivileged information relevant to a claim or defense and proportionate to the needs of the case. The court also discussed Rules 34 and 37, which govern document requests and motions to compel, and Southern District of New York Local Civil Rule 33.3, which limits when interrogatories may seek information beyond certain initial discovery topics.

Sanchez’s Motion

The court granted Sanchez’s motion in part. It ordered Vista to conduct a reasonable search for and produce documents showing Vista’s acceptance of cash payments from Sanchez, particularly the 20 transactions from 2013 identified in the opinion. The court also ordered Vista to provide an affidavit from a corporate representative addressing Vista’s litigation hold and its 2015 search for records concerning the transactions, as well as the nature, scope, and results of Vista’s search for internal communications about Rascon’s termination.

The court further ordered Vista to answer revised Interrogatories Nos. 16 and 20. The revised questions sought, within a narrower period, the identities of Vista personnel involved in ordering and paying for Sanchez’s food products and third parties with knowledge of Sanchez’s payments to Vista concerning the alleged transactions and amount owed.

The court rejected Sanchez’s other requested interrogatories. It found that five interrogatories went beyond the permissible scope at that stage, were insufficiently tied to the relevant transactions, duplicated document discovery, sought information about employment terms that did not bear on payment, or were premature requests for a party’s contentions. The court therefore stated that Sanchez’s motion was otherwise denied.

Vista’s Motion

The court denied Vista’s motion. It found that Vista’s submissions did not clearly identify what dispute existed over the proposed deposition topics or which documents Sanchez had not produced. The court directed the parties to meet and confer about the topics and scheduling of Sanchez’s corporate-representative deposition and about any outstanding documents responsive to Vista’s requests.

Disposition and Scope

The order did not decide whether Sanchez owed Vista money, whether Sanchez paid Vista through Rascon, or whether either party would prevail on the underlying claims. It ruled on discovery only: Sanchez’s motion was granted in part and otherwise denied, and Vista’s motion was denied. The Clerk was directed to close Vista’s letter-motion at ECF No. 69.