Riseandshine Corporation v. Pepsico, Inc.

Background

The dispute arose during discovery in RiseandShine Corp.’s trademark-infringement lawsuit against PepsiCo, Inc. The opinion states that the case concerns PepsiCo’s use of the MTN DEW RISE ENERGY mark. RiseandShine does business as Rise Brewing Company.

On March 28, 2022, the court ordered PepsiCo to produce Ryan Collis, the current general manager of the North American Coffee Partnership, for a two-hour deposition. The North American Coffee Partnership is described as a joint venture between Starbucks Corp. and PepsiCo that manufactures and sells ready-to-drink coffee products, which PepsiCo distributes.

On April 14, 2022, the court ordered PepsiCo to produce a witness under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6). That rule allows an organization to designate a witness to testify about specified topics. The topics concerned Starbucks Nitro, including sales, gross and net profits, and competitors.

Parties’ Positions

PepsiCo objected to the April 14 order. It argued that the requested Starbucks Nitro information was irrelevant and not discoverable because Starbucks Nitro had never used the MTN DEW RISE ENERGY mark and was not the subject of RiseandShine’s claims or requested relief. PepsiCo also argued that producing sensitive financial and competitive information would be harmful, burdensome, and disproportionate.

PepsiCo asked the court to stay enforcement of the April 14 order while its objection was pending. Because the two discovery orders were related, PepsiCo also asked the court to stay enforcement of the March 28 order requiring Mr. Collis’s individual deposition. PepsiCo stated that RiseandShine had threatened to seek contempt if PepsiCo did not produce a witness by May 13, 2022, even though the parties had agreed to a May 19 deposition date.

The opinion states that RiseandShine refused to consent to the stay. It also states that RiseandShine sought additional Starbucks Nitro documents and insisted that Mr. Collis testify for seven hours rather than the two-hour period previously ordered.

Ruling

The court granted the defendants’ application for a stay pending the court’s ruling on the defendants’ objections. The opinion’s order does not separately identify the two discovery orders in the disposition, but the application described in the opinion sought a stay of both the April 14 order concerning a Rule 30(b)(6) witness and the March 28 order concerning Mr. Collis’s two-hour deposition.

The opinion does not address the merits of RiseandShine’s trademark claims, decide whether the Starbucks Nitro information is discoverable, or explain the court’s reasoning for granting the stay. It also does not state any additional terms or end date for the stay beyond linking it to the court’s ruling on the objections.