Riseandshine Corporation v. Pepsico, Inc.
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:21-cv-06324
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In RiseandShine v. PepsiCo, Magistrate Judge Cave denied one discovery request and partly granted PepsiCo’s request for additional information.
RiseandShine Corporation had to conduct the specified email search, clarify the valuation reference, produce documents and an updated capitalization table, and participate in scheduling discussions. PepsiCo Inc.’s request was granted in part and denied in part, and its request to use eleven experts was not reduced by this order.
What happened
In RiseandShine Corporation v. PepsiCo Inc., the parties asked the court to resolve several discovery disputes. RiseandShine asked to reduce PepsiCo’s eleven experts to six, while PepsiCo asked RiseandShine to provide additional discovery.
The court denied RiseandShine’s request without prejudice to renewing it after discovery closes. The court granted PepsiCo’s request in part and denied it in part, requiring RiseandShine to search Grant Gyesky’s emails for communications with seven investors or potential investors, clarify a valuation mentioned at his deposition and produce any document containing it, and provide an updated capitalization table.
On June 29, 2022, Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave also directed the parties to discuss extending expert discovery and resolving a dispute about a supplemental expert report. The parties had to submit a joint letter by July 8, 2022, proposing an amended expert-discovery schedule and updating the court on RiseandShine’s compliance.
The detailed version
- Riseandshine Corporation v. Pepsico, Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-06324
- Lorna Schofield
- June 29, 2022
Background
The order addressed discovery disputes between RiseandShine Corporation and PepsiCo Inc. RiseandShine asked the court to reduce the number of PepsiCo’s experts from eleven to six. PepsiCo asked the court to compel RiseandShine to provide specified discovery.
Rulings
The court denied without prejudice RiseandShine’s request to reduce PepsiCo’s experts. The court stated that the request could be renewed after discovery closed and cited decisions explaining that excluding allegedly cumulative expert testimony may be premature before trial has been set.
The court granted in part and denied in part PepsiCo’s discovery request. The order required RiseandShine to promptly:
- Search Grant Gyesky’s emails for communications involving the seven investors or potential investors he mentioned during his deposition, and produce communications about those investors’ reasons for investing or not investing in RiseandShine; - Ask Gyesky to clarify what “valuation” he referred to on page 318 of his deposition transcript and produce any document containing that valuation; and - Produce an updated capitalization table.
The order does not specify in the quoted text which other portions of PepsiCo’s request were denied.
Further Proceedings
The parties had to meet promptly about a proposed extension of the expert-discovery schedule and whether they could resolve, without further court intervention, RiseandShine’s motion to strike portions of Thomas W. Britven’s supplemental expert report. By July 8, 2022, they had to file a joint letter of no more than three pages proposing an amended expert-discovery schedule. If they could not agree, the letter could state their separate positions without argument. RiseandShine also had to report its compliance with the three discovery directives. The clerk was directed to close the docket entries for PepsiCo’s request.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.