Ascot Valley Foods, Ltd. v. ADF Foods, Ltd.
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:22-cv-02655
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Ascot Valley Foods v. ADF Foods, Judge Abrams referred a document-production dispute to Magistrate Judge Wang for pretrial management.
Ascot Valley Foods, Ltd. and ADF Foods (USA), Ltd.; the parties must address their discovery dispute with Magistrate Judge Wang.
What happened
Ascot Valley Foods, Ltd. v. ADF Foods (USA), Ltd. concerns a dispute over documents that ADF Foods requested from Ascot during the lawsuit. ADF said the documents were relevant to its counterclaims and defenses involving the parties’ manufacturing agreement.
ADF challenged Ascot’s objections to requests for documents about sales to other customers, profit margins, force-majeure claims, and financing. ADF argued that Ascot’s objections were general, did not explain any burden, and did not show why the requested information was irrelevant. ADF asked the court to hold an informal conference and require Ascot to produce the documents.
Judge Abrams referred the matter to Magistrate Judge Wang for general pretrial management and directed the parties to address the discovery dispute with Judge Wang. The order did not itself decide whether Ascot must produce the requested documents.
The detailed version
- Ascot Valley Foods, Ltd. v. ADF Foods, Ltd. · No. 1:22-cv-02655
- Ronnie Abrams
- Apr. 14, 2023
Background
ADF Foods (USA), Ltd. raised a discovery dispute concerning Ascot Valley Foods, Ltd.’s document production. ADF stated that Ascot had refused to produce documents requested in several requests for production. Ascot objected that the requests were not relevant, were overly broad, and would be unduly burdensome to answer. The opinion text is primarily ADF’s letter presenting the dispute to the court.
Requested documents
ADF identified requests concerning:
- Ascot’s manufacture, production, or packaging of meatballs for people or entities other than ADF, including related customers, agreements, quantities, specifications, formulas, and packaging; - Ascot’s profit margins on products made for ADF from January 1, 2020, through the date Ascot alleged that the parties’ Co-Pack Agreement ended; - Ascot’s force-majeure claims involving customers or others in connection with COVID-19 or the pandemic from January 1, 2020, through March 31, 2022; and - Ascot’s need for financing to remain in business or continue production, including production for ADF.
ADF argued that these documents related to its counterclaims and defenses concerning the Co-Pack Agreement, including alleged sales to other customers in violation of an exclusivity provision, alleged misuse of confidential information and trade secrets, Ascot’s ability to meet production obligations, price increases, minimum purchase commitments, and force majeure. ADF also argued that Ascot’s burden objections did not explain how many documents would be responsive or why production would be difficult.
ADF noted that Ascot had produced certain recipes under an “attorneys’ eyes only” designation and said it was not challenging that designation at that time.
Court’s action
The court stated that, by separate order, it had referred the matter to Magistrate Judge Wang for general pretrial management. The parties were directed to address the discovery dispute to Judge Wang. The text provided does not show a ruling compelling production, denying ADF’s request, or resolving the merits of Ascot’s objections.
Disposition and classification
The court referred the discovery dispute to Magistrate Judge Wang. Because the order concerns discovery management and does not decide the underlying claims or defenses, this is a procedural order.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.