Wise v. Combe Incorporated

Background

The available opinion text is an order and joint letter concerning a discovery dispute in a putative class action brought by Rosalind Wise and Moona Choudhry against Combe Inc. The plaintiffs served discovery requests, and the parties later met and conferred about Combe’s responses. The parties also agreed to an electronic-information discovery protocol, search terms, and databases.

The joint letter asks for a pre-motion discovery conference under Local Civil Rule 37.2. The disputed requests include a request for documents showing past, present, and proposed formulations, recipes, designs, or manufacturing instructions for each identified intimate-wash product during the proposed class period. The letter also identifies a dispute over whether discovery should cover all products named in the First Amended Complaint or only products the plaintiffs purchased.

Plaintiffs’ Position

The plaintiffs argued that product-formulation information was relevant because Combe represented that the products were suitable for use on the vulva, while the plaintiffs alleged that the products were unsuitable and harmful. They also argued that the products they purchased were substantially similar to other products identified in their claims and that all of the products allegedly made the same representation about vulvar cleansing.

Combe’s Position

Combe argued that the plaintiffs had not shown why they needed the specific amounts of ingredients because product labels had already been provided. Combe also argued that the plaintiffs could not seek discovery about products they had not purchased unless those products raised nearly identical concerns. It contended that including the entire product line would expand the scope and cost of discovery.

Court’s Action

The text is partially corrupted and does not clearly state whether the court granted, denied, or otherwise resolved the requested discovery relief. It does show that the clerk was directed to terminate the motion sequence pending at docket entry 38. Judge Philip M. Halpern signed the order in White Plains, New York, on October 2, 2023. The available text therefore does not establish a merits ruling on the parties’ underlying claims or a clear ruling on the disputed discovery requests.