McAuley v. The Honey Pot Company, LLC

Background

The court held a discovery conference on November 1, 2023. The plaintiffs sought a conference under Local Civil Rule 37.2 to compel production of documents. The defendant objected that some requests were irrelevant or unduly burdensome. The defendant also asked the court to stay, or pause, all discovery until the court resolved its pending motion to dismiss.

Discovery Stay

The court denied the defendant’s request to stay discovery. It explained that a stay while a motion to dismiss is pending is not automatic. The court also relied on the fact that Judge Torres had previously denied the defendant’s request to delay the case-management and scheduling process until after consideration of the motion to dismiss.

Requests for Supplier and Manufacturer Information

The defendant objected to Request for Production Nos. 23, 24, and 30, including a request for contracts with third-party suppliers or manufacturers involved in the feminine-care wash products. The defendant argued that manufacturing information was not relevant to the plaintiffs’ allegation that the products were unsuitable for use on the vulva. The plaintiffs argued that the defendant might contend that the products were manufactured specifically for that use.

The court concluded that this was an anticipated defense or argument that had not yet been made. It held that discovery related to such an anticipated argument should be denied at this stage. The court therefore denied Requests for Production Nos. 23, 24, and 30, without prejudice. The court stated that after the defendant filed an answer, the plaintiffs could submit a renewed request.

Sales, Refund, and Pricing Information

The court granted the plaintiffs’ requests for total net sales and refunds in Requests for Production Nos. 2 and 15. It found that those records were relevant to potential damages and to the number of people who might be included in a proposed class.

The court also found that requests for pricing-strategy and price-elasticity information in Requests for Production Nos. 6 and 7 were relevant because the amended complaint included a theory that class members paid a price premium because of alleged misrepresentations or omissions about the products’ suitability. The parties asked for time to negotiate the search terms and scope of those requests. They were ordered to confer and submit a joint letter by November 15, 2023, stating whether any dispute remained.

The court stated that no ruling was required on Requests for Production Nos. 8 through 11 because the parties had already responded to them and the dispute was moot.

Consumer-Complaint Information

The parties had reached an agreement to narrow Request for Production No. 12, so the court found that no ruling was necessary on that request. As to Request for Production No. 13, the court found that consumer complaints and internal documents concerning external complaints were relevant, but that the request was overly broad as written. The parties agreed to confer about revised wording and provide a status update by November 15, 2023.

Disposition

The order denied the discovery stay; denied, without prejudice, Requests for Production Nos. 23, 24, and 30; granted Requests for Production Nos. 2 and 15; found Requests for Production Nos. 6 and 7 relevant while deferring any remaining dispute for further negotiation; and made no ruling on Requests for Production Nos. 8 through 13 for the reasons stated above. The defendant was directed to request a transcript of the proceedings and file it on the docket. The order did not decide the pending motion to dismiss or the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims.