BBK Tobacco & Foods LLP v. Central Coast Agriculture Incorporated

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 BBK Tobacco & Foods LLP, No. CV-19-05216-PHX-MTL 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 Central Coast Agriculture Incorporated, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 Before the Court is Plaintiff BBK Tobacco & Foods LLP’s (“BBK”) Motion for 16 Leave to Supplement Disclosure. (Doc. 522.) Defendant Central Coast Agriculture Inc. 17 (“CCA”) timely responded (Doc. 526), and BBK subsequently replied (Doc. 531). For the 18 forthcoming reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion will be denied.1 19 I. 20 In the September 10, 2020 scheduling order, the Court set the deadline for Fact 21 Discovery as May 14, 2021. (Doc. 31 at 2.) The Court did not extend this deadline, and 22 Fact Discovery subsequently concluded on May 14, 2021. Following extensive discovery, 23 briefing, and oral argument, the Court granted CCA’s motion for partial summary 24 judgment. (Doc. 443.) On appeal, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed-in-part and 25 remanded the case back to this Court for further proceedings. (Doc. 466.) That day, this 26 Court ordered a trial setting conference for August 27, 2024. (Doc. 467.) 27 1 After considering the briefs, the Court has determined that oral argument is not necessary 28 for its decision-making process. See Partridge v. Reich, 141 F.3d 920, 926 (9th Cir. 1998); see also LRCiv 7.2(f); Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b). 1 There, the Court and the parties discussed whether any additional discovery needed 2 to be disclosed. As relevant to the instant Motion, the parties agreed on the record that only 3 the parties’ financial disclosures would be supplemented and only to the extent that the 4 data would be trued-up, but no new methodologies or arguments were to be included. (Doc. 5 477 at 12:14 to 19:20.) Accordingly, the Court ordered the parties to supplement their 6 previous disclosures with updated financial data from the 2021 to 2024 calendar years.2 7 (Doc. 476.) 8 On September 5, 2024, without notice to the Court, CCA served BBK supplemental 9 disclosures, detailing a new unclean hands defense.3 (Doc. 526 at 5; see Doc. 478-25.) In 10 turn, BBK seeks leave from the Court to supplement its final disclosure, hoping to include 11 BBK’s recent trademarks as well as additions to CCA’s product line and packaging. (Doc. 12 522 at 2–4.) CCA opposes this request. (Doc. 526.) 13 II. 14 BBK raises two arguments supporting its Motion. First, BBK contends “that it 15 would be contrary to the interests of justice for the jury to render a verdict based on facts 16 as they existed only as of May 2021 but not at the time of trial.” (Doc. 522 at 2.) BBK 17 concedes the necessity of pretrial disclosure deadlines and consequently that trials 18 generally proceed with incomplete facts. (Doc. 522 at 4.) But BBK contends that because 19 more than four years will pass between the disclosure deadline and trial, justice will not be 20 adequately served without this additional supplemental disclosure. (Doc. 522 at 4.) 21 “A schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” 22 Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); see also Century 21 Real Est. Corp. v. Sandlin, 846 F.2d 1175, 23 1181 (9th Cir. 1988) (“District court judges possess broad authority to regulate the conduct 24 of discovery . . . .”). The Court already gave the parties leave to supplement their financial 25 disclosures and expert reports through December 2024, finding good cause to do so 26 following the trial setting conference. (See Doc. 476.) During the trial setting conference,

27 2 The Court also ordered the parties to supplement their financial expert reports and permitted the parties to depose those expert witnesses. (Doc. 476.) 28 3 LRCiv 5.2 requires a party to file a notice of discovery on the docket “within a reasonable time after service” to the opposing party. The docket does not reflect any such notice. 1 BBK had the opportunity to raise these concerns but chose not to do so. (See Doc. 477.) 2 Instead, BBK filed this Motion over three months later. (Doc. 522.) BBK identifies no 3 authority to support the conclusion that a four-year gap between the final disclosure 4 deadline and trial is inappropriate or otherwise an abuse of the Court’s discretion. (See 5 Docs. 522, 531); see also Century 21, 846 F.2d at 1181. Lacking both good cause and the 6 Court’s consent, BBK’s first argument for leave to supplement its disclosures fails. 7 Second, BBK points to additional supplemental disclosures made by CCA without 8 leave of the Court on September 5, 2024. (Doc. 522 at 4–5; see Doc. 478-25.) BBK argues 9 that in the interest of fairness and reciprocity, the Court should grant BBK leave to 10 supplement its disclosures. (Doc. 522 at 4–5.) But reciprocity is ultimately not a concern 11 here. The Court has not granted either party leave to supplement their disclosures, apart 12 from the narrow leave to supplement the parties’ financial information. While CCA 13 disclosed additional facts beyond their financial information, the Court has not relied on 14 these additional facts to date, even when ruling on the cross motions for summary 15 judgment. (See Doc. 556.) In fact, since filing this Motion, the Court directed BBK to file 16 a motion in limine regarding this same issue. (See id. at 12.) 17 Finally, in the alternative BBK asks the Court to strike CCA’s September 5, 2024 18 supplemental disclosure and preclude CCA from relying on any facts or theories not 19 disclosed by the original May 14, 2021 deadline. (Doc. 522 at 5.) Again, BBK identifies 20 no authority to support striking CCA’s disclosure. BBK references Rules 37(b)(2), (c)(1) 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. 522 at 2.) But BBK does not engage in any 22 substantive analysis as to how Rule 37 requires the Court to strike CCA’s additional 23 disclosure. (See Docs. 522, 531.) Again, the Court believes this issue is “better suited for a 24 motion in limine before trial.” (Doc. 556 at 12.) 25 . . . . 26 . . . . 27 . . . . 28 . . . . 1 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED denying BBK’s Motion to Supplement. 2|| (oc. 522.) 3 Dated this 28th day of February, 2025. 4 WM clad T. Hburdle Michael] T. Liburdi 7 United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

_4-