1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 BRUCE CORKER, d/b/a RANCHO 8 ALOHA, et al., Cause No. C19-0290RSL 9 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING IN PART 10 v. SPROUTS FARMERS MARKET, INC.’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE 11 COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, ORDER (DKT. # 306) et al., 12 Defendants. 13 14 15 This matter comes before the Court on “Defendant Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc.’s 16 Motion for Protective Order for Relief from Noticed 30(b)(6) Depositions.” Dkt. # 306.1 The 17 named plaintiffs grow Kona coffee in the Kona District of the Big Island of Hawaii and allege 18 that various distributors, wholesalers, and retailers of coffee products sell ordinary commodity 19 coffee labeled as “Kona” coffee, to the detriment of those who grow actual Kona coffee. After 20 21 reviewing defendants’ written discovery responses, plaintiffs issued deposition notices under 22 Rule 30(b)(6). Defendant Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc., a retailers, seeks a protective order 23 limiting the topics for which its witness must be prepared to testify. 24 25 26 1 A redacted version of the motion is available for public viewing at Dkt. # 304. 27 ORDER GRANTING IN PART SPROUTS FARMERS MARKET’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE 1 Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs the permissible scope of 2 discovery in federal civil litigation. Rule 26(b) sets forth the threshold requirement that 3 information sought to be discovered must appear “relevant to any party’s claim or defense and 4 proportional to the needs of the case . . . .” In determining proportionality, courts consider 5 factors such as “the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the 6 7 parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the 8 discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery 9 outweighs its likely benefit.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Even if a discovery request seeks relevant 10 and proportional information, discovery may nevertheless be prohibited under Rule 26(c) upon a 11 showing of “annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense” in connection 12 with a particular request. The Court is authorized to “forbid[] inquiry into certain matters, or 13 14 limit[] the scope of disclosure or discovery to certain matters....” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1)(D). To 15 establish good cause for a protective order under Rule 26(c), the movant must show “‘that 16 specific prejudice or harm will result’ if the protective order is not granted.” In re Roman 17 Catholic Archbishop of Portland in Or., 661 F.3d 417, 424 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Foltz v. 18 State Farm Mut. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2003)). “Rule 26(c) confers broad 19 20 discretion on the trial court to decide when a protective order is appropriate and what degree of 21 protection is required.” Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 36 (1984). 22 A. Overbreadth Objections 23 Sprouts objects to all of the proposed deposition topics to the extent they seek information 24 regarding products manufactured and distributed by entities other than Cameron’s. Plaintiffs 25 have adequately alleged under Rule 9(b) only that Sprouts sells coffee products supplied by 26 27 ORDER GRANTING IN PART SPROUTS FARMERS MARKET’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE 1 defendant Cameron’s and that those products falsely designate Kona as their place of origin. See 2 Dkt. # 271 at ¶¶ 27 and 132. Plaintiffs may not use discovery to develop new claims or defenses 3 that are not asserted in the pleadings. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) advisory committee’s note to 2000 4 amendment. This objection is sustained: Sprouts may limit its witness preparation to products 5 supplied by Cameron’s. 6 7 B. Less Burdensome Source 8 Defendants argue that the information sought in topics 4 and 8 could be obtained with 9 less burden and expense from the supplier defendants. Some of the information sought in topics 10 4 and 8 is primarily, if not solely, within Sprouts’ possession, such as its processes for knowing 11 that the Kona-labeled coffee it sells contains coffee from the Kona district and its procedures for 12 complying with the Food Safety Modernization Act (“FSMA”). Even if some of the requested 13 14 information were in the possession of both the supplier and retailer defendants, Sprouts has not 15 articulated any reason to suspect that producing the information would be burdensome or that it 16 would be more convenient or less expensive to obtain the information from the supplier 17 defendants. This objection is overruled. 18 C. Relevance Objection 19 20 Sprouts objects to topic 6, which seeks Sprouts’ “document retention policies and efforts 21 to preserve, search for, and produce documents requested in discovery in this litigation.” 22 Although the nature of the objection is not clearly stated, responsive information would be 23 irrelevant to any issue in the case absent some indication that Sprouts’ production has been 24 insufficient or deficient in some way. Sprouts contends, and plaintiffs do not dispute, that it has 25 produced over 6,500 documents during discovery. Plaintiffs offer no reason to suspect that the 26 27 ORDER GRANTING IN PART SPROUTS FARMERS MARKET’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE 1 production was deficient: Sprouts will not be required to prepare a witness to testify regarding 2 topic 6. 3 Sprouts also objects on relevance grounds to two deposition topics seeking its “processes 4 for knowing and tracking the contents of coffee sold with a Kona Label, including its food safety 5 plan, recall plan, supply chain program, inventory cycle, EIN designations, and SKU data” and 6 7 its “practices and procedures for compliance with the Food Safety Modernization Act.” Dkt. 8 # 307-1 at 13 and 19. Information regarding Sprouts’ processes for knowing what is in the coffee 9 products it sells, if any, is clearly relevant to plaintiffs’ claim that Sprouts is selling products that 10 are falsely labeled as Kona coffee. Topic 4 does not depend on the requirements of or Sprouts’ 11 compliance with FSMA: if Sprouts does not have a food safety plan, recall plan, supply chain 12 program, SKU numbers, etc., or if those items do not help Sprouts know what is in its Kona 13 14 coffee products, the corporate representative can simply state that the corporation has no 15 responsive information. If, however, Sprouts does have plans, processes, inventory records, 16 product numbers, etc. that help it keep track of the contents of the products it sells, it shall 17 prepare its witness to testify about those materials. Plaintiffs have not, however, explained why 18 Sprouts’ practices and procedures for ensuring its compliance with FSMA (as opposed to the 19 20 actual plans developed to track inputs and outputs as a means of enhancing food safety) are 21 relevant. Sprouts therefore need not prepare its witness to testify regarding topic 8. 22 23 For all of the foregoing reasons, the retailer defendants’ motion for protective order from 24 the noticed Rule 30(b)(6) depositions (Dkt. # 306) is GRANTED in part.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 BRUCE CORKER, d/b/a RANCHO 8 ALOHA, et al., Cause No. C19-0290RSL 9 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING IN PART 10 v. SPROUTS FARMERS MARKET, INC.’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE 11 COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, ORDER (DKT. # 306) et al., 12 Defendants. 13 14 15 This matter comes before the Court on “Defendant Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc.’s 16 Motion for Protective Order for Relief from Noticed 30(b)(6) Depositions.” Dkt. # 306.1 The 17 named plaintiffs grow Kona coffee in the Kona District of the Big Island of Hawaii and allege 18 that various distributors, wholesalers, and retailers of coffee products sell ordinary commodity 19 coffee labeled as “Kona” coffee, to the detriment of those who grow actual Kona coffee. After 20 21 reviewing defendants’ written discovery responses, plaintiffs issued deposition notices under 22 Rule 30(b)(6). Defendant Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc., a retailers, seeks a protective order 23 limiting the topics for which its witness must be prepared to testify. 24 25 26 1 A redacted version of the motion is available for public viewing at Dkt. # 304. 27 ORDER GRANTING IN PART SPROUTS FARMERS MARKET’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE 1 Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs the permissible scope of 2 discovery in federal civil litigation. Rule 26(b) sets forth the threshold requirement that 3 information sought to be discovered must appear “relevant to any party’s claim or defense and 4 proportional to the needs of the case . . . .” In determining proportionality, courts consider 5 factors such as “the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the 6 7 parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the 8 discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery 9 outweighs its likely benefit.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Even if a discovery request seeks relevant 10 and proportional information, discovery may nevertheless be prohibited under Rule 26(c) upon a 11 showing of “annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense” in connection 12 with a particular request. The Court is authorized to “forbid[] inquiry into certain matters, or 13 14 limit[] the scope of disclosure or discovery to certain matters....” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1)(D). To 15 establish good cause for a protective order under Rule 26(c), the movant must show “‘that 16 specific prejudice or harm will result’ if the protective order is not granted.” In re Roman 17 Catholic Archbishop of Portland in Or., 661 F.3d 417, 424 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Foltz v. 18 State Farm Mut. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2003)). “Rule 26(c) confers broad 19 20 discretion on the trial court to decide when a protective order is appropriate and what degree of 21 protection is required.” Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 36 (1984). 22 A. Overbreadth Objections 23 Sprouts objects to all of the proposed deposition topics to the extent they seek information 24 regarding products manufactured and distributed by entities other than Cameron’s. Plaintiffs 25 have adequately alleged under Rule 9(b) only that Sprouts sells coffee products supplied by 26 27 ORDER GRANTING IN PART SPROUTS FARMERS MARKET’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE 1 defendant Cameron’s and that those products falsely designate Kona as their place of origin. See 2 Dkt. # 271 at ¶¶ 27 and 132. Plaintiffs may not use discovery to develop new claims or defenses 3 that are not asserted in the pleadings. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) advisory committee’s note to 2000 4 amendment. This objection is sustained: Sprouts may limit its witness preparation to products 5 supplied by Cameron’s. 6 7 B. Less Burdensome Source 8 Defendants argue that the information sought in topics 4 and 8 could be obtained with 9 less burden and expense from the supplier defendants. Some of the information sought in topics 10 4 and 8 is primarily, if not solely, within Sprouts’ possession, such as its processes for knowing 11 that the Kona-labeled coffee it sells contains coffee from the Kona district and its procedures for 12 complying with the Food Safety Modernization Act (“FSMA”). Even if some of the requested 13 14 information were in the possession of both the supplier and retailer defendants, Sprouts has not 15 articulated any reason to suspect that producing the information would be burdensome or that it 16 would be more convenient or less expensive to obtain the information from the supplier 17 defendants. This objection is overruled. 18 C. Relevance Objection 19 20 Sprouts objects to topic 6, which seeks Sprouts’ “document retention policies and efforts 21 to preserve, search for, and produce documents requested in discovery in this litigation.” 22 Although the nature of the objection is not clearly stated, responsive information would be 23 irrelevant to any issue in the case absent some indication that Sprouts’ production has been 24 insufficient or deficient in some way. Sprouts contends, and plaintiffs do not dispute, that it has 25 produced over 6,500 documents during discovery. Plaintiffs offer no reason to suspect that the 26 27 ORDER GRANTING IN PART SPROUTS FARMERS MARKET’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE 1 production was deficient: Sprouts will not be required to prepare a witness to testify regarding 2 topic 6. 3 Sprouts also objects on relevance grounds to two deposition topics seeking its “processes 4 for knowing and tracking the contents of coffee sold with a Kona Label, including its food safety 5 plan, recall plan, supply chain program, inventory cycle, EIN designations, and SKU data” and 6 7 its “practices and procedures for compliance with the Food Safety Modernization Act.” Dkt. 8 # 307-1 at 13 and 19. Information regarding Sprouts’ processes for knowing what is in the coffee 9 products it sells, if any, is clearly relevant to plaintiffs’ claim that Sprouts is selling products that 10 are falsely labeled as Kona coffee. Topic 4 does not depend on the requirements of or Sprouts’ 11 compliance with FSMA: if Sprouts does not have a food safety plan, recall plan, supply chain 12 program, SKU numbers, etc., or if those items do not help Sprouts know what is in its Kona 13 14 coffee products, the corporate representative can simply state that the corporation has no 15 responsive information. If, however, Sprouts does have plans, processes, inventory records, 16 product numbers, etc. that help it keep track of the contents of the products it sells, it shall 17 prepare its witness to testify about those materials. Plaintiffs have not, however, explained why 18 Sprouts’ practices and procedures for ensuring its compliance with FSMA (as opposed to the 19 20 actual plans developed to track inputs and outputs as a means of enhancing food safety) are 21 relevant. Sprouts therefore need not prepare its witness to testify regarding topic 8. 22 23 For all of the foregoing reasons, the retailer defendants’ motion for protective order from 24 the noticed Rule 30(b)(6) depositions (Dkt. # 306) is GRANTED in part. 25 Sprouts has been accused of selling deceptive products produced or distributed by 26 ORDER GRANTING IN PART SPROUTS FARMERS 27 MARKET’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE 1 Cameron’s: the Rule 30(b)(6) deponents may limit his or her preparations 2 accordingly. 3 Sprouts need not prepare its witness to respond to topics 6 or 8. 4 In all other respects, the motion for a protective order is denied. 5 6 7 Dated this 4th day of December, 2020. 8 9 10 Robert S. Lasnik 11 United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 ORDER GRANTING IN PART SPROUTS FARMERS MARKET’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE