Valentine v. Crocs, Inc.

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: April 15, 2024
• Docket: 3:22-cv-07463
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 7 8 MARTHA VALENTINE, et al., Case No. 22-cv-07463-TLT (PHK) 9 Plaintiffs,

10 v. ORDER RE: DISCOVERY LETTER BRIEF NO. 2 RESOLVING DISPUTES 11 CROCS, INC., RE: CUSTOMER COMPLAINTS, FORMULA DOCUMENTS, AND 12 Defendant. SHRINKAGE DOCUMENTS 13 Re: Dkt. 63

14 15 This is a putative class action brought by Plaintiffs Martha Valentine, Ruby Cornejo, and 16 Tiffany Avino (collectively “Plaintiffs”) against Defendant Crocs, Inc. concerning “shoes that 17 Defendant sells made of 90% or more Croslite® material.” [Dkt. 33 at ¶¶ 1-2]. The case has been 18 referred to the undersigned for all discovery purposes. See Dkt. 46. 19 Now before the Court is a joint discovery letter brief regarding three disputes: (1) 20 Defendant’s responses to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests seeking customer complaints relating to 21 shrinkage of Crocs products; (2) Defendant’s responses to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests for 22 shrinkage documents related to Crocs shoes other than the Classic Clog and Classic Bae; and (3) 23 Defendant’s responses to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests for finished shoe shrinkage test results. 24 [Dkt. 63]. The Court finds the disputes suitable for resolution without oral argument. Civil L.R. 25 7-1(b). 26 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) delineates the scope of discovery in federal civil 27 actions and provides that “[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that 1 need not be admissible to be discoverable. Id. Relevancy for purposes of discovery is broadly 2 defined to encompass “any matter that bears on, or that reasonably could lead to other matter that 3 could bear on, any issue that is or may be in the case.” In re Williams-Sonoma, Inc., 947 F.3d 535, 4 539 (9th Cir. 2020) (quoting Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 350-51 (1978)); 5 see also In re Facebook, Inc. Consumer Privacy User Profile Litig., No. 18-MD-2843 VC (JSC), 6 2021 WL 10282215, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 29, 2021) (“Courts generally recognize that relevancy 7 for purposes of discovery is broader than relevancy for purposes of trial.”) (alteration omitted). 8 While the scope of relevance is broad, discovery is not unlimited. ATS Prods., Inc. v. 9 Champion Fiberglass, Inc., 309 F.R.D. 527, 531 (N.D. Cal. 2015) (“Relevancy, for purposes of 10 discovery, is defined broadly, although it is not without ultimate and necessary boundaries.”). 11 Information, even if relevant, must be “proportional to the needs of the case” to fall within the 12 scope of permissible discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The 2015 amendments to Rule 26(b)(1) 13 emphasize the need to impose reasonable limits on discovery through increased reliance on the 14 common-sense concept of proportionality: “The objective is to guard against redundant or 15 disproportionate discovery by giving the court authority to reduce the amount of discovery that 16 may be directed to matters that are otherwise proper subjects of inquiry. The [proportionality 17 requirement] is intended to encourage judges to be more aggressive in identifying and 18 discouraging discovery overuse.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 advisory committee’s note to 2015 19 amendment. In evaluating the proportionality of a discovery request, a court should consider “the 20 importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative 21 access to the information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the 22 issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.” 23 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). 24 The party seeking discovery bears the burden of establishing that its request satisfies the 25 relevancy requirements under Rule 26(b)(1). La. Pac. Corp. v. Money Mkt. 1 Inst. Inv. Dealer, 26 285 F.R.D. 481, 485 (N.D. Cal. 2012). The resisting party, in turn, has the burden to show that the 27 discovery should not be allowed. Id. The resisting party must specifically explain the reasons 1 speculative arguments. Id.; see also Blankenship v. Hearst Corp., 519 F.2d 418, 429 (9th Cir. 2 1975) (“Under the liberal discovery principles of the Federal Rules defendants were required to 3 carry a heavy burden of showing why discovery was denied.”). 4 The Court has broad discretion and authority to manage discovery. U.S. Fidelity & Guar. 5 Co. v. Lee Inv. LLC, 641 F.3d 1126, 1136 n.10 (9th Cir. 2011) (“District courts have wide latitude 6 in controlling discovery, and their rulings will not be overturned in the absence of a clear abuse of 7 discretion.”); Laub v. U.S. Dep’t of Int., 342 F.3d 1080, 1093 (9th Cir. 2003). As part of its 8 inherent discretion and authority, the Court has broad discretion in determining relevancy for 9 discovery purposes. Surfvivor Media, Inc. v. Survivor Prods., 406 F.3d 625, 635 (9th Cir. 2005) 10 (citing Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002)). The Court’s discretion extends to 11 crafting discovery orders that may expand, limit, or differ from the relief requested. See 12 Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 598 (1998) (holding trial courts have “broad discretion to 13 tailor discovery narrowly and to dictate the sequence of discovery”). For example, the Court may 14 limit the scope of any discovery method if it determines that “the discovery sought is unreasonably 15 cumulative or duplicative, or can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less 16 burdensome, or less expensive.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(i). 17 This case is still in the precertification stage. The class certification discovery cutoff is 18 April 26, 2024, with a class certification motion due on May 31, 2024. See Dkt. 59. 19 Precertification discovery lies entirely within the Court’s sound discretion. Artis v. Deere & Co., 20 276 F.R.D. 348, 351 (N.D. Cal. 2011) (citing Vinole v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 571 F.3d 21 935, 942 (9th Cir. 2009)). In the context of class certification, discovery must be limited so that it 22 does not place an undue burden on the opposing party. Valentine v. Crocs, Inc., No. 22-cv-07463- 23 TNT (PHK), 2023 WL 7461852, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 10, 2023) (citing Montano v. Chao, No. 24 07-cv-00735-CMA-KMT, 2008 WL 5377745, at *3 (D. Colo. Dec. 19, 2008)). A court in its 25 sound discretion may permit limited and targeted non-burdensome discovery on class certification, 26 where the proponent demonstrates such discovery is in the interests of justice and consistent with 27 the language and spirit of Rule 23. Id. (citing Mayo v. Hartford Life Ins. Co., 214 F.R.D. 465, 1 consider “the need for discovery, the time required, and the probability of discovery providing 2 necessary factual information.” Frost v. LG Electronics, Inc., No. 16-cv-05206-BLF, 2018 WL 3 11606311, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 2018) (quoting Doninger v. Pac. Nw. Bell, Inc., 564 F.2d 4 1304, 1313 (9th Cir. 1977)). 5 The Court notes that, generally, discovery in a putative class action at the precertification 6 stage is limited to certification issues, such as the number of class members, the existence of 7 common questions, typicality of claims, and the representatives’ ability to represent the class. 8 Oppenheimer, 437 U.S. at 359. Although discovery on the merits is usually deferred until it is 9 certain that the case will be allowed to proceed as a class action, “the merits/certification 10 distinction is not always clear” and “the two do overlap.” True Health Chiropractic Inc. v. 11 McKesson Corp., No. 13-cv-02219-JST, 2015 WL 273188, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 20, 2015); see 12 Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 351 (2011) (explaining that the “rigorous analysis” 13 under Rule 23(a) often “will entail some overlap with the merits of the plaintiff’s underlying 14 claim. That cannot be helped.”). In this case, discovery has not been bifurcated or phased. As 15 such, this Court is mindful that some leeway should be afforded with respect to merits-related 16 issues as part of the precertification discovery determination. The Court now turns to the 17 discovery disputes at hand. 18 I. Customer Complaints 19 The Parties’ first dispute concerns Plaintiffs’ discovery requests for all documents and 20 customer complaints related to shrinkage of Crocs products. [Dkt. 63 at 1]. Plaintiffs complain 21 that Defendant has only produced “a spreadsheet” of these materials. Id. Plaintiffs argue that the 22 spreadsheet is “deficient” because: (i) it includes only “a sample” of customer complaints made 23 via email; (ii) it does not include any complaints that predate the putative class period; (iii) it does 24 not include any complaints made by customers subsequent to mid-2023; (iv) it does not include 25 retailers’ complaints; and (v) it does not include complaints relating to “deformation.” Id. at 1-2. 26 Plaintiffs argue that the “full scope” of customer complaints relating to shrinkage is “highly 27 relevant” and “necessary” for them to rebut Defendant’s contention that the relatively “small 1 Defendant, in response, argues that it does not possess “many” of the customer complaint 2 documents that Plaintiffs seek, stressing that it does not have a “centralized database” of 3 customers’ communications with Crocs. Id. Defendant argues that it “spent weeks, incurring 4 great expense and trouble, creating a spreadsheet with information it could gather about customer 5 complaints related to shrinkage.” Id. Defendant states that the spreadsheet includes detailed 6 information culled from “thousands” of complaints made between 2019 and 2023, including all 7 “reasonably available” information regarding “how” the complaint was made and “the nature of 8 the complaint.” Id. Defendant argues that it should not be required to produce additional 9 documents relating to customer complaints, particularly given that “[t]here is no certified class 10 here and no argument that Plaintiffs lack sufficient information to make their certification 11 arguments.” Id. 12 The Court finds that Plaintiffs’ request for additional discovery of customer and retailer 13 complaints regarding shrinkage beyond those already produced by Defendant, even if relevant, is 14 unduly burdensome and not proportional to the needs of the case. See Weeks v. Google, Inc., No. 15 18-cv-00801 NC, 2018 WL 11323715, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2018) (denying putative class 16 action plaintiffs’ request to compel Google to provide information about its revenue data for Pixel 17 sales on proportionality grounds where plaintiffs did not explain how the information Google 18 already agreed to produce would not be “sufficient” for plaintiffs’ economic analysis); Jones v. 19 Nutiva, Inc., No. 16-cv-00711-HSG(KAW), 2016 WL 5858467, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 7, 2016) 20 (denying request to compel documents relating to “audit trail during the CLASS PERIOD” where 21 the plaintiff failed to explain how the discovery was proportional to the needs of the case). 22 The fact that Defendant represents to the Court that there is no centralized repository of 23 complaints underscores how and why requiring a search for additional complaints across a larger 24 time frame is not proportional to the needs of the case at this stage. Plaintiffs do not sufficiently 25 justify why complaints from before the putative class period are relevant, non-duplicative, or 26 proportional to the needs of the case—whether or not Defendant knew of the alleged defect prior 27 to the class period is entirely duplicative of the complaints that were produced (in summary form) 1 2]. Nor do Plaintiffs explain at all why a search for and production of complaints that occurred 2 after mid-2023 (approximately six months after this case was filed) are either necessary, non- 3 duplicative, or proportional to the needs of the case. Id. at 2. Fundamentally, Plaintiffs’ request 4 for a renewed search for a wider swath of complaints (such as complaints from or received by 5 retailers) and one addressing a broader term (“deformation” as opposed to “shrinkage”) is not 6 proportional and risks duplication of effort (with concomitant costs and burdens), where 7 Defendant’s spreadsheet already provides information on thousands of complaints directed to 8 Crocs on the specific defect alleged. The spreadsheet Defendant created was apparently created 9 using ESI search terms the Parties agreed upon. Further, Plaintiffs make no attempt to show how 10 or why Defendant would have in its possession, custody, or control any customer complaints sent 11 to third-party retailers, and on that basis alone, under Rule 34, the request for customer complaints 12 directed to retailers is legally deficient (particularly in light of Defendant’s representation to the 13 Court that Defendant’s ESI search would have retrieved complaints from retailers to Crocs). [Dkt. 14 63 at 2]. In sum, Plaintiffs’ request for additional discovery relating to customer complaints is 15 DENIED. 16 However, the Court finds that Plaintiffs are entitled to, and should be given an opportunity 17 to review, the documents and/or materials used by Defendant to generate the spreadsheet of 18 customer complaints. Under Rule 34, a responding party has no option to produce only a 19 “summary” of the documents responsive to a request. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(E). 20 Documents must either be produced as they are kept in the ordinary course of business or 21 organized and labeled to correspond to the categories in the request. Id. Even under the Federal 22 Rules of Evidence (which do not even apply at this stage of the proceeding), a party using a 23 summary of voluminous documents must make the documents available for examination or 24 copying. Cf. Fed. R. Evid. 1006. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Defendant to produce any 25 and all nonprivileged materials, documents, ESI, or other tangible things that Defendant reviewed 26 and/or relied on to create the spreadsheet at issue. The Parties shall meet and confer either in- 27 person or by videoconference regarding the timing and manner of Defendant’s production of these 1 than April 22, 2024. 2 II. Shrinkage Documents for Other Types of Crocs Shoes 3 The Parties’ second dispute concerns Plaintiffs’ request for documents relating to the 4 shrinkage of Crocs shoes other than the Classic Clog and Classic Bae, which are the two shoe 5 models or styles purchased by Plaintiffs. [Dkt. 63 at 3-4]. Plaintiffs argue that “new information” 6 recently disclosed by Defendant regarding the material composition of the Classic Clog and 7 Classic Bae “now makes the shrinkage of other products made out of those same materials 8 relevant to the claims since Plaintiffs’ theory is that the Croslite material shrinks.” Id. at 3. 9 Plaintiffs argue that discovery regarding these other products is “highly relevant” to establishing 10 “the existence of a defect, the kinds of temperatures and environments that cause shrinkage, and 11 Crocs knowledge of the defect.” Id. 12 Defendant argues, in response, that in light of the April 28, 2023 Order striking Plaintiffs’ 13 class claims regarding products they did not purchase, “the only relevant shoes are those 14 purchased by Plaintiffs.” Id. Defendant contends that, unless and until the Court issues an order 15 “stating that all Crocs shoes composed of Croslite are at issue in the litigation,” Plaintiffs have “no 16 basis for demanding discovery about shoes [they] did not purchase.” Id. Defendant argues (and 17 Plaintiffs do not appear to meaningfully dispute) that Crocs has already produced “large amounts 18 of shrinkage documents related to all kinds of Crocs shoes” which were identified by the Parties’ 19 agreed-upon ESI search terms. Id. at 4. Stressing that the Parties’ agreed-upon ESI search terms 20 included “Clog” and “Bae” but did not include “words such as sandal, boot, sneaker, or other 21 types of shoes,” Defendant argues that Plaintiffs are effectively trying to obtain “an entirely new 22 ESI search.” Id. 23 As with the first disputed issue, the Court finds that Plaintiffs’ request for additional 24 shrinkage documents relating to other Crocs shoes beyond those that are the subject of this case is 25 not proportional to the needs of the case and would unduly burden Defendant. Weeks, 2018 WL 26 11323715, at *1. Plaintiffs do not explain why the materials produced pursuant to the Parties’ 27 agreed-upon ESI search are not sufficient to make their class certification arguments. Nor do 1 of Crocs shoes at issue fails to address the very issues the additional requested discovery is 2 purportedly directed to, such as existence of a defect, the kinds of temperatures and environments 3 that cause shrinkage, and Crocs’s knowledge of the defect. At best, the requested additional 4 discovery would be duplicative of the documents and materials already produced because, under 5 Plaintiffs’ theory of the case, any shoe made of Croslite experiences the shrinkage defect. There is 6 nothing in the record to demonstrate that additional discovery on other shoes made of Croslite 7 would yield such unique information so as to justify the additional expense and burden, especially 8 where Defendant has already searched for and produced documents that address those other shoes 9 in addition to the two models specifically at issue. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ request to compel 10 production of these additional shrinkage documents is DENIED. 11 III. Finished Shoe Shrinkage Test Results 12 The Parties final dispute concerns Plaintiffs’ request for Crocs’ internal testing results 13 relating to the shrinkage of finished shoes. [Dkt. 63 at 4-5]. Plaintiffs argue that this information 14 is “highly relevant to this case” because it provides “class-wide evidence of shrinkage and Crocs’ 15 knowledge of shrinkage.” Id. at 4. While noting that Defendant has produced “some” finished 16 shoe shrinkage test results, Plaintiffs argue entitlement to and demand production of “a complete 17 set” of “all finished shoe shrinkage test results.” Id. Plaintiffs argue that it “should be easy” for 18 Defendant to produce this information because it is stored in Crocs’ centralized database. Id. 19 Defendant, in its portion of the joint letter brief regarding this dispute, argues that 20 Plaintiffs are effectively asking Defendant “to compile documents and data involving every 21 finished shoe test at every factory (over 30 factories) for every type of shoe made at every factory 22 over a multi-year period.” Id. Defendant argues that the request implicates “hundreds of millions 23 of shoes.” Id. Defendant argues that Plaintiffs “articulate no reason” as to why such information 24 is needed at this stage of the case. Id. at 4-5. Defendant argues that it “already conducted a 25 thorough review of [approximately one million] documents pulled through the ESI search” and 26 “produced all relevant, responsive documents.” Id. at 5. Defendant contends that it “should not 27 now be required to pull and sort through potentially thousands of additional documents.” Id. ] produced by Defendant) is unduly burdensome and disproportionate to the needs of the case. 2 Weeks, 2018 WL 11323715, at *1. As with the preceding dispute, Plaintiffs do not explain why 3 || testing documents and data produced pursuant to the Parties’ agreed-upon ESI search are not 4 || sufficient to make their class certification arguments. Nor do Plaintiffs explain how or why the 5 shoe shrinkage test results which were produced fail to address the very issues the additional 6 || requested discovery is purportedly directed to, such as class-wide shrinkage and Crocs’s 7 || knowledge of the alleged defect. At best, the requested additional discovery would be duplicative 8 of the testing materials already produced because, under Plaintiffs’ theory of the case, any shoe 9 || made of Croslite experiences the shrinkage defect. There is nothing in the record to demonstrate 10 || that additional discovery on testing of millions of other shoes made of Croslite would yield such 11 unique information so as to justify the additional expense and burden. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ 12 || request for an order compelling Defendant’s production of additional testing data is DENIED.

|) IT ISSO ORDERED. 3 15 || Dated: April 15, 2024

PETERH.KANG 17 United States Magistrate Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28