Vital Distributions, LLC v. Pepperidge Farm, Inc.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 VITAL DISTRIBUTIONS, LLC, No. 2:22–cv–319–MCE–KJN 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. (ECF No. 37) 14 PEPPERIDGE FARM, INC., 15 Defendant. 16 17 On August 29, 2023, the court held a hearing on plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to 18 four requests for production of documents concerning communications and payment documents 19 between defendant and other distributors. (ECF No. 37.) At the heart of the requests is plaintiff’s 20 investigation of the term “retail store” as used in the contract underlying this dispute. Defendant 21 objected on relevance, proportionality, confidentiality, and form of the questions. 22 The court concurs with plaintiff on the relevance of the documents sought, as any 23 communications and documents exchanged between defendant and other distributors about the 24 scope of the term “retail store” weighs heavily on how this potentially ambiguous term should be 25 interpreted. See Cal. Civ. Code § 1644 (“[T]he words of a contract are to be understood in their 26 ordinary and popular sense, rather than according to their strict legal meaning; unless used by the 27 parties in a technical sense, or unless a special meaning is given to them by usage, in which case 28 the latter must be followed.”); § 1645 (“Technical words are to be interpreted as usually 1 | understood by persons in the profession or business to which they relate, unless clearly used in a 2 || different sense.”). 3 As to proportionality, defendant has yet to make a showing that the burden of production 4 || outweigh the benefits here, given that the potential scope of production is unclear at this time. 5 || See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1); see also, e.g., Gorrell v. Sneath, 292 F.R.D. 629, 632 (E.D. Cal. 6 || 2013) (noting that when a party resists discovery, it “has the burden to show that discovery should 7 || not be allowed, and has the burden of clarifying, explaining, and supporting its objections.”). 8 | From the parties’ representations at the hearing, it appears they agree that certain categories of 9 || documents could be excluded from any such production (i.e. product order and delivery), and so 10 || the court encourages the parties to continue working together to narrow the scope of the search. 11 | Similarly, defendant has proposed ways of narrowing the questions asked to further hone the 12 || issue, and the court encourages cooperation. Ifa heavy burden becomes apparent, the parties are 13 || encouraged to explore solutions that provide plaintiff with the information it seeks while relieving 14 | any overburdensome aspects on defendant (e.g. by examining a subset of documents from a 15 || random set of distributors, just from Amazon, etc.). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26, advisory committee 16 || notes on the 2015 amendments (“The parties and the court have a collective responsibility to 17 || consider the proportionality of all discovery and consider it in resolving discovery disputes.”). 18 Finally, as to defendant’s confidentiality concerns, the court notes the parties’ stipulated 19 || protective order (see ECF No. 19) is in place and can be modified if needed to assuage any such 20 || concerns. 21 For these reasons and as discussed at the hearing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that 22 || plaintiff's motion to compel is GRANTED. 23 || Dated: August 30, 2023 4 Foci) Aharon 25 KENDALL J. NE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26 vita.319 27 28