throbber
Case 3:17-cv-01381-JAM Document 307 Filed 04/23/21 Page 1 of 31
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
`
`
`
`MARK J. PATANE, JULIE HARDING,
`HEATHER HARRIGAN, STEPHEN S.
`SHAPIRO, CATHERINE PORTER, ERICA
`RUSSELL, TINA MORETTI, BRIDGET KOPET,
`JENNIFER S. COLE, BENJAMIN A.
`FLETCHER and DIANE BOGDAN, and
`PARESHKUMAR BRAHMBHATT, Individually
`and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`vs.
`
`
`NESTLÉ WATERS NORTH AMERICA, INC.
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`Case No. 17-cv-01381-JAM
`
`ECF Case
`
`CLASS ACTION
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL
`
`Oral Argument Requested
`
`
`
`
`APRIL 23, 2021
`
`
`
`
`8093981v1/015403
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-01381-JAM Document 307 Filed 04/23/21 Page 2 of 31
`
`
`
`I. 
`
`II. 
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1 
`
`Relevant Background .......................................................................................................... 1 
`
`III. 
`
`Discovery Disputes ............................................................................................................. 2 
`
`A.  Legal Standard .............................................................................................................. 3 
`
`B.  Argument ...................................................................................................................... 4 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`4. 
`
`5. 
`
`6. 
`
`Plaintiffs are Entitled to Discovery Spanning 2003–2013 .......................... 4 
`
`Nestlé Must Produce Requested Sales & Pricing Information ................... 8 
`
`Nestlé Cannot Evade Financial Document and Deposition Discovery .... 14 
`
`Nestlé’s Communications With Third-Party Regulators Are Not Protected
`By the Work Product Doctrine ................................................................. 16 
`
`Nestlé Must Cure Its Deficient Document Investigations ........................ 19 
`
`A Bilateral Deadline for Substantial Completion of Document Production
`Is Warranted .............................................................................................. 20 
`
`IV. 
`
`Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 22 
`
`
`
`8093981v1/015403
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-01381-JAM Document 307 Filed 04/23/21 Page 3 of 31
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`A.M. v. Am. Sch. for the Deaf,
`No. 3:13 CV 1337 (WWE), 2016 WL 1117363 (D. Conn. Mar. 22, 2016) ..............................4
`
`Audet v. Fraser,
`No. 3:16cv940(MPS), 2019 WL 285400 (D. Conn. Jan. 22, 2019) ........................................18
`
`Braswell v. Bujnicki,
`No. 3:16-cv-01431 (JAM), 2018 WL 1293076 (D. Conn. Mar. 13, 2018) ...............................3
`
`Breon v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of New Eng.,
`232 F.R.D. 49 (D. Conn. 2005)............................................................................................4, 16
`
`Cadco, Ltd. v. Doctor’s Assocs., Inc.,
`204 A.3d 737 (Conn. Ct. App. 2019) .......................................................................................15
`
`Coale v. Metro N. R. Co.,
`No. 3:09–cv–2065 (CSH), 2011 WL 1870237 (D. Conn. May 16, 2011) ..............................13
`
`Coastline Terminals of Conn., Inc. v. U.S. Steel Corp.,
`221 F.R.D. 14 (D. Conn. 2003)................................................................................................17
`
`Cochran v. City of Huntington,
`No. 1:05-CV-249, 2006 WL 897443 (N.D. Ind. Mar. 31, 2006) .............................................21
`
`Compagnie Francaise d’Assurance Pour le Commerce Exterieur v. Phillips
`Petroleum Co.,
`105 F.R.D. 16 (S.D.N.Y. 1984) .................................................................................................4
`
`Daval Steele Prods. v. M/V Fakredine,
`951 F.2d 1357 (2d Cir. 1991).....................................................................................................3
`
`Electrified Discounters, Inc. v. MI Techs., Inc.,
`No. 3:13cv1332(RNC), 2015 WL 2383618 (D. Conn. May 19, 2015) .....................................6
`
`Estate of Dabela v. Town of Redding,
`No. 3:16cv534(RNC), 2018 WL 7458278 (D. Conn. Dec. 18, 2018) .......................................6
`
`Fairchild Heights Residents Ass’n, Inc. v. Fairchild Heights, Inc.,
`310 Conn. 797 (2014) ..............................................................................................................15
`
`Fed. Housing Fin. Agency v. Nomura Holding Am., Inc.,
`No. 11cv6201 (DLC), 2014 WL 4412388 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 8, 2014) ......................................22
`
`8093981v1/015403
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-01381-JAM Document 307 Filed 04/23/21 Page 4 of 31
`
`
`
`Fleisher v. Phoenix Life Ins. Co.,
`No. 11 Civ. 8405(CM)(JCF), 2012 WL 6732905 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 27, 2012) ..........................22
`
`Hadley v. Kellogg Sales Co.,
`324 F. Supp. 3d 1084 (N.D. Cal. 2018) .....................................................................................8
`
`Hilsley v. Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc.,
`No. 3:17-cv-02335-GPC-MDD, 2018 WL 4502348 (S.D. Cal. Sep. 20, 2018) ......................12
`
`Horn v. City of New Haven,
`No. 3:18-CV-1502 (JAM), 2019 WL 3997095 (D. Conn. Aug. 23, 2019) .............................18
`
`In re Priceline.com Inc. Sec. Litig.,
`233 F.R.D. 83 (D. Conn. 2005)..............................................................................................4, 9
`
`In re Scotts EZ Seed Litig.,
`304 F.R.D. 397 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) ...............................................................................................8
`
`In re Steinhardt Partners, L.P.,
`9 F.3d 230 (2d Cir. 1993) ........................................................................................................18
`
`Kimbro v. I.C. Sys., Inc.,
`No. No. 3:01 CV 1676(DJS), 2002 WL 1816820 (D. Conn. July 22, 2002) .........................3, 6
`
`Langan v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Cos.,
`897 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 2018).......................................................................................................13
`
`Mohegan Lake Motors, Inc. v. Maoli,
`16CV6717, 2018 WL 4278351 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 6, 2018) ........................................................13
`
`N. Shore-Long Island Jewish Health Sys., Inc. v. Multiplan, Inc.,
`325 F.R.D. 36, 48 (E.D.N.Y. 2018) ...........................................................................................7
`
`Nat’l Org. for Women, Farmington Valley Chapter v. Sperry Rand Corp.,
`88 F.R.D. 272 (D. Conn. 1980)..................................................................................................3
`
`NL Indus., Inc. v. ACF Indus. LLC,
`No. 10CV89W, 2015 WL 4066884 (W.D.N.Y. July 2, 2015) ................................................18
`
`Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders,
`437 U.S. 340 (1978) ...................................................................................................................3
`
`Precision Rx Compounding, LLC v. Express Scripts Holding Co.,
`No. 4:16–CV–69 RLW, 2018 WL 2100281 (E.D. Mo. May 7, 2018) ....................................22
`
`Race Tires Am., Inc. v. Hoosier Racing Tire Corp.,
`No. 02:07cv1294, 2008 WL 2487835 (W.D. Pa. June 16, 2008) ............................................21
`
`8093981v1/015403
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-01381-JAM Document 307 Filed 04/23/21 Page 5 of 31
`
`
`
`Ramsey v. Nestlé Waters N. Am.,
`No. 03 CHK 817 (Ill. Cir. Ct. Nov. 5, 2003) .............................................................................5
`
`Rose v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.,
`809 N.Y.S. 2d 784 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2005) .................................................................................15
`
`S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc. v. Henkel Corp.,
`No. 3:19CV00805 (AVC), 2020 WL 5640528 (D. Conn. Sept. 22, 2020) ...............................4
`
`Sandigo v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC,
`17-cv-002727 BLF (NC), 2018 WL 4293339 (N.D. Cal. July 18, 2018) ................................22
`
`Seegert v. Rexall Sundown, Inc.,
`No. 17-cv-01243-JAH (JLB), 2019 WL 12044514 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 2019) .......................11
`
`Seegert v. Rexall Sundown, Inc.,
`No. 17-cv-01243-JAH (JLB), 2019 WL 3774485 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2019) ...........................11
`
`Sentis Grp., Inc. v. Shell Oil Co.,
`763 F.3d 919 (8th Cir. 2014) .....................................................................................................6
`
`Shcherbakovskiy v. Da Capo Al Fine, Ltd.,
`490 F.3d 130,138 (2d Cir. 2007)..............................................................................................10
`
`SR Int’l Bus. Ins. Co. v. World Trade Cent. Props. LLC,
`No. 01 Civ. 9291(JSM), 2002 WL 1334821 (S.D.N.Y. June 19, 2002) ..................................16
`
`Tarr v. Bob Ciasulli’s Mack Auto Mall, Inc.,
`194 N.J. 212 (2008) .................................................................................................................15
`
`Tucker v. Am. Int’l Grp., Inc.,
`No. 3:09–CV–1499 (CSH), 2011 WL 6020851 (D. Conn. Dec. 2, 2011) ...............................20
`
`Ulbrich v. Groth,
`310 Conn. 375 (2013) ..............................................................................................................15
`
`United States v. Bilzerian,
`926 F.2d 1285 (2d Cir.), cert denied, 502 U.S. 813 (1991) .....................................................17
`
`Visa U.S.A., Inc. v. First Data Corp.,
`No. C-02-1786JSWEMC, 2005 WL 119868 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 20, 2005) .......................... passim
`
`WPIX, Inc. v. Broacast Music, Inc.,
`No. CV 11–4052–SJO, 2011 WL 9753912 (C.D. Cal. July 5, 2011) ......................................12
`
`Xchange Telecom Corp. v. Sprint Spectrum L.P.,
`No. No. 14–CV–54, 2015 WL 773752 (N.D.N.Y. Feb. 24, 2015) ........................................6, 7
`
`8093981v1/015403
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-01381-JAM Document 307 Filed 04/23/21 Page 6 of 31
`
`
`
`Rules
`
`Federal Rule of Evidence 401 ..........................................................................................................4
`
`Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 26 ............................................................................. passim
`
`
`
`8093981v1/015403
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-01381-JAM Document 307 Filed 04/23/21 Page 7 of 31
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`Since summer 2019, Nestlé has dodged Plaintiffs’ efforts to obtain straightforward,
`relevant discovery to which they are entitled regarding the merits of their claims, their price-
`premium damages theory, and the maintenance of this case as a class action. At every turn,
`Nestlé has avoided its discovery obligations by asserting incredulous claims of irrelevance, and
`burden; contending wrongly that Plaintiffs’ discovery requests are better suited to another
`“stage” of litigation; and delaying the potential resolution of discovery disputes by refusing to
`cooperate with Plaintiffs. Nestlé’s challenges to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests ring hollow.
`Now, nearly four years after this lawsuit was initiated and over eight months since the Court
`denied summary judgment, Nestlé’s stonewalling is preventing this case from moving forward.
`Plaintiffs’ efforts to resolve the parties’ discovery disputes informally have proven futile.
`Plaintiffs therefore respectfully request that Your Honor (1) order Nestlé to produce the
`requested documents at issue and designate Rule 30(b)(6) witnesses to testify regarding the
`disputed topics; (2) schedule a Court-supervised discovery conference regarding Nestlé’s
`document investigations and search terms; and (3) set a bilateral deadline for substantial
`completion of document production to keep this case moving toward resolution.
`
`II.
`
`Relevant Background
`
`Plaintiffs sued Nestlé Waters North America, Inc. (“Nestlé”) on August 15, 2017 in
`connection with the false and misleading labeling of its Poland Spring brand bottled water as
`“100% Natural Spring Water” despite knowing that the product is not in fact “spring water”
`under the FDA’s standard of identity. See Dkt. 1; Dkt. 160 (“Compl.”) at ¶ 101; Dkt. 179 at 2.
`Plaintiffs allege causes of action for fraud, breach of contract, and violations of state consumer
`statutes of Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York,
`Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island (collectively, the “Class States”). See Compl. at ¶¶ 836–954,
`978–1036. These claims are based on Nestlé’s unlawful conduct from November 5, 2003 to
`present. See, e.g., id. at ¶¶ 22, 812, 819–20.
`
`8093981v1/015403
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-01381-JAM Document 307 Filed 04/23/21 Page 8 of 31
`
`
`
`Nestlé sells the offending bottled water products through third-party retailers and
`distributors, as well as through its own direct-to-consumer bottled-water delivery service known
`as ReadyRefresh. ReadyRefresh delivers “a variety of sizes” of Nestlé’s bottled water products,
`including Poland Spring’s bottled “spring water” and other relevant products, “right to
`[consumers’] door[s],” including in the Class States. Ex. U at 1.1 In addition to its own direct-
`to-consumer program, Nestlé sells bottled-water products through retailers and distributors and
`has licensed bottled-water retail pricing and sales data from third parties Nielsen Company (US),
`LLC (“Nielsen”) and Information Resources, Inc. (“IRI”) since at least as early as 2013. See Ex.
`I at 7–8.
`Plaintiffs have diligently pursued document and deposition discovery in support of their
`claims and price-premium damages theory, including with respect to the requests at issue here.
`See Ex. A at RFP 9 (served June 2019); Ex. B at RFPs No. 17, 18, 29–31 (same); Ex. G at RFP
`No. 59, 61–63 (served December 2020); Ex. E at Topics 10–13, 20 (same).
`
`III. Discovery Disputes
`
`The parties’ document and deposition discovery disputes boil down to six main issues:
`(1) Plaintiffs’ entitlement to discovery spanning the full period of Nestlé’s alleged misconduct;
`(2) Plaintiffs’ requests for actual and recommended wholesale and retail prices for bottled water
`and the sales volume of such products in the Class States dating back to 2003; (3) Plaintiffs’
`document and deposition requests regarding Nestlé’s financial condition and the profitability and
`
`
`1 Citations to “Ex.” refer to the exhibits attached to the Declaration of Jesse-Justin Cuevas In
`Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel (“Cuevas Decl.”) that accompanies this Motion. The
`ReadyRefresh webpage cited now indicates that it operates under BlueTriton Brands, Inc.,
`Nestlé’s new corporate name. See Ex. V at 1 (reporting that Nestlé “has begun operating under a
`new corporate name, BlueTriton Brands” following “the completion of its acquisition by One
`Rock Capital Partners, LLC…, in partnership with Metropoulos & Co., from Nestlé S.A., on
`March 31, 2021). This has not altered Nestle’s ReadyRefresh business. See Ex. W (explaining
`that since the acquisition, ReadyRefresh is “still the same convenient beverage delivery service
`you know and love” and telling customers that “there will be no immediate changes to [their]
`ReadyRefresh service or the products… offer[ed]”).
`
`8093981v1/015403
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-01381-JAM Document 307 Filed 04/23/21 Page 9 of 31
`
`
`
`costs of bottled water products; (4) Nestlé’s refusal to provide deposition testimony regarding its
`post-December 1, 2015 communications with regulators and government officials regarding this
`litigation and the facts underlying it; (5) Nestlé’s deficient search for responsive documents and
`refusal to meet and confer regarding search terms used in such investigations; and (6) Nestlé’s
`unwarranted delay in completing its responsive document production.
`
`A.
`
`Legal Standard
`
`As Judge Meyer has explained, “Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure sets
`forth the proper scope of discovery. Parties ‘may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged
`matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case.”
`Braswell v. Bujnicki, No. 3:16-cv-01431 (JAM), 2018 WL 1293076, at *1 (D. Conn. Mar. 13,
`2018) (Meyer, J.) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1)). In this Circuit, the “obviously broad” Rule
`26(b)(1) is “liberally construed” to encompass not only issues raised expressly by a plaintiff’s
`complaint but also other non-merits issues, such as damages and class-action maintainability
`under Rule 23. Kimbro v. I.C. Sys., Inc., No. No. 3:01 CV 1676(DJS), 2002 WL 1816820, at *1
`(D. Conn. July 22, 2002) (quoting Daval Steele Prods. v. M/V Fakredine, 951 F.2d 1357, 1357
`(2d Cir. 1991)); see also Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351 & n.13 (1978)
`(explaining that “[c]onsistently with the notice-pleading system established by the Rules,
`discovery is not limited to issues raised by the pleadings, for discovery itself is designed to help
`define and clarify the issues. Nor is discovery limited to the merits of a case, for a variety of fact-
`oriented issues may arise during litigation that are not related to the merits,” such as “issues upon
`which a district court must pass in deciding whether a suit should proceed as a class action under
`Rule 23”); Nat’l Org. for Women, Farmington Valley Chapter v. Sperry Rand Corp., 88 F.R.D.
`272, 277 (D. Conn. 1980) (“The discovery permitted must be sufficiently broad in order that the
`plaintiffs have a realistic opportunity to meet the[] requirements [of Rule 23]; at the same time,
`the defendant must be protected from discovery which is overly burdensome, irrelevant, or
`which invades privileged or confidential areas.”).
`
`8093981v1/015403
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-01381-JAM Document 307 Filed 04/23/21 Page 10 of 31
`
`
`
`“Relevance” for purposes of discovery is construed more broadly than for the purposes of
`trial, following the “any tendency” standard of Federal Rule of Evidence 401. See, e.g., A.M. v.
`Am. Sch. for the Deaf, No. 3:13 CV 1337 (WWE), 2016 WL 1117363, at *2 (D. Conn. Mar. 22,
`2016); see also Breon v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of New Eng., 232 F.R.D. 49, 52 (D. Conn.
`2005) (“Relevancy continues to be ‘broadly construed, and a request for discovery should be
`considered relevant if there is any possibility that the information sought may be relevant to the
`claim or defense of any party.’” (citations omitted)). Once the party seeking discovery
`establishes its relevance, the party resisting discovery must show why it should be denied. E.g.,
`S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc. v. Henkel Corp., No. 3:19CV00805 (AVC), 2020 WL 5640528, at *2
`(D. Conn. Sept. 22, 2020). More specifically, “[t]he party resisting discovery bears the burden of
`demonstrating that its objections should be sustained, and pat, generic, non-specific objections,
`intoning the same boilerplate language, are inconsistent with both the letter and the spirit of the
`Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” In re Priceline.com Inc. Sec. Litig., 233 F.R.D. 83, 85 (D.
`Conn. 2005). Rather, “the objecting party must ‘show specifically how, despite the broad and
`liberal construction afforded the federal discovery rules, each [request] is not relevant or how
`each question is overly broad, burdensome or oppressive by submitting affidavits or offering
`evidence revealing the nature of the burden.’” Id. (quoting Compagnie Francaise d’Assurance
`Pour le Commerce Exterieur v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 105 F.R.D. 16, 42 (S.D.N.Y. 1984)).
`
`B.
`
`Argument
`1.
`
`Plaintiffs are Entitled to Discovery Spanning 2003–2013
`
`Plaintiffs’ claims concern Nestlé’s deceptive labeling of its Poland Spring bottled “spring
`water” (“PSW”) products from November 5, 2003 through the date of trial. Yet, Nestlé refuses
`to produce requested document and deposition discovery spanning November 5, 2003–August
`15, 2013 based on supposedly applicable, mostly unspecified statutes of limitations.2 Nestlé
`
`2 Nestlé originally contended that discovery requests seeking information post-dating the
`August 15, 2017 filing of this lawsuit were also irrelevant, but Nestlé has since abandoned that
`challenge. See Ex. S at 1. Notably, however, Nestlé has yet to supplement its document
`
`8093981v1/015403
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-01381-JAM Document 307 Filed 04/23/21 Page 11 of 31
`
`
`
`claims that the four-year statute of limitations under the UCC (for Plaintiffs’ breach-of-contract
`claims) and unidentified “shorter statutes of limitations” (for the remaining claims) foreclose
`Plaintiffs’ right to pre-August 2013 discovery. Ex. S at 1; see also Ex. T at 2, 3 (stating that
`Nestlé “stands on its objections” to Plaintiffs’ Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice regarding the
`appropriate time period in this case and refusing to prepare, or even attempt to prepare, any
`corporate designees regarding the November 2003–August 2013 timeframe). Nestlé’s time-
`limitations objections fail for at least three reasons.
`First, Plaintiffs have demonstrated the relevance of the time period covering their
`requests, and Nestlé has not carried its burden to show that the discovery is improper under the
`framework of Rule 26. It is undisputed that the November 2003–present period of Plaintiffs’
`document requests and deposition Topics covers Nestlé’s misconduct as alleged in Plaintiffs’
`Complaint. See, e.g., Dkt. 142 at 7 (“[T]he current action involves purchasers of Poland Spring
`water after November 5, 2003.”), id. (“Plaintiffs’ alleged injuries here are caused by Nestlé’s
`purported ongoing, post-Ramsey [Nov. 5, 2003] course of deceptive conduct….”), 8 (“[T]he
`present plaintiffs and proposed class include only purchasers after November 5, 2003.”), 11
`(“[P]laintiffs’ claims are wholly based on alleged ongoing conduct that post-dates the [Nov. 5,
`2003] Ramsey settlement….”).3 There is no question here that information spanning the time
`period alleged in Plaintiffs’ putative class action Complaint has a tendency to make Plaintiffs’
`allegations covering that period more or less probable.
`Nestlé’s sole basis for opposing this discovery is the supposed strength of its statute-of-
`limitations defense and the resulting “irrelevance” of Plaintiffs’ requests. But the applicability of
`
`
`production with responsive documents covering August 2017–present despite its written
`agreement to do so.
`
`3 The Ramsey settlement resolved a similar class action lawsuit filed against Nestlé in Illinois
`concerning purchasers of Poland Spring water prior to November 5, 2003. See Ramsey v. Nestlé
`Waters N. Am., No. 03 CHK 817 (Ill. Cir. Ct. Nov. 5, 2003), filed on the docket in this litigation
`at Dkt. 53-2 (pages 5–72).
`
`8093981v1/015403
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-01381-JAM Document 307 Filed 04/23/21 Page 12 of 31
`
`
`
`any statute-of-limitations in this case is an open question, as explained below, and Nestlé is not
`the party that can determine the answer. Nestlé cannot use its failure to seek a ruling on this
`defense as a basis to evade discovery spanning the full relevant time period.
`Second, Nestlé’s self-perceived strength of its defense is not a justifiable basis for
`withholding discovery in this District. It is black-letter law that Nestlé’s subjective beliefs about
`the merits of its affirmative defenses are irrelevant to the proper scope of discovery in this case.
`Nestlé does not “possess the unilateral ability to dictate the scope of discovery based on [its] own
`view of the parties’ respective theories of the case. Litigation in general and discovery in
`particular… are not one sided.” Sentis Grp., Inc. v. Shell Oil Co., 763 F.3d 919, 925 (8th Cir.
`2014) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1)). Rather,
`it matters not for the purpose of discovery which side’s theory of the case might
`ultimately be proven correct. What matters is that each side is entitled to pursue
`intelligible theories of the case and [Nestlé] cannot, by [its] sole insistence,
`declare evidence undiscoverable and irrelevant merely because it does not fit into
`[Nestlé’s] own theory of the case.
`
`Id.; accord Xchange Telecom Corp. v. Sprint Spectrum L.P., No. No. 14–CV–54 (GLS/CFH),
`2015 WL 773752, at *3 (N.D.N.Y. Feb. 24, 2015).
`Sister district courts in this jurisdiction have followed this rule, overruling merits-based
`objections to discovery like those Nestlé advances here. See Kimbro, 2002 WL 1816820, at *1
`(granting plaintiff’s motion to compel over defendant’s objections based on its “optimistic
`speculation” regarding the success of its defense); see also Estate of Dabela v. Town of Redding,
`No. 3:16cv534(RNC), 2018 WL 7458278, at *1 (D. Conn. Dec. 18, 2018) (“The defendants
`argue that the information sought is not relevant because the plaintiffs’ claims are deficient.
`Their objections based on the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims are misplaced.”); Electrified
`Discounters, Inc. v. MI Techs., Inc., No. 3:13cv1332(RNC), 2015 WL 2383618, at *6 (D. Conn.
`May 19, 2015) (calling plaintiff’s merits-based objections to defendant’s document requests
`“unavailing” and explaining that “it is no objection to a discovery request that it relates to a
`defense or claim which is insufficient in law” (cleaned up)). Nestlé cannot dictate Plaintiffs’
`
`8093981v1/015403
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-01381-JAM Document 307 Filed 04/23/21 Page 13 of 31
`
`
`
`entitlement to discovery in this case based on its subjective and untested views of its statute-of-
`limitations defense.
`Third, a discovery motion is not the proper vehicle for evaluating the merits of Nestlé’s
`defenses. Rather, Nestlé must make that application to the District Court in a dispositive motion.
`See N. Shore-Long Island Jewish Health Sys., Inc. v. Multiplan, Inc., 325 F.R.D. 36, 48
`(E.D.N.Y. 2018) (“Because [plaintiff] lacks a viable fraud claim, the logic goes, information
`relevant only to that claim is not discoverable within the scope of Fed[eral] R[ule of] Civ[il]
`P[rocedure] 26. However, and as [plaintiff] points out, [defendant]’s opposition to a discovery
`motion is not the proper forum for raising challenges to the viability of [plaintiff]’s claims, nor
`are such challenges proper grounds to preclude otherwise appropriate discovery.”); Xchange
`Telecom, 2015 WL 773752 at *3 (“[I]t is not presently appropriate given the pending motion [to
`compel], or within the jurisdiction of the undersigned [Magistrate Judge], to determine whether
`the substantive issues raised during the briefing should lead to the decision that various claims or
`defenses need to be striken [sic] and that, by extension, the discovery demands are inappropriate.
`Instead such arguments regarding the viability of the remaining claims and defenses should be
`properly presented, in a dispositive motion, before the District Judge.”). Nestlé cannot use
`discovery, or the special-master procedure, to test its defense theories before raising the issue in
`a dispositive motion, and Nestlé cannot rely on merits defenses not decided by a court to
`frustrate discovery.
`In sum, Nestlé’s objections to the time period of Plaintiffs’ document and deposition
`requests present a merits question, not a discovery question, and Nestlé cannot withhold
`discovery simply because it disagrees with Plaintiffs’ theory of the case. Plaintiffs’ requests for
`pre-August 2013 discovery are squarely relevant, and Nestlé cannot carry its burden to resist
`such discovery. Nestlé’s time-limitations objections must be overruled.
`
`8093981v1/015403
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-01381-JAM Document 307 Filed 04/23/21 Page 14 of 31
`
`
`
`2.
`
`Nestlé Must Produce Requested Sales & Pricing Information
`
`For nearly two years, Plaintiffs have sought sales and pricing information from Nestlé in
`connection with PSW and other bottled water products.4 Plaintiffs now move to compel Nestlé
`to produce the following documents and related deposition testimony:
`(a) Data Nestlé has purchased from third-parties Nielsen and IRI showing retail
`prices for and sales volume (by bottle size, packaging combination, or other
`product unit) of bottled water in the Class States from November 2003–present;
`
`(b) Nestlé’s wholesale and Home & Office (i.e., ReadyRefresh) sales data for bottled
`water purchases in the Class States from November 2003–present showing
`(i) products purchased, (ii) product prices and quantities sold, (iii) dates of
`purchase, and (iv) identity and address of the Home & Office purchaser;
`
`(c) Documents showing Nestlé’s manufacturer suggested retail prices (“MSRP”) for
`certain bottled water products sold in the Class States from November 2003–
`present, and any studies or underlying data used to determine the MSRP values
`for such products.
`
`See Ex. B at RFPs No. 17, 18, 29, 31; Ex. G at RFP No. 59, 61–63; see also Ex. E at Topic 11
`(seeking testimony regarding bottled water sales and pricing). Nestlé refuses to produce this
`important data. Nestlé’s objections are meritless.
`The requested information is indisputably relevant to Plaintiffs’ contention that
`consumers in the Class States pay a price premium for PSW as a result of Nestlé’s false labeling
`of the product as “100% Natural Spring Water.” See, e.g., Compl. ¶¶ 2, 15; see also In re Scotts
`EZ Seed Litig., 304 F.R.D. 397, 409, 413–15 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (explaining plaintiffs’ price
`premium theory in deceptive labeling case and certifying Rule 23(b)(3) class advancing a price
`premium theory of classwide damages). Federal district courts across the country have
`acknowledged the relevance of pricing and sales information when certifying class actions
`bringing deceptive-labeling claims under a price-premium theory. See, e.g., Hadley v. Kellogg
`
`
`4 In addition to PSW, Plaintiffs seek pricing and sales information regarding other Nestlé
`bottled water products such as Pure Life (Nestlé’s bottled purified water), Poland Spring brand
`distilled and sparkling waters, Deer Park brand spring water, and non-Nestlé brand bottled water.
`Nestlé’ has agreed to produce these materials, see Ex. S at 2; Ex. T at 1, but has yet to produce
`any additional materials for bottled water products other than PSW or Pure Life.
`
`8093981v1/015403
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-01381-JAM Document 307 Filed 04/23/21 Page 15 of 31
`
`
`
`Sales Co., 324 F. Supp. 3d 1084, 1105 (N.D. Cal. 2018) (discussing the use of product prices that
`“reflect the actual market prices that prevailed during the class period” and sales quantities that
`“reflect the actual quantities of products sold during the class period”). In addition, the requested
`MSRP information, by virtue of setting a recommended price, sheds light on how Nestlé values
`its various bottled water products and perceives consumer willingness-to-pay for such products,
`regardless of whether Nestlé actually shared these suggested prices with its wholesale customers
`at any time. Plaintiffs’ request for Home & Office purchaser identity information in addition to
`the raw product sales and pricing data is also relevant to Plaintiffs’ ability to maintain this case
`as a class action. For example, Plaintiffs will use that information to show that it can satisfy
`Rule 23’s numerosity requirements for each of the Class State sub-classes as well as the implied
`requirement of ascertainability that applies in this Circuit.
`The requested information is also proportional to the needs of this case under the
`discovery framework of the Federal Rules. Nestlé’s arguments to the contrary are unavailing:
`First, Nestlé’s boilerplate objections regarding burden and proportionality do not specify
`how Plaintiffs’ targeted requests for wholesale and retail pricing and product sales information in
`the Class States are disproportional to the needs of the case. See Ex. I at 6 ¶¶ 3–4 (RFP 17), 8–9
`¶¶ 3–4 (RFP 18), 24–25 ¶¶ 1, 3, 4 (RFP 29), 28–29 ¶¶ 1, 3 (RFP 31); Ex. H at 10–11 ¶¶ 1,4 (RFP
`59), 14 ¶¶ 1, 3 (RFP 61), 16 ¶¶ 1, 5 (RFP 62), 18 ¶¶ 1, 3 (RFP 63). The suggestion that it is too
`difficult for Nestlé—which sells bottled-water products to retailers and distributors, owns and
`operates a direct-to-consumer bottled-water delivery service, and purchases retail bottled-water
`pricing and sales data directly from third parties—to investigate its own records and produce
`information containing (1) the actual and recommended prices of specific bottled water products,
`(2) the number of each product unit sold at that price, and (3) the volume of such sales, over a
`specific, finite period of time in a specific, finite number of states, defies credulity and common
`sense. Nestlé cannot carry its burden in opposing the requested discovery on the basis of
`disproportionality. See, e.g., In re Priceline.com, 233 F.R.

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket