Case 1:21-mc-00169-PKC Document 3 Filed 02/03/21 Page 1 of 23
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`
`
`
`
`
`S.D.N.Y. Misc. Action No. 21-mc-169
`
`ECF Case
`
`
`
`
`Underlying Case:
`
`N.D. Cal. Case No. 3:19-md-02913-WHO
`
`
`
`JUUL LABS, INC.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`LOGIC TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT LLC,
`
`Respondent.
`
`
`IN RE: JUUL LABS INC., MARKETING,
`SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS
`LIABILITY LITIGATION
`
`
`
`This Document Relates to:
`
`ALL ACTIONS
`
`
`
`
`MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER JUUL LABS, INC.’S
`MOTION TO ENFORCE SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS AGAINST LOGIC
`TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`601 Lexington Avenue
`New York, New York 10022
`Telephone: (212) 446-4800
`Facsimile: (212) 446-4900
`
`Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-mc-00169-PKC Document 3 Filed 02/03/21 Page 2 of 23
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`Page
`
`INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
`
`BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................ 2
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`The MDL Allegations Concerning The Alleged ENDS Public-Health
`Crisis ....................................................................................................................... 2
`
`Logic’s Role In The Alleged ENDS Public-Health Crisis...................................... 6
`
`JLI’s Subpoena And Logic’s Blanket Refusal To Produce Documents ................. 7
`
`JURISDICTION ................................................................................................................. 9
`
`ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................... 9
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`JLI’s Subpoena Seeks Relevant Documents ......................................................... 10
`
`JLI’s Subpoena Does Not Impose An Undue Burden .......................................... 17
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-mc-00169-PKC Document 3 Filed 02/03/21 Page 3 of 23
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Amini Innovation Corp. v. McFerran Home Furnishings, Inc.,
`300 F.R.D. 406 (C.D. Cal. 2014) .............................................................................................10
`
`Cent. Bucks Sch. Dist., Bucks Cty., Pa. v. JUUL Labs, Inc., et al.,
`No. 3:19-cv-08023-WHO (N.D. Cal. Nov. 12, 2020) .................................................3, 4, 5, 10
`
`Chen-Oster v. Goldman Sachs & Co.,
`293 F.R.D. 557 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) ...............................................................................................9
`
`Colonies Partners LP v. Cty. of San Bernadino,
`2019 WL 7905894 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2019) .............................................................................9
`
`Compaq Comput. Corp. v. Packard Bell Elecs., Inc.,
`163 F.R.D. 329 (N.D. Cal. 1995) .............................................................................................16
`
`In re Juul Labs, Inc., Mktg., Sales Pracs., & Prods. Liab. Litig.,
`--- F. Supp. 3d ----, 2020 WL 6271173 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 23, 2020) .................................. passim
`
`In re Juul Labs, Inc., Mktg., Sales Pracs., & Prods. Liab. Litig.,
`No. 3:19-md-02913-WHO (N.D. Cal.) ............................................................................1, 8, 16
`
`Jones v. Nutiva, Inc.,
`2016 WL 5858467 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 7, 2016) ..............................................................................9
`
`Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe,
`2016 WL 5478433 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2016) ...........................................................................9
`
`Micron Tech., Inc. v. Tessera, Inc.,
`2006 WL 1646133 (N.D. Cal. June 14, 2006) ...........................................................................9
`
`Schneider v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.,
`2017 WL 3124014 (N.D. Cal. July 24, 2017) ............................................................................9
`
`The Livermore Valley Joint Unified Sch. Dist. v. JUUL Labs, Inc., et al.,
`No. 3:19-cv-08176-WHO (N.D. Cal. Nov. 12, 2020) .................................................3, 4, 5, 10
`
`The Sch. Bd. of Broward Cty., Fla. v. JUUL Labs, Inc., et al.,
`No. 3:19-cv-08289-WHO (N.D. Cal. Nov. 12, 2020) .................................................3, 4, 5, 10
`
`The Sch. Bd. of Escambia Cty., Fla., et al. v. JUUL Labs, Inc., et al.,
`No. 3:20-cv-00459-WHO (N.D. Cal. Nov. 12, 2020) .................................................3, 4, 5, 10
`
`Three Vill. Cent. Sch. Dist. v. JUUL Labs, Inc., et al.,
`No. 3:19-cv-07028-WHO (N.D. Cal. Nov. 12, 2020) .................................................3, 4, 5, 10
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-mc-00169-PKC Document 3 Filed 02/03/21 Page 4 of 23
`
`
`
`Toth v. JLI et al.,
`No. 20-cv-8517 (S.D.N.Y.) ..................................................................................................8, 17
`
`Tucson Unified Sch. Dist. v. JUUL Labs, Inc., et al.,
`No. 3:19-cv-07335-WHO (N.D. Cal. Nov. 12, 2020) .................................................3, 4, 5, 10
`
`Rules
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 .......................................................................................................................9, 17
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1)..............................................................................................................9, 16
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 .......................................................................................................................9, 17
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d) ........................................................................................................................9
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(2)(B)(i) ..........................................................................................................9
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Anthony Pappalardo, Electronic Cigarettes: Blowing Smoke Up Your Ass?, Vice,
`July 15, 2012, https://bit.ly/3nBJB4e .......................................................................................12
`
`Bloomberg, Logic Technology Development LLC, https://bloom.bg/2UzS5fp
`(last visited Feb. 3, 2021) ...........................................................................................................6
`
`Enjoy These Fantastic E-Juice Flavors, I Love Ecigs, Dec. 20, 2017,
`https://bit.ly/3mYQYBQ ..........................................................................................................14
`
`Incredible Cigarette* That Doesn’t Cause Cancer** Is Changing The World,
`Business Insider, May 3, 2013, https://bit.ly/38TJ2hK ...........................................................14
`
`Logic, About Logic, https://bit.ly/2HfCnDo (last visited Feb. 3, 2021) ..........................................7
`
`Logic, FAQs: E-Liquid & Refills - What are the ingredients in Logic e-liquid?,
`https://bit.ly/38QzJz9 (last visited Feb. 3, 2021) .....................................................................16
`
`Logic, FAQs: E-Liquid & Refills - What is the nicotine concentration of Logic e-
`liquids?, https://bit.ly/3nz8jlI (last visited Feb. 3, 2021) .........................................................16
`
`Logic, FAQs: Logic Power - What are the Logic Power e-liquid ingredients?,
`https://bit.ly/32WuudH (last visited Feb. 3, 2021) ..................................................................16
`
`Logic, FAQs: Logic Power - What is the nicotine concentration?,
`https://bit.ly/35G40Pd (last visited Feb. 3, 2021) ....................................................................16
`
`Logic, FAQs: Logic Pro - What are the Logic Pro e-liquid ingredients?,
`https://bit.ly/3pDOQ57 (last visited Feb. 3, 2021) ..................................................................16
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-mc-00169-PKC Document 3 Filed 02/03/21 Page 5 of 23
`
`
`
`Logic, FAQs: Logic Pro - What is the nicotine concentration?,
`https://bit.ly/3kHhgas (last visited Feb. 3, 2021) .....................................................................16
`
`Logic, FAQs: Who is Logic for?, https://bit.ly/2UByrzJ (last visited Feb. 3, 2021) .....................16
`
`Logic, FAQs: Who is Logic?, https://bit.ly/2IIbZ5o (last visited Feb. 3, 2021) ..............................7
`
`Logic, FAQs: Why does Logic have age verification?, https://bit.ly/38UkYvs (last
`visited Feb. 3, 2021).................................................................................................................15
`
`Logic, Social Responsibility, https://bit.ly/3pDe2si (last visited Feb. 3, 2021) .............................15
`
`Logic Vape Compact Vs. JUUL, Vape & Juice Ltd., https://bit.ly/2IV2NuS (last
`visited Feb. 3, 2021)...................................................................................................................7
`
`Logic, Why Logic?, https://bit.ly/38RjL87 (last visited Feb. 3, 2021) ........................................6, 7
`
`New Logic flavors fresh from the garden, I Love Ecigs, Dec. 16, 2015,
`https://bit.ly/3hsq1oX...............................................................................................................13
`
`Product Quality Statement, https://bit.ly/36NHJ19 .......................................................................16
`
`Tripp Mickle, Japan Tobacco to Acquire U.S. Electronic Cigarette Company
`Logic Technology Development, Wall St. J., Apr. 30, 2015 ..................................................7, 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-mc-00169-PKC Document 3 Filed 02/03/21 Page 6 of 23
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`This is a motion to enforce a third-party subpoena issued by Petitioner Juul Labs, Inc.
`
`(“JLI”) to Logic Technology Development LLC (“Logic”) in connection with In re Juul Labs,
`
`Inc., Marketing, Sales Practices, & Products Liability Litigation, Case No. 3:19-md-02913-WHO
`
`(N.D. Cal.). The “massive” MDL encompasses numerous allegations involving JLI’s electronic
`
`nicotine delivery system (“ENDS”) and includes consumer class-action allegations, personal-
`
`injury cases, and public-entity cases. See In re Juul Labs, Inc., Mktg., Sales Pracs., & Prods. Liab.
`
`Litig., --- F. Supp. 3d ----, 2020 WL 6271173, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 23, 2020).
`
`The public-entity cases allege that JLI and the other MDL defendants “created a public
`
`nuisance”—i.e., a “youth e-cigarette epidemic” or “youth vaping epidemic.” Id. at *21, *61, *76,
`
`*78–79 & n.86; see also id. at *59–69. Those plaintiffs also repeatedly invoke the practices of
`
`unspecified other manufacturers in the ENDS industry, acknowledging that JLI’s alleged practices
`
`and products were merely part of the larger “ENDS market.” See id. at *2, *23. And all cases
`
`involve numerous allegations regarding the design, marketing, and sales of ENDS products, which
`
`necessarily involve considerations of how JLI’s alleged practices and products fit into the larger
`
`ENDS market and established industry practices, especially considering that other manufacturers
`
`pioneered the ENDS industry and many of the alleged practices that plaintiffs identify existed well
`
`before JLI’s entry into the market. Logic was one such manufacturer.
`
`To fairly defend these allegations, JLI issued subpoenas to certain other manufacturers in
`
`the ENDS industry. Several of these ENDS manufacturers have complied with these subpoenas.
`
`Logic has not. JLI’s subpoena to Logic seeks documents that are highly relevant to the MDL
`
`plaintiffs’ sweeping claims. Like JLI, Logic manufactures and sells ENDS and vapor products.
`
`But Logic’s products were on the market years before JLI launched JUUL, and Logic marketed
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-mc-00169-PKC Document 3 Filed 02/03/21 Page 7 of 23
`
`
`
`those products using many of the same flavors and marketing strategies plaintiffs allege created a
`
`public nuisance. Documents concerning Logic’s actions in the ENDS market therefore bear
`
`directly on the claims and defenses at issue in the MDL and are proportional to the needs of the
`
`case. They will establish that any alleged “public nuisance” existed before JLI’s entry into the
`
`ENDS market; that other ENDS manufacturers, such as Logic, share significant responsibility for
`
`creating any nuisance well before JUUL’s launch; and that JLI’s alleged practices when it entered
`
`the market were aligned with the standards of the industry. For example, Logic’s documents will
`
`demonstrate that JLI’s use of flavored products was consistent with industry standards and that the
`
`use of such flavors was not designed to target underage users. All of the requested materials relate
`
`to issues such as these. JLI must be permitted to obtain these materials from Logic to adequately
`
`defend the allegations made in the MDL.
`
`JLI understands the burdens that such productions can entail, especially on third parties,
`
`and has been more than willing to work with Logic to minimize those burdens. Logic, however,
`
`has thus far refused to produce any documents in response to JLI’s subpoena and has failed to
`
`articulate any meaningful basis for its blanket assertions of undue burden. For these reasons and
`
`those set forth below, the Court should compel Logic to comply with JLI’s valid subpoena.
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`A.
`
`The MDL Allegations Concerning The Alleged ENDS Public-Health Crisis
`
`As the MDL Court recently described it, the underlying claims and proceedings that give
`
`rise to this motion are a “massive multidistrict litigation” involving consumer class-action
`
`allegations, personal-injury cases, and public-entity cases. In re Juul Labs, 2020 WL 6271173, at
`
`*1. Plaintiffs allege “hundreds of pages” of facts regarding JLI’s “intent to create and market a
`
`‘blockbuster sequel’ to combustible cigarettes,’” id. at *2, and their claims focus on JLI’s design,
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-mc-00169-PKC Document 3 Filed 02/03/21 Page 8 of 23
`
`
`
`marketing, and sales of JUUL products.
`
`In particular, the public-entity complaints seek to hold JLI liable under public-nuisance law
`
`for the entirety of the alleged “youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis.” E.g., Second
`
`Am. Compl. at p.211, Three Vill. Cent. Sch. Dist. v. JUUL Labs, Inc., et al., No. 3:19-cv-07028-
`
`WHO (N.D. Cal. Nov. 12, 2020) (ECF 25) (“Three Vill. SAC”) (capitalization altered).1 Yet these
`
`plaintiffs also recognize that the alleged epidemic is attributable not only to JLI or JUUL products,
`
`but also to “e-cigarette products” more generally and to unspecified “other[]” members of the
`
`ENDS industry. See Three Vill. SAC ¶¶ 744, 751.2 Indeed, in support of their public-nuisance
`
`allegations and claims, the public-entity plaintiffs repeatedly invoke unspecified “others” in the
`
`ENDS industry, “their practices,” and “industry [i.e., non-JUUL] products.” For example, they
`
`allege:
`
`•
`
`“Through a collective and parallel effort … JLI, the Altria Defendants and
`others in the e-cigarette industry leveraged third-parties, ranging from
`industry-funded non-governmental organizations to online blogs more
`accessible to youth, to mislead the public about the impacts of consuming
`e-cigarettes.” Three Vill. SAC ¶ 258 (emphasis added); SAC ¶ 254 (same).3
`
`
`1 See also Second Am. Compl. at p.211, Tucson Unified Sch. Dist. v. JUUL Labs, Inc., et al., No.
`3:19-cv-07335-WHO (N.D. Cal. Nov. 12, 2020) (ECF 25) (“Tucson Unified SAC”); Second Am.
`Compl. at p.211, Cent. Bucks Sch. Dist., Bucks Cty., Pa. v. JUUL Labs, Inc., et al., No. 3:19-cv-
`08023-WHO (N.D. Cal. Nov. 12, 2020) (ECF 20) (“Cent. Bucks SAC”); Second Am. Compl. at
`p.213, The Livermore Valley Joint Unified Sch. Dist. v. JUUL Labs, Inc., et al., No. 3:19-cv-08176-
`WHO (N.D. Cal. Nov. 12, 2020) (ECF 21) (“Livermore SAC”); Second Am. Compl. at p.211, The
`Sch. Bd. of Broward Cty., Fla. v. JUUL Labs, Inc., et al., No. 3:19-cv-08289-WHO (N.D. Cal.
`Nov. 12, 2020) (ECF 20) (“Broward SAC”); Second Am. Compl. at p.213, The Sch. Bd. of
`Escambia Cty., Fla., et al. v. JUUL Labs, Inc., et al., No. 3:20-cv-00459-WHO (N.D. Cal. Nov.
`12, 2020) (ECF 36) (“Escambia SAC”) (all same).
`
`2 See also Tucson Unified SAC ¶¶ 745, 752; Cent. Bucks SAC ¶¶ 740, 747; Livermore SAC ¶¶ 744,
`751; Broward SAC ¶¶ 745, 751; Escambia SAC ¶¶ 734, 740 (all same).
`
`3 See also Tucson Unified SAC ¶ 258; Cent. Bucks SAC ¶ 258; Livermore SAC ¶ 260; Broward
`SAC ¶ 260; Escambia SAC ¶ 258 (all same).
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-mc-00169-PKC Document 3 Filed 02/03/21 Page 9 of 23
`
`
`
`•
`
`•
`
`“An assortment of lobbyists, trade associations, and online publications
`have coordinated with the e-cigarette industry, including JLI and the Altria
`Defendants, to promote a consistent message that consuming e-cigarettes is
`not harmful, that nicotine is not harmful, and that the impacts of e-cigarettes
`are greatly exaggerated. These organizations receive funding from the e-
`cigarette industry, feature executives on those companies’ boards of
`directors, and in return, promote industry products, industry views, or fund
`‘independent’ studies of their own that reach the same conclusions as e-
`cigarette industry-funded research.” Three Vill. SAC ¶ 259 (emphases
`added); SAC ¶ 255 (same).4
`
`“A 2017 report in The Verge detailed the e-cigarette industry’s apparently
`coordinated efforts to use biased research to downplay the risks of
`consuming e-cigarettes. For example, e-cigarette manufacturers routinely
`conduct studies focusing on the ‘good news’ about e-cigarettes, i.e. they
`release less harmful aerosolized chemicals than combustible cigarettes, or
`that their aerosol lingers for less time indoors than combustible cigarettes.
`Industry-funded authors then regularly cite to each other’s studies in their
`own research. On information and belief, JLI and Altria, among others in
`the e-cigarette industry, funnel their industry-funded studies to friendly
`pro-industry groups knowing that those entities will misrepresent the results
`as evidence that e-cigarettes are safe, or not harmful.” Three Vill. SAC
`¶ 279 (emphases added); SAC ¶ 275 (same).5
`
`•
`
`“Throughout 2018, the FDA put JLI and others in the e-cigarette industry
`on notice that their practices of marketing to minors needed to stop.” Three
`Vill. SAC ¶ 493 (emphasis added); SAC ¶ 483 (same).6
`But despite their recognition of the contributing effects of other actors and ENDS products, the
`
`public-entity plaintiffs ask that JLI be ordered to “[f]ully abat[e] the epidemic of youth vaping.”
`
`Three Vill. SAC ¶ 759; see also id. ¶¶ 650–61 (outlining requested relief and seeking “an order
`
`providing for the abatement of the public nuisance that Defendants have created or assisted in the
`
`
`4 See also Tucson Unified SAC ¶ 259; Cent. Bucks SAC ¶ 259; Livermore SAC ¶ 261; Broward
`SAC ¶ 261; Escambia SAC ¶ 259 (all same).
`
`5 See also Tucson Unified SAC ¶ 279; Cent. Bucks SAC ¶ 279; Livermore SAC ¶ 281; Broward
`SAC ¶ 281; Escambia SAC ¶ 279 (all same).
`
`6 See also Tucson Unified SAC ¶ 493; Cent. Bucks SAC ¶ 493; Livermore SAC ¶ 495; Broward
`SAC ¶ 495; Escambia SAC ¶ 493 (all same).
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-mc-00169-PKC Document 3 Filed 02/03/21 Page 10 of 23
`
`
`
`creation of, and enjoining Defendants from future conduct contributing to the public nuisance
`
`described above”).7
`
`Beyond the public nuisance claims, the various MDL complaints are rife with allegations
`
`comparing JLI’s practices with those of the industry. For instance, the class-action plaintiffs allege
`
`that “the JUUL e-cigarette device[] was a new entry into the existing electronic nicotine delivery
`
`systems (‘ENDS’) market,” and that it was “intentionally designed” to “vastly expand the market
`
`by capturing and addicting individuals—specifically including youth users—who had not
`
`previously used tobacco or ENDS products.” In re Juul Labs, Inc., 2020 WL 6271173, at *2
`
`(emphases added). Plaintiffs further allege, with reference to industry practices and products, that
`
`JLI “allegedly achieved this by creating a highly addictive product that produced high ‘buzz’ levels
`
`with lower throat harshness and discomfort than prior tobacco or existing ENDS products,”
`
`ultimately “achiev[ing] not only market dominance in the ENDS market but also … expand[ing]
`
`the pipeline of new nicotine addicts through their three-pronged approach: (i) product design to
`
`maximize addiction; (ii) mass deception; and (iii) targeting of youth.” Id. (emphases added); see
`
`also id. at *3 (noting that the “essential facts” in the personal-injury cases “are materially similar
`
`to those alleged in the CAC”); id. at *4–5 (similar as to public-entity cases, with the addition of
`
`public-nuisance claims). To take a handful of examples (beyond the allegations duplicated in the
`
`public-entity complaints, see supra pp. 3–4), the class-action plaintiffs allege:
`
`•
`
`“The availability of e-liquids in flavors that appeal to youth increases rates
`of e-cigarette adoption by minors.” SAC ¶ 155 (emphases added).
`
`•
`
`“[T]he form of nicotine JUUL pods contain is particularly potent. JUUL’s
`use of ‘strength’ to indicate concentration by weight is also at odds with the
`industry standard of reporting concentration by volume, leading consumers
`to believe it contains less nicotine than other formulations advertised as 6%
`
`7 See also Tucson Unified SAC ¶ 760; Cent. Bucks SAC ¶ 755; Livermore SAC ¶ 759; Broward
`SAC ¶ 760; Escambia SAC ¶ 749 (all same).
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-mc-00169-PKC Document 3 Filed 02/03/21 Page 11 of 23
`
`
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`nicotine, when JUUL pods in fact contain approximately the same nicotine
`as a solution that is 6% nicotine by volume.” Id. ¶ 212 (emphases added).
`
`“One of the main reasons e-cigarettes like JUUL were so appealing from an
`investment and business development perspective
`is
`that, unlike
`combustible cigarettes, e-cigarettes were relatively unregulated. This
`regulatory void was not an accident; the cigarette industry, and then the e-
`cigarette industry, spent significant resources blocking, frustrating, and
`delaying government action.” Id. ¶ 608 (emphasis added).8
`
`“Simultaneously, the e-cigarette industry continued to market their
`products to youth, and it coordinated to sow doubt and confusion about the
`addictiveness and health impacts of e-cigarettes.” Id. ¶ 618 (emphasis
`added).9
`
`“By the time the FDA acted, youth consumption of e-cigarettes had already
`reached an all-time high, and the e-cigarette industry’s presence on social
`media became an unstoppable force.” Id. ¶ 660 (emphasis added).
`
`B.
`
`Logic’s Role In The Alleged ENDS Public-Health Crisis
`
`Logic is among the leading manufacturers in the ENDS industry whose alleged collective
`
`actions plaintiffs repeatedly invoke in their complaints. See supra pp. 3–6. Logic “manufactures
`
`electronic cigarettes” and “offers a battery-powered device that provides inhaled doses of nicotine
`
`and non-nicotine vaporized solution.” Bloomberg, Logic Technology Development LLC,
`
`https://bloom.bg/2UzS5fp (last visited Feb. 3, 2021). Logic was “[f]ounded in 2010,” Logic, Why
`
`Logic?, https://bit.ly/38RjL87 (last visited Feb. 3, 2021), but quickly came to hold a significant
`
`role in the ENDS market. By the time of its acquisition by Japan Tobacco Inc. in April 2015,
`
`
`8 See also, e.g., id. p.89, ¶¶ 52, 605, 613, 616, 618–19 (additional allegations involving “others in
`the e-cigarette industry,” “the rest of the e-cigarette industry,” “industry group[s] that shared
`information and coordinated public statements regarding vaping,” “the e-cigarette industry,” “e-
`cigarette products,” “a common … e-cigarette industry refrain,” “e-cigarette industry lobbying,”
`and “pro-e-cigarette lobbyists”).
`
`9 See also, e.g., id. ¶ 499 (“Even before 2017, Altria and Altria Client Services—as with anyone
`paying attention to the e-vapor industry at the time—were well aware that JLI had been targeting
`kids with its youthful marketing.”) (emphasis added).
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-mc-00169-PKC Document 3 Filed 02/03/21 Page 12 of 23
`
`
`
`Logic was reportedly “the third largest e-cigarette company in U.S. convenience stores with about
`
`a 20% market share” and was considered “a proven e-cigarette brand.” See Tripp Mickle, Japan
`
`Tobacco to Acquire U.S. Electronic Cigarette Company Logic Technology Development, Wall St.
`
`J., Apr. 30, 2015, https://on.wsj.com/2IRp1gM. Logic currently holds itself out as “one of the
`
`most popular electronic cigarette brands in the country,” and “the leader in Premium Electronic
`
`Cigarettes.” Logic, About Logic, https://bit.ly/2HfCnDo (last visited Feb. 3, 2021).10 It established
`
`that leadership position by selling e-cigarettes and ENDS products with flavors like Cherry,
`
`Vanilla, Watermelon, and Berry Mint. At least some of Logic’s products bear a striking visual
`
`resemblance to JLI’s products, and the two are often compared. See, e.g., Becky Spencer-Davies,
`
`Logic Vape Compact Vs. JUUL, Vape & Juice Ltd., https://bit.ly/2IV2NuS (last visited Feb. 3,
`
`2021).
`
`C.
`
`JLI’s Subpoena And Logic’s Blanket Refusal To Produce Documents
`
`The wide-ranging public-nuisance claims by the public-entity plaintiffs as well as the
`
`multitude of allegations concerning the ENDS industry in the other complaints prompted JLI to
`
`serve Logic—along with other ENDS manufacturers—with a third-party subpoena. See Ex. A
`
`(09/24/20 JLI Subpoena to Logic). JLI requested certain documents relating to (1) marketing and
`
`promotion; (2) sales; (3) websites, age verification, and product oversight; (4) budgeting and
`
`spending; (5) contact with schools, camps, churches, or tribes; (6) labeling; (7) product design and
`
`testing; and (8) communications with government bodies. See id. at pp.5–15. JLI also provided
`
`
`10 See also Logic, FAQs: Who is Logic?, https://bit.ly/2IIbZ5o (last visited Feb. 3, 2021) (“Logic
`is a leader in Premium Electronic Cigarettes. Logic currently offers the Power rechargeable e-cig,
`the innovative Pro vaporizer, and the revolutionary Vapeleaf tobacco vaporizer.”); Logic, Why
`Logic?, https://bit.ly/38RjL87 (last visited Feb. 3, 2021) (“Logic is a leading producer of premium
`electronic cigarettes, and a proud favorite of New York vapers year after year.”).
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-mc-00169-PKC Document 3 Filed 02/03/21 Page 13 of 23
`
`
`
`Logic with a copy of the Amended Stipulated Protective Order entered in the MDL, which
`
`establishes protections for information produced by non-parties.11
`
`After JLI served Logic with the subpoena, JLI and Logic conferred regarding JLI’s
`
`requests. As part of these meet-and-confer efforts, JLI “provided several examples of why the
`
`documents are relevant, including to provide insight into Logic’s role in the alleged e-cigarette
`
`‘epidemic’ among underage users, to defend against plaintiffs’ public nuisance claims against JLI,
`
`and to provide information regarding standards and practices within the ENDS industry.” Ex. B
`
`(10/22/20 T. Weir Ltr. to T. Yoo) at 1. Logic insisted that such information—including
`
`information relevant to contemporaneous industry practices and standards—was only “indirectly
`
`relevant,” so it was “not convinced” that Logic had an obligation to produce any responsive
`
`documents. Id. Logic also asserted that providing even a single document would “impose an
`
`undue burden on Logic.” Id. at 2. Logic maintained that all of the documents requested in the
`
`subpoena “have nothing to do with the claims in the In re Juul MDL,” and that there was no
`
`“plausible justification” for the requests. See Ex. C (11/02/20 T. Yoo Ltr. to T. Weir) at 1. Logic’s
`
`protestations ring particularly hollow given that Logic has been sued in at least one action that is
`
`currently pending transfer to the MDL, Toth v. JLI et al., No. 20-cv-8517 (S.D.N.Y.), and that
`
`Logic’s affiliate, JT International U.S.A., Inc., has been subpoenaed by the MDL plaintiffs.
`
`Although JLI has explained that it remains “willing to engage in good faith discussions”
`
`over how to reduce the burden on Logic, Ex. B at 2, Logic served blanket objections to the
`
`subpoena and refused to produce any documents. See generally Ex. D (11/02/20 Logic Objections
`
`& Responses). Other ENDS market participants are complying with the subpoenas JLI has issued.
`
`
`11 See generally Amended Stipulated Protective Order, In re Juul Labs, Inc., Mktg., Sales Pracs.,
`& Prods. Liab. Litig., No. 3:19-md-02913-WHO (N.D. Cal. Dec. 13, 2019) (ECF 308).
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-mc-00169-PKC Document 3 Filed 02/03/21 Page 14 of 23
`
`
`
`III.
`
`JURISDICTION
`
`This Court has jurisdiction to enforce this subpoena. Under Rule 45(d), the party serving
`
`a subpoena generally “may move the court for the district where compliance is required for an
`
`order compelling production or inspection.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(2)(B)(i).
`
`IV. ARGUMENT
`
`Logic’s blanket refusal to comply with the subpoena is unfounded and impermissible, and
`
`Logic should be compelled to provide the requested information. “Although not unlimited,
`
`relevance, for purposes of discovery, is an extremely broad concept.” Chen-Oster v. Goldman
`
`Sachs & Co., 293 F.R.D. 557, 561 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (citations omitted). The Federal Rules of Civil
`
`Procedure “broadly interpret relevancy, such that each party has the right to the discovery of ‘any
`
`nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs
`
`of the case.’” Jones v. Nutiva, Inc., 2016 WL 5858467, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 7, 2016) (quoting
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1)). Discovery requests are “relevant” when they seek admissible evidence
`
`or evidence that is “reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Fed.
`
`R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). “The same broad scope of discovery set out in Rule 26 applies to the discovery
`
`that may be sought pursuant to Rule 45.” Colonies Partners LP v. Cty. of San Bernadino, 2019
`
`WL 7905894, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2019); see also Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe, 2016 WL
`
`5478433, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2016) (“[S]ubpoenas issued under Rule 45 are ‘subject to the
`
`relevance requirement of Rule 26(b)(1).’” (citation omitted)).12
`
`
`12 See also, e.g., Schneider v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., 2017 WL 3124014, at *2 (N.D. Cal.
`July 24, 2017) (“The scope of discovery through a Rule 45 subpoena is the same as the scope of
`discovery permitted under Rule 26(b).”); Micron Tech., Inc. v. Tessera, Inc., 2006 WL 1646133,
`at *2 (N.D. Cal. June 14, 2006) (recognizing that the “same relevancy standard applies to third-
`party subpoenas”); Amini Innovation Corp. v. McFerran Home Furnishings, Inc., 300 F.R.D. 406,
`409 (C.D. Cal. 2014) (same).
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-mc-00169-PKC Document 3 Filed 02/03/21 Page 15 of 23
`
`
`
`JLI’s subpoena seeks documents vital to the claims and defenses in this MDL, which
`
`involve extensive allegations about the creation of an alleged public-health crisis by the entire
`
`ENDS industry. Production of information from Logic—a key early participant in the ENDS
`
`market that is featured and attacked throughout plaintiffs’ complaints—is reasonable and
`
`proportional to the needs of this case. And Logic has failed to substantiate any of its claims
`
`regarding undue burden.
`
`A.
`
`JLI’s Subpoena Seeks Relevant Documents.
`
`JLI’s subpoena seeks documents that are highly relevant to the claims and potential
`
`defenses at issue in this MDL. As set forth above, the allegations and claims in the MDL assert a
`
`massive “youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis,” that has displaced traditional
`
`combustible cigarettes. Three Vill. SAC p.211 (capitalization altered); see also id. ¶ 1 (“The
`
`United States … now faces a youth nicotine epidemic of historic proportions.”); SAC ¶ 1 (same).13
`
`Plaintiffs’ broad allegations have placed the business practices and ENDS products of other market
`
`participants at issue in this case. In particular, plaintiffs’ allegations repeatedly invoke the actions
`
`of “others in the e-cigarette industry,” including alleged coordination within and a