Mooneyham v. Bactolac Pharmaceutical, Inc.
3:17-cv-00162
| M.D. Ala. | Mar 27, 2018Background
- This is a discovery dispute in a products-liability/related litigation: NaturMed (third-party plaintiff) moved to compel discovery from Bactolac (third-party defendant).
- NaturMed sought internal Bactolac documents, batch records, and depositions/names/addresses of employees (blenders) involved in producing the NaturMed product and other lots.
- Bactolac agreed to produce internal documents related to the NaturMed product and to make certain employees available, but contested other production and batch-sheet requests.
- The court applied Rule 26(b)(1)’s relevance standard and principles permitting broad discovery subject to limits for privacy/confidentiality and relevance to asserted claims/defenses.
- After oral argument, the magistrate judge granted in part and denied in part NaturMed’s motion to compel, setting deadlines for production and depositions and reserving the batch-sheet issue pending resolution of procedural conversion of claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Production of Bactolac internal documents related to the NaturMed product | Documents are relevant to NaturMed’s claims/defenses and reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence | Some production undue or irrelevant beyond product-specific records | Granted as to any responsive internal documents related to the NaturMed product; produce by April 16, 2018 |
| Names/addresses of employee blenders (including one no longer employed) | Identities and addresses are needed to pursue depositions and fact discovery | Privacy/irrelevance objections; asserted some employees already identified (Mario, Emilio) | Granted: produce full name and last known address of former employee and full name of currently employed blender by April 9, 2018; make current blender available for deposition within 60 days |
| Depositions of specified witnesses (Vijay Bhatt, Pailla Reddy, and employed blender) | Depositions are relevant and necessary | Bactolac agreed to produce these witnesses | Granted: make Bhatt, Reddy, and the employed blender available within 60 days |
| Production of batch sheets certifying ingredients for lots at issue | Batch sheets are relevant to NaturMed’s cross-claim concerning ingredient certification | Bactolac raised relevance and procedural objection because cross-claim not yet converted | Deferred: court reserved ruling on batch sheets pending NaturMed’s motion to convert counterclaims into cross-claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Burns v. Thiokol Chem. Corp., 483 F.2d 300 (5th Cir. 1973) (district courts have broad discretion in discovery rulings)
- Williams v. City of Dothan, 745 F.2d 1406 (11th Cir. 1984) (discovery conditions may be imposed to prevent harassment or abuse)
- Bridge C.A.T. Scan Assocs. v. Technicare Corp., 710 F.2d 940 (2d Cir. 1983) (limits on disclosure must balance competing interests)
- Adkins v. Christie, 488 F.3d 1324 (11th Cir. 2007) (discussing district court discretion under Rule 26)
- U.S. v. Microsoft Corp., 165 F.3d 952 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (Rule 26(b)(1) is flexible to accommodate relevant interests)
- Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20 (1984) (privacy and confidentiality are relevant considerations in discovery)