Obesity Research Institute, LLC v. Fiber Research International, LLC
3:15-cv-00595
S.D. Cal.Jun 23, 2017Background
- ORI (plaintiff) objected to a magistrate judge’s May 12, 2016 order that deemed admitted FRI’s Request for Admission (RFA) No. 19 concerning ORI’s intent to influence consumers with advertising claims for Lipozene.
- RFA No. 19 asked ORI to "Admit that YOUR ADVERTISING CLAIMS OF CLINICAL PROOF OF WEIGHT/FAT LOSS for Lipozene during the STATUTORY PERIOD were intended to influence consumers to purchase Lipozene."
- ORI responded that it could not admit or deny because the request improperly separated a single statement from an overall campaign and stated generally that advertising is intended to inform consumers.
- The magistrate judge found ORI’s answer evasive under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36(a) and deemed the RFA admitted.
- ORI objected to the magistrate’s order arguing (1) the RFA requested an impermissible legal conclusion, (2) its response complied literally, and (3) the proper remedy was to order an amended response rather than deem admission.
- The district court reviewed the objection, applying deferential "clearly erroneous" review to the magistrate’s factual/discretionary rulings and independent review to pure legal questions, and overruled ORI’s objection in full.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether RFA No. 19 improperly asks for a legal conclusion | RFA attempts to establish materiality (element of Lanham Act) by proxy and thus seeks a legal conclusion | RFA asks only for a factual admission about ORI’s intent to influence consumers | Court: RFA asks for fact (intent), not legal conclusion; intent ≠ materiality, so permissible |
| Whether ORI’s response complied with Rule 36 | ORI: its answer was literally compliant and properly qualified because advertising informs consumers; treating as admitted wrongly imputes specific intent | FRI: ORI’s answer was evasive and did not specifically admit or deny the question asked | Court: ORI’s response was evasive and noncompliant with Rule 36; magistrate did not clearly err in deeming the RFA admitted |
| Appropriate remedy for an evasive Rule 36 response | ORI: court should have ordered a further/amended response instead of deeming admitted | FRI: court may deem evasive or nonresponsive answers admitted under Rule 36(a) and Asea | Court: Rule 36(a)(6) permits either remedy; deeming admitted was within magistrate’s discretion |
| Standard of review for magistrate’s order | ORI: portions implicate legal error requiring de novo review | FRI: factual/discretionary rulings reviewed for clear error; legal questions reviewed independently | Court: applied deferential clear-error review to discretionary/factual rulings and independent review to legal issues; found no legal error and no clear error |
Key Cases Cited
- Concrete Pipe & Prods. of Cal., Inc. v. Constr. Laborers Pension Tr. of S. Cal., 508 U.S. 602 (1993) (describes the deferential "clearly erroneous" standard for factual/discretionary review)
- Asea, Inc. v. S. Pac. Transp. Co., 669 F.2d 1242 (9th Cir. 1981) (an evasive or nonresponsive answer to an RFA may be deemed admitted and district court has discretion to order admission)
- Skydrive Ariz., Inc. v. Quattrocchi, 673 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir. 2012) (explains materiality in Lanham Act false advertising claims and notes consumer surveys typically prove materiality)