Sundance Slope LLC v. Trout-Blue Chelan-Magi LLC, 2:23-cv-00083

Plaintiff, Sundance Slope, LLC, brought an action against defendants Trout-Blue Chelan-MAGI, LLC and its former CEO, alleging wrongful interference with a contract and retaliatory conduct related to the SugarBee® Program.
Plaintiff served discovery requests (Requests for Production, "RFPs") on the defendant, which responded with objections, partial production, and ultimately withheld further responsive documents citing confidentiality concerns.
Plaintiff believed the confidentiality agreement proposed by defendant was overbroad, leading to a dispute over the scope and protection of the requested information.
The court's prior order denied plaintiff's motion to compel, while granting the defendant's motion to quash third-party subpoenas; plaintiff then moved for reconsideration, arguing the court misunderstood the distinct issues.
Upon reconsideration, the Court concluded the plaintiff’s discovery requests were relevant and proportional to the contested issues, and that the defendant did not show an undue burden.
The Court vacated its prior denial and ordered defendants to produce the requested documents, with or without a confidentiality agreement, by a specified date, while denying attorney fees due to the court's delay.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether defendants must fully respond to RFPs	RFPs are relevant and proportional, defendant is withholding without justification	RFPs are burdensome, irrelevant, confidentiality concerns	Defendant must produce responsive documents
Whether confidentiality agreement is required	Proposed agreement is overbroad and unnecessary for production	Will not produce further documents without agreed confidentiality terms	Documents must be produced regardless
Whether court's previous order was proper	Court misunderstood facts and legal distinctions between motions	Previous objections to RFPs valid, order should not be altered	Motion for reconsideration is granted
Attorney's fees for motion to compel	Plaintiff sought fees for having to compel discovery	Delay not defendant’s fault, no basis for fees	Fees denied (delay was due to court)

Kona Enterprises, Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877 (9th Cir. 2000) (explaining reconsideration is extraordinary and should be used sparingly)
Smith v. Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist., 727 F.3d 950 (9th Cir. 2013) (outlining standards for rehearing/reconsideration)
Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340 (1978) (defining broad relevance standard for discovery)