Youngevity International, Corp. v. Smith
3:16-cv-00704
S.D. Cal.Dec 29, 2017Background
- Youngevity moved for and received leave to file a Fourth Amended Complaint (FAC) adding two new defendants (Michael Randolph and Michael Casperson) and new Lanham Act allegations about Wakaya’s advertising and product claims; the FAC was filed Nov. 6, 2017.
- The district court’s scheduling order set an amendment deadline of April 21, 2017 and discovery had closed Sept. 22, 2017; Youngevity sought leave to reopen limited discovery after the FAC was filed.
- Youngevity requested written discovery to Randolph and Casperson, depositions of five witnesses (including Dr. Shane Harada and Carolee Koehn), supplementing an expert (Dr. David Stewart) with consumer surveys, and retention of a new expert (Dr. Richard Rucker) to test curcumin content.
- Wakaya opposed all discovery as duplicative, irrelevant, unduly burdensome, and also argued Youngevity failed to meet-and-confer about certain requests.
- The court found Youngevity acted with sufficient diligence to show good cause to modify the scheduling order, but denied discovery where Youngevity failed to meet-and-confer or failed to show the witness had relevant information.
- Court granted limited discovery: written discovery to Randolph and Casperson; depositions of Harada and Koehn; limited expert supplementation re: Plan to a Grand consumer survey; retention of Rucker for curcumin testing. Depositions of Lundell, PharmaTech Rule 30(b)(6), and a second BulaFIT survey were denied for meet-and-confer failures; DeHart deposition denied for lack of shown relevance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether good cause exists to reopen discovery after leave to amend | Youngevity was diligent: moved to amend before deadline, filed FAC promptly, and may only now need discovery on new claims/parties | Reopening is prejudicial, duplicative, and moot given prior discovery and summary-judgment schedule | Good cause found; scheduling order modified limitedly because plaintiff acted diligently |
| Whether plaintiff complied with meet-and-confer obligations for proposed discovery | Omitted details were immaterial because defendant refused any new discovery | Plaintiff failed to disclose some specific requests during court-ordered meet-and-confer | Requests tied to omitted meet-and-confer (Lundell, PharmaTech 30(b)(6), second BulaFIT survey) denied for failure to meet-and-confer |
| Whether written discovery to newly-named defendants (Randolph, Casperson) is proper | Discovery is needed and parties could not be served earlier as nonparties; requests are limited and proportional | Prior depositions covered issues; subpoenas could have been issued earlier; much material already produced | Granted: limited RFPs and interrogatories allowed as relevant and proportional |
| Whether depositions and expert work (Harada, Koehn, DeHart, Stewart supplement, Rucker) are permissible | Harada and Koehn have direct knowledge of BulaFIT promotion and claims; need consumer surveys and lab testing to support new Lanham claims | Deposition testimony and expert testing are duplicative of prior discovery; Stewart’s surveys were deficient; prior expert Glade tested curcumin | Harada and Koehn depositions granted; DeHart deposition denied for lack of demonstrated relevance; Stewart may supplement with Plan to a Grand consumer survey; Rucker allowed for curcumin testing |
Key Cases Cited
- Hunt v. County of Orange, 672 F.3d 606 (9th Cir.) (district courts have broad discretion to manage discovery)
- Avila v. Willits Envtl. Remediation Trust, 633 F.3d 828 (9th Cir.) (trial courts’ control over discovery and litigation course)
- Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604 (9th Cir.) (good-cause/diligence standard for modifying scheduling orders)
- City of Pomona v. SQM N. Am. Corp., 866 F.3d 1060 (9th Cir.) (factors for reopening discovery)
- Zivkovic v. S. California Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080 (9th Cir.) (if moving party not diligent, modification should be denied)
- United States ex rel. Schumer v. Hughes Aircraft Co., 63 F.3d 1512 (9th Cir.) (factors informing modification of scheduling orders)