Sharon Hoffman v. Goli Nutrition, Inc.
2:23-cv-06597
| C.D. Cal. | Aug 25, 2025|
Check Treatment|
Docket
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES —- GENERAL ‘<O’
Case No. = 2:23-cv-06597-CAS-MAAx Date August 25, 2025
Title Sharon Hoffman et al. v. Goli Nutrition, Inc. et al.
Present: The Honorable CHRISTINA A. SNYDER
Catherine Jeang Laura Elias N/A
Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No.
Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants:
Max Folkenflik Annie Barberian
David Kenner Garrett Biedermann
Melissa Ginsberg
Sean Eskovitz
Daniel Nowicki
James Tsouvalas
Philip O’Beirne
Justin Goldstein
Kaylee Racs
Proceedings: ZOOM HEARING RE: VMG’S MOTION TO BIFURCATE
(Dkt. 257, filed on July 28, 2025)
I. INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND
The background of this case is well-known to the parties and set forth in the
Court’s December 2, 2024 order. See dkt. 200.
On October 4, 2024, plaintiffs Sharon and Odelya Hoffman (the “Hoffmans”),
RGL Holdings LLC (“RGL Holdings’), RGL Management LLC (“RGL Management’),
and Vitamin Friends LLC (“Vitamin Friends”) (collectively, “‘plaintiffs’’) filed the
operative second amended complaint against defendants Goli Nutrition, Inc. (Canada),
Goli Nutrition, Inc. (Delaware), 12416913 Canada Inc., Deepak Agarwal, Michael
Bitensky, Randy Bitensky (collectively, “the Goli defendants”), VMG Partners, LLC,
VMG Partners Mentors Circle [V L.P., VMG Partners IV, LP (collectively, “the VMG
defendants”), Wayne Wu (“Wu”), and Jonathan Marshall (“Marshall”), MeriCal Inc.
(“MeriCal”), DLA Piper LLP (“DLA Piper”), and Roger Tyre. Dkt. 155 (“SAC”).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES —- GENERAL ‘<O’
Case No. 2:23-cv-06597-CAS-MAAx Date August 25, 2025
Title “Sharon Hoffman etal. v.Goli Nutrition, Inc.etal =”
The SAC asserted eight claims for relief: (1) Vitamin Friends asserted claims
against the Goli defendants, the VMG defendants, and MeriCal pursuant to the Defend
Trade Secrets Act (“DTSA”), 18 U.S.C. § 1836, et seg.; (2) Vitamin Friends asserted
claims for fraudulent misrepresentation against the Goli defendants and the VMG
defendants; (3) Vitamin Friends asserted claims for breaches of fiduciary duties against
Goli and the VMG defendants; (4) RGL Holdings asserted claims for violations of
Section 1962(d) of RICO against VMG Partners, Wu, and Marshall: (5) Sharon Hoffman
asserted a legal malpractice claim against DLA Piper; (6) Sharon Hoffman asserted a
claim for breach of fiduciary duty against DLA Piper; (7) Odelya Hoffman asserted an
intentional infliction of emotional distress claim against the Goli defendants and the
VMG defendants: and (8) Vitamin Friends asserted a conversion claim against Goll.
SAC 140-170.
On December 2, 2024, the Court granted in part and denied in part motions to
dismiss filed by the Goli defendants, the VMG defendants, and DLA Piper. Dkt. 200 at
28. The remaining claims are as follows: the first claim, under the DTSA, against the
Goli defendants, the VMG defendants, and MeriCal; the third claim against Goli; the fifth
and sixth claims against DLA Piper; and the eighth claim against Goli. See id.; see also
dkt. 96.
On July 28, 2025, the VMG defendants filed the instant motion to bifurcate
discovery. Dkt. 257 (“Mot.”). On July 31, 2025, defendants Deepak Agarwal, Michael
Bitensky, and Randy Bitensky filed a notice of joinder in the VMG defendants’ motion to
bifurcate. Dkt. 260. On August 4, 2025, plaintiffs filed an opposition. Dkt. 262
(“Opp.”). On August 11, 2025, the VMG defendants filed a reply. Dkt. 267 (“Reply”).
On August 22, 2025, defendant MeriCal, LLC filed a notice of joinder in the VMG
defendants’ motion to bifurcate. Dkt. 274.
On August 25, 2025, the Court held a hearing. Having carefully considered the
parties’ arguments and submissions, the Court finds and concludes as follows.
I. LEGAL STANDARD
Under Federal Rule 42(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Rule 42(b)”),
this Court has discretion to bifurcate proceedings “|f]or convenience or to avoid
prejudice, or to expedite and economize.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(b). Rule 42(b) gives the
Court “power to limit discovery to the segregated issues . . . One of the purposes of Rule
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES —- GENERAL ‘<O’
Case No. = 2:23-cv-06597-CAS-MAAx Date August 25, 2025
Title Sharon Hoffman et al. v. Goli Nutrition, Inc. et al.
42(b) is to permit deferral of costly and possibly unnecessary discovery proceedings
pending resolution of potentially dispositive preliminary issues.” Ellingson Timber Co.
v. Great N. Ry. Co., 424 F.2d 497, 499(9th Cir. 1970). “Courts consider several factors in determining whether bifurcation is appropriate, including separability of the issues, simplification of discovery and conservation of resources, and prejudice to the parties.” McDermott v. Potter, No. C 07-06300 SI,2010 WL 956808
, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 12, 2010); accord Yomi v. Sec’y Dep’t of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 2:23-CV-01740- MEMEF-E,2024 WL 5275065
, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2024). “Bifurcation is particularly appropriate when resolution of a single claim or issue could be dispositive of the entire case.” Drennan v. Md. Cas. Co.,366 F. Supp. 2d 1002, 1007
(D. Nev. 2005). The party pursuing bifurcation bears the burden of establishing that “bifurcation will promote judicial economy or avoid inconvenience or prejudice to the parties.” Karpenski v. Am. Gen. Life Cos.,916 F. Supp. 2d 1188, 1190
(W.D. Wash. 2012).
DISCUSSION
The VMG defendants argue that the Court should exercise its discretion to
bifurcate discovery to first address plaintiff Vitamin Friends’ ownership of trade secrets
because establishing plaintiff's lack of ownership would be dispositive of plaintiffs
DTSA claim. Specifically, VMG defendants argue that: (1) ownership is dispositive of
Vitamin Friends’ standing; (2) bifurcation would promote judicial economy, reduce costs,
be more convenient for the parties and the Court, and not prejudice Vitamin Friends.
Mot. at 12-18.
Deepak Agarwal, Michael Bitensky, and Randy Bitensky join the VMG
defendants’ motion on the basis that they share the same interest in discovering whether
Vitamin Friends can prove that it owns the trade secrets and has standing to bring this
claim. Dkt 260. at 4. MeriCal, LLC joins in defendants’ motion. See dkt. 274 at 3-4.
In opposition, plaintiffs argue that the Court should deny bifurcation of discovery
because doing so would be unnecessary and highly prejudicial. Opp. at 3.
In reply, the VMG defendants argue that (1) plaintiffs do not dispute that standing
is a threshold and dispositive issue; (2) bifurcation is the most efficient approach to
conducting discovery here; and (3) bifurcation would not prejudice plaintiffs because it
would be limited to their DTSA claim and would not affect discovery for plaintiffs’
separate malpractice claims. Reply at 4-6.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES —- GENERAL ‘<O’
Case No. = 2:23-cv-06597-CAS-MAAx Date August 25, 2025
Title Sharon Hoffman et al. v. Goli Nutrition, Inc. et al.
The Court finds that it is appropriate to bifurcate discovery of Vitamin Friends’
DTSA claim to first address Vitamin Friends’ ownership of trade secrets, which is
foundational to the claim. The Court has inherent discretion to order phased discovery.
Rule 42(b) gives the Court discretion to “order a separate trial of one or more separate
issues” in the interest of “convenience, to avoid prejudice, or to expedite and economize
[litigation].” Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(b). Satisfying any single factor is sufficient grounds for
bifurcation. Fitbit, Inc. v. Aliphcom, No. 5:15-CV-04073-EJD, 2016 WL 7888033, at *1 (N.D. Cal. May 27, 2016) (“Rule 42(b)’s standards are read ‘in the disjunctive instead of in the conjunctive.””). Moreover, “[b]ifurcation is particularly appropriate when resolution of a single claim or issue could be dispositive of the entire case.” Drennan,366 F. Supp. 2d at 1007
. The Court analyzes these relevant factors in turn.
A. Disposition of a Threshold Issue
First, the Court considers whether bifurcation of discovery could dispose of a key
issue. “One favored purpose of bifurcation is to avoid a difficult question by first dealing
with an easier, dispositive issue.” Wixen Music Publ’g, Inc. v. Triller, Inc., No. 2:20-
CV-10515-JVS-AFMx, 2021 WL 4816627, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 11, 2021) (citing Hirst v. Gertzen,676 F.2d 1252, 1261
(9th Cir. 1982)).
The Court agrees with the VMG defendants that Vitamin Friends’ ownership of the
alleged trade secrets could be dispositive of the DTSA claim because ownership is
foundational to Vitamin Friends’ standing. Mot. at 12: Agensys, Inc. v. Regents of Univ.
of California, No. CV 24-3961-JFW-PDx, 2024 WL 5679162, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 22,
2024) (“[I]n the absence of ownership of the purported trade secret, a plaintiff lacks
standing to assert a DTSA claim.”). The Court notes that, in their opposition brief,
plaintiffs do not dispute that standing is a dispositive issue. See generally Opp.
The Court also agrees with the VMG defendants that “[e]ven where courts have
denied a defendant’s motion to dismiss, courts [may] bifurcate discovery to resolve
threshold standing issues first.” Mot. at 13; Wixen, 2021 WL 4816627, at *1-3
(bifurcating discovery on the “dispositive” and “threshold issue” of standing even where
the Court had not disposed of the issue of standing in a motion to dismiss). Previously,
the Court found that, in the SAC, Vitamin Friends adequately alleged its standing to
pursue its DTSA claim. Dkt. 200 at 23. Specifically, the Court determined that Vitamin
Friends adequately alleged that it was the owner of the trade secret formulations of
Vitamin Friends’ products and that those trade secrets were misappropriated. Id.; SAC §
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES —- GENERAL ‘<O’
Case No. = 2:23-cv-06597-CAS-MAAx Date August 25, 2025
Title Sharon Hoffman et al. v. Goli Nutrition, Inc. et al.
141-144. These findings do not preclude the Court from bifurcating discovery at this
juncture, if appropriate under Rule 42(b). See Wixen, 2021 WL 4816627, at *2-3.
Therefore, the Court finds that the dispositive nature of the standing issue favors
bifurcation.
B. Judicial Economy
Second, the Court considers whether bifurcation would make discovery more
efficient.
The Court finds that bifurcation would be more convenient for the parties, promote
judicial economy, and reduce costs. First, bifurcation would be more convenient for the
parties and the Court because resolving the question of trade secrets ownership is a
discrete issue with a more limited universe of evidence and witnesses. See Mot. at 17.
Regarding judicial economy, bifurcation could more efficiently reveal that Vitamin
Friends does not own the trade secrets at issue and thus lacks standing to pursue its
DTSA claim, thereby minimizing judicial oversight over discovery. Third, bifurcation
could also reduce costs, as resolving Vitamin Friends’ standing for its DTSA claim first
could allow the parties to avoid costly and protracted discovery on the merits. See Mot.
at 15; Wixen, 2021 WL 4816627, at *1 (one ground for bifurcation is to defer “costly and
possibly unnecessary discovery”).
The Court 1s unpersuaded by plaintiffs’ argument that bifurcation is “unnecessary
because nothing stops VMG from pursuing its proposed discovery which it claims can be
completed in a manner of weeks.” Opp. at 3. Under Rule 42(b), just because bifurcation
is not necessary to pursuing discovery on an issue does not prevent the Court from
ordering bifurcated discovery on efficiency grounds. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(b). Rather,
the relevant considerations include whether bifurcation would promote judicial economy
and convenience for the parties. Id. As discussed, bifurcating discovery here would
potentially conserve resources on a case-dispositive issue of standing.
Therefore, the Court finds that this factor also favors bifurcation.
C. ‘Prejudice
Third, the Court considers the potential impact of bifurcation on prejudice to the
parties. A court should order bifurcation “only when doing so. . . will not unduly
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES —- GENERAL ‘<O’
Case No. = 2:23-cv-06597-CAS-MAAx Date August 25, 2025
Title Sharon Hoffman et al. v. Goli Nutrition, Inc. et al.
prejudice any party.” Aerojet Rocketdyne, Inc. v. Glob. Aerospace, Inc., No. 2:17-CV-
01515-KJM-AC, 2018 WL 4027024, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 23, 2018).
The Court finds that bifurcation has the potential to only minimally prejudice
plaintiff. Because limiting discovery to first address the standing issue would necessarily
narrow the universe of discoverable evidence, bifurcated discovery could be completed
more quickly. See Mot. at 18 (claiming that bifurcated discovery could be “completed
within weeks” and noting that the VMG defendants have already served discovery
requests to plaintiffs on the standing issue).
The Court 1s unpersuaded by plaintiffs’ argument that bifurcation is “highly
prejudicial” “because it blocks any discovery... against DLA Piper on claims entirely
unrelated to the DTSA claim, as well [as]... discovery against VMG which is necessary
to move this years old case forward.” Opp. at 3. This argument is misplaced. As the
VMG defendants note, they “ask[] that the Court bifurcate discovery on the DTSA claim”
and take “no position” on discovery related to DLA Piper. Mot. at 5 (emphasis in
original). Therefore, ordering phased discovery on the standing issue with respect to
Vitamin Friends’ DTSA claim would not preclude discovery for plaintiffs’ other claims.
Therefore, the Court finds that this factor favors bifurcation.
IV. CONCLUSION
In accordance with the foregoing, the Court GRANTS defendants’ motion to
bifurcate discovery with regard to the DTSA claim.
The Court DIRECTS the parties to present a joint proposed timetable for
completing discovery on the standing issue, no later than September 2, 2025.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
00 : 18
Initials of Preparer COMM