Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01631/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01631-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

1

14-cv-01631-LAB-JLB

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

David M. Lucas, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc.,

Defendant.

Case No.: 14-cv-01631-LAB-JLB

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ 

MOTION TO COMPEL

[ECF No. 36]

The Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion to compel documents from 

Defendant (ECF No. 36) as follows:

1. Plaintiff’s motion is deemed timely. On April 7, 2015, Defendant served 

its written objections to the document requests at issue in Plaintiffs’ motion to compel. 

(ECF No. 36-2.) Pending at that time was Defendant’s motion for judgment on the 

pleadings, which, if granted in full, would result in dismissal of this action. (ECF No. 

15.) Then, on May 11, 2015, the district court issued its order granting in part and 

denying in part Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. (ECF No. 33.) On 

June 12, 2015, Plaintiff’s counsel sought the Court’s assistance with the discovery 

disputes at issue. (ECF No. 34.) A minute order followed granting Plaintiffs leave to file 

a motion to compel by June 18, 2015. (ECF No. 35.) Plaintiffs filed the instant motion 

to compel on June 18, 2015. (ECF No. 36.) Having considered the unique procedural 

history of this case, the Court deems Plaintiff’s motion (ECF No. 36) to be timely filed 

despite the Court’s Civil Chambers Rule requiring discovery disputes be brought to the 

attention of the Court within thirty calendar days of the dispute arising.

Case 3:14-cv-01631-LAB-JLB Document 44 Filed 08/06/15 Page 1 of 3
2

14-cv-01631-LAB-JLB

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2. Defendant shall produce documents responsive to Request Nos. 5, 6, 10, 

13, 14, 17, 18, 20, 21, 24, 25 and 26 (documents relating to the sale or marketing of 

sportcoats or dress slacks). The Court overrules Defendant’s objection that Plaintiffs 

do not have standing to pursue discovery on products they did not purchase (i.e. sport 

coats and dress slacks). The discovery sought is relevant because, as alleged, Plaintiffs 

seek to bring claims on behalf of themselves and a plaintiff class defined as:

All persons who, while in the state of California and within four 

years of the filing of this Complaint (the “Class Period”), 

purchased a suit, dress pants and/or sportcoats/suit jackets from 

Jos. A. Bank, where the purchase price of the item was for a 

percentage or discount off an advertised former price, or where 

the purchase was for a suit, dress pants and/or sportcoat/suit 

jacket based on a former price in connection with an offer of at 

least one other “free” item of Jos. A. Bank apparel.

(ECF No. 11 at 11-12, ¶50.) Whether Plaintiffs have standing to represent this class may 

be raised in conjunction with the parties’ class certification briefing. Accordingly, by 

August 14, 2015, Defendant shall supplement its written responses, and serve its 

complete document production and privilege log responsive to Plaintiffs’ First Set of 

Requests for Production Nos. 5, 6, 10, 13, 14, 17, 18, 20, 21, 24, 25 and 26.

3. Defendant shall produce documents responsive to Request Nos. 2, 7 and 

22 (profit margins and costs of goods sold). The Court overrules Defendant’s objection 

that its profit margins and costs of goods sold are not relevant. The requests at issue seek 

information relevant to the issue of restitution. See Johns v. Bayer Corp., No. 09cv1935-

AJB (DHB), 2012 WL 1520030, at *4-*5 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 30, 2012) (“although the Court 

does not decide which proffered measure of restitution should apply here, it is reasonable 

to conclude that [Defendant’s] profits and expenses are . . . relevant to this litigation and 

discoverable”). Accordingly, by August 28, 2015, Defendant shall supplement its 

written responses, and serve its complete document production and privilege log 

responsive to Plaintiffs’ First Set of Requests for Production Nos. 2, 7 and 22.

/ / /

Case 3:14-cv-01631-LAB-JLB Document 44 Filed 08/06/15 Page 2 of 3
3

14-cv-01631-LAB-JLB

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4. Defendant shall produce documents responsive to Request Nos. 8 and 9

(communications regarding pricing strategy). The Court overrules Defendant’s 

objection that its communications regarding pricing strategy are not relevant to class 

certification. Discovery in this case is not bifurcated, and Defendant has not met is 

burden of showing that producing the communications at issue prior to a ruling on class 

certification would be unduly burdensome. Accordingly, by August 28, 2015, Defendant 

shall supplement its written responses, and serve its complete document production and 

privilege log responsive to Plaintiffs’ First Set of Requests for Production Nos. 8 and 9.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 6, 2015

Case 3:14-cv-01631-LAB-JLB Document 44 Filed 08/06/15 Page 3 of 3