Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00894/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00894-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Fraud

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DELIA WILSON, on behalf of herself and 

others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CONAIR CORPORATION,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:14-cv-00894-WBS-SAB

ORDER RE INFORMAL DISCOVERY 

DISPUTE

(ECF Nos. 65, 66, 67)

On September 9, 2015, the Court conducted an informal discovery dispute teleconference 

in this action. Counsel Leslie Hurst appeared for Plaintiff and counsel Ryan Saba and Momo 

Takahasi appeared for Defendant.

I.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and others similarly situated alleging 1) 

violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, California Civil Code § 1750, et seq., 2) 

violation of the Unfair Competition Law, California Business and Professions Code § 17200, et 

seq., and 3) breach of implied warranty.

Defendant manufactures a variety of curling irons, straightening irons, and curling 

brushes. (Compl. ¶ 1.) Defendant’s styling irons use a power cord connected to the iron via a 

Case 1:14-cv-00894-WBS-SAB Document 69 Filed 09/11/15 Page 1 of 7
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

“stress relief.” (Compl. ¶ 2.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant expressly and impliedly represent 

that their styling irons are well-designed and safe to use. (Compl. ¶ 4.) Plaintiff alleges that she, 

and others similarly situated, purchased Defendant’s styling irons based upon those 

representations regarding their safety and suffered injury from using the styling irons. (Compl. ¶ 

5.)

In Plaintiff’s case, Plaintiff alleges that she purchased a Conair Instant Heat 11⁄2” Curling 

Iron in early 2010. (Compl. ¶ 9.) Less than a month after it was purchased, the curling iron 

malfunctioned and would not turn on. (Compl. ¶ 13.) Plaintiff contacted Conair’s Customer 

Service Department and received a replacement curling iron. (Compl. ¶ 13.) On February 12, 

2014, the replacement curling iron malfunctioned, and the power cord began to crackle and emit 

sparks. (Compl. ¶ 14.) A flash of sparks caused burns on Plaintiff’s face and chest. (Compl. ¶ 

14.) Plaintiff received a corneal abrasion in her eye. (Compl. ¶ 15.) Plaintiff alleges that the 

curling iron failed at the point where the curling iron’s power cord meets the stress relief. 

(Compl. ¶ 16.)

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant knew or should have known that its styling irons were 

defective. (Compl. ¶ 21.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant received complaints about similar 

incidents with the power cord from consumers as early as 2012. (Compl. ¶ 21.) Plaintiff further 

alleges that Defendant failed to warn consumers about the defects in its styling irons. (Compl. ¶ 

24.)

Plaintiff seeks to bring this action on behalf of a class defined as “All persons who 

purchased Conair Styling Irons in California.” (Compl. ¶ 30.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant 

violated the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act through its misrepresentations regarding 

the safety of their styling irons. (Compl. ¶¶ 40-47.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated the 

California Unfair Competition Law by its misrepresentations and omissions regarding the safety 

of their styling irons. (Compl. ¶¶ 48-58.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant breached the implied 

warranty with respect to their styling irons because of the safety defects inherent in the styling 

irons. (Compl. ¶¶ 59-72.)

/ / /

Case 1:14-cv-00894-WBS-SAB Document 69 Filed 09/11/15 Page 2 of 7
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

3

II.

PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST TO COMPEL DOCUMENT PRODUCTION

On December 12, 2014, Plaintiff propounded a request for production of e-mails in this 

action. The parties have met and conferred to negotiate an ESI protocol for the production. The 

parties have narrowed the e-mail production to two Conair employees, Wayne Dieterle and Vito 

Carlucci. They have now agreed on a protocol and the search has been completed. The parties 

disagree regarding the number of documents returned by the search. Plaintiff asserts there are

47,199 e-mails and 19,592 documents; while Defendant contends that there are 60,267 e-mails 

and 69,307 documents to be reviewed. Defendant argues that, given the document review in a 

similar class action, it will take approximately 2,384 hours or 10 weeks with 15 reviewers to 

review this material. 

Plaintiff contends that delaying production until November 20, 2015 will prejudice her 

because the motion for class certification is due only six weeks later on January 6, 2015. 

Plaintiff will need to depose the two individuals prior to filing the motion for class certification 

and needs the e-mails prior to the depositions. Plaintiff seeks an order for Defendant to produce 

the e-mails no later than October 5, 2015. 

Balancing Plaintiff’s need for the information to complete discovery on class certification 

and the burden on Defendant due to the amount of information to be reviewed, the Court orders 

Defendant to produce responsive documents on a weekly basis with the first production to be in 

three weeks. All documents responsive to the request for production shall be produced on or 

before October 23, 2015.

III.

DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR DOCUMENT PRODUCTION 

Conair does not sell to consumers, but distributes its products through retailers. 

Therefore, Plaintiff has subpoenaed records from seven large retailers on the sales and pricing, 

complaints, returns, and recalls of styling irons. Defendant has propounded a request for 

production of all documents received from retailers in response to the subpoenas and all 

communication and documents exchanged with the retailers in connection with the subpoenas. 

Case 1:14-cv-00894-WBS-SAB Document 69 Filed 09/11/15 Page 3 of 7
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

A. Production of Documents Responsive to Third Party Subpoenas

Defendant seeks to have Plaintiff produce documents that were received in response to 

the subpoenas and states that Plaintiff has refused to produce documents until all documents are 

received from all retailers. Defendant contends that Plaintiff has received documents but refuses 

to identify which retailers have responded or produce any documents until an undetermined time.

Plaintiff contends that it is overly burdensome for her to produce documents on a rolling 

basis and she does not want to produce any responsive documents until all production is 

complete. Plaintiff states that she will produce each set of documents after the production for 

that retailer is complete, i.e. Target will be produced once all documents from Target are 

received. 

The Court shall order Plaintiff to produce documents responsive to each retailer subpoena 

once all documents responsive to the subpoena for that retailer have been received. 

B. Production of Communication with Retailers Regarding Subpoenas

Defendant contacted Plaintiff’s attorney and requested that Plaintiff provide the 

documents responsive to the subpoenas and any communication with the retailers regarding 

limiting the scope of the subpoenas. Plaintiff refused the informal request and required 

Defendant to serve a request for production of documents. After Defendant served a request for 

production of documents, Plaintiff refused to provide communication with the third party 

retailers regarding the scope of the subpoenas claiming the information was not relevant and was 

privileged. At the telephonic hearing, Plaintiff asserted that the main objection is that the 

documents are irrelevant in this action. 

Defendant seeks production of the communication between Plaintiff and each retailer 

limiting the scope of the subpoena. Defendant argues that routine communication and 

negotiations with the third party retailer regarding the scope of the subpoenas is not the proper 

subject for work product protection; and Defendant is entitled to know the scope of the subpoena 

to understand what the documents that are produced represent. 

The work product doctrine is codified in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(3), and 

“protects from discovery documents and tangible things prepared by a party or his representative 

Case 1:14-cv-00894-WBS-SAB Document 69 Filed 09/11/15 Page 4 of 7
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

5

in anticipation of litigation.” In re Grand Jury Subpoena (Mark Torf/Torf Envtl. Mgmt.), 357 

F.3d 900, 906 (9th Cir. 2004). Rule 26(b)(3) provides that:

Ordinarily, a party may not discover documents and tangible things that are 

prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial by or for another party or its 

representative (including the other party's attorney, consultant, surety, indemnitor, 

insurer, or agent). But, subject to Rule 26(b)(4), those materials may be 

discovered if:

(i) they are otherwise discoverable under Rule 26(b)(1)[.]

Documents protected by the work product privilege may only be ordered produced where 

the adverse party “shows that it has substantial need for the materials to prepare its case and 

cannot, without undue hardship, obtain their substantial equivalent by other means.” Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 26(b)(3); Torf, 357 F.3d at 906. 

[T]he work-product privilege safeguards “written statements, private memoranda 

and personal recollections prepared or formed by an adverse party's counsel in the 

course of his legal duties.” Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 510, 67 S.Ct. 385, 

91 L.Ed. 451 (1947). Such materials fall “outside the arena of discovery” because 

“[p]roper preparation of a client's case demands that [an attorney] assemble 

information, sift what he considers to be the relevant from the irrelevant facts, 

prepare his legal theories and plan his strategy without undue and needless 

interference.” Id. at 510–11, 67 S.Ct. 385. 

United States v. Reyes, 239 F.R.D. 591, 598 (N.D. Cal. 2006). The party claiming the protection 

bears the burden of demonstrating the applicability of the work product doctrine. Phillips v. C.R. 

Bard, Inc., 290 F.R.D. 615, 634 (D. Nev. 2013), reconsideration denied (Aug. 7, 2013). 

The documents at issue here are communications between Plaintiff’s counsel and third 

parties regarding compliance with the subpoena’s duces tecum that were served upon the third 

party. While these documents were prepared for litigation, they document routine negotiations 

regarding the scope of production in response to the subpoena. “At its core, the work product 

doctrine shelters the mental processes of . . . attorney[s], providing a privileged area within 

which [they] can analyze and prepare [their] client’s case.” Pac. Gas & Elec. Co. v. United 

States, 69 Fed. Cl. 784, 789 (2006) (quoting United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225, 238, 95 S.Ct. 

2160, 45 L.Ed.2d 141 (1975)). The Court finds that the communication at issue here, which is 

solely regarding the negotiations between Plaintiff and the third party to address the scope of the 

subpoenas, does not fall within the work product doctrine. 

Case 1:14-cv-00894-WBS-SAB Document 69 Filed 09/11/15 Page 5 of 7
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

6

To the extent that the information would be protected by the work product doctrine, 

Defendant has a substantial need to understand the scope of the subpoenas to interpret the 

responsive documents that were produced. For example, if the subpoena requests production of 

documents for a specific time period and the subpoena has been narrowed to a different time 

period, Defendant would assume from the subpoena that no documents for the excluded time 

period existed. Therefore, the Court finds that Defendant is entitled to information regarding the 

actual scope of the subpoena. Finally, requiring Defendant to obtain the information by deposing

each of the retailers on how the scope of the subpoena was narrowed would create an undue

hardship given that Plaintiff can easily provide such information without requiring the additional 

expense of third party depositions.

The Court shall order Plaintiff to produce documents response to the request for 

production. 

IV.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s request for production of e-mails is GRANTED. Defendants shall 

produce responsive documents on rolling basis. Defendant’s first rolling 

production shall occur within three weeks of the date of service of this order and 

continue weekly until production is complete. All documents responsive to the 

request shall be produced on or before October 23, 2015;

2. Defendant’s request for production of documents received in response to the third 

party subpoenas is GRANTED IN PART. Plaintiff shall produce documents 

responsive to each retailer subpoena within seven days of receipt of the completed

production for that retailer; 

3. Defendant’s request for production of communication with retailers regarding the 

subpoenas is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall produce all communication regarding 

the subpoenas at the time the documents produced by that retailer are produced to 

Defendant; and

Case 1:14-cv-00894-WBS-SAB Document 69 Filed 09/11/15 Page 6 of 7
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

7

4. Failure to comply with this order may result in the imposition of sanction.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 11, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00894-WBS-SAB Document 69 Filed 09/11/15 Page 7 of 7