Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00595/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00595-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

1 

15-cv-0595-BAS-MDD 

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

OBESITY RESEARCH 

INSTITUTE, LLC, 

 Plaintiff,

v. 

FIBER RESEARCH 

INTERNATIONAL, LLC, 

 Defendant.

 Case No.: 15-cv-0595-BAS-MDD 

ORDER ON JOINT MOTION TO 

DETERMINE DISCOVERY 

DISPUTE RE: DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION TO COMPEL 

PRODUCTION AND TO EXCLUDE 

EVIDENCE OF COSTS 

[ECF NO. 174] 

BACKGROUND 

 Before the Court is the Joint Motion to Determine a Discovery Dispute, 

filed on March 22, 2016, presenting defendant Fiber Research International, 

LLC’s (FRI) motion to compel production of documents and to exclude 

evidence of costs. (EC No. 174). The Court held a hearing on this motion on 

May 18, 2016. (ECF No. 259). Following the hearing, on May 24, 2016, FRI 

filed a Notice of Election of Damages Remedy and Partial Withdrawal of 

Motion. (ECF No. 263). 

Case 3:15-cv-00595-BAS-MDD Document 269 Filed 06/07/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2 

15-cv-0595-BAS-MDD 

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

The Notice of Election of Damages Remedy was filed in response to 

concerns expressed by the Court at the May 18 hearing that although FRI 

repeatedly has stated, in connection with various discovery disputes, that the 

only remedy it is seeking is plaintiff Obesity Research Institute, LLC’s (ORI) 

profits, no binding articulation of that election had been filed by FRI. See 

Hearing Transcript of May 18, 2016 at 7-8 (ECF No. 260). The Notice of 

Election appears now to be a binding election that the Court and ORI can 

rely upon. ORI has objected to the notice. (ECF No. 266). The objection is 

DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. This Court will rely on the election to 

the extent required to resolve discovery disputes. The impact of the election 

at trial is a matter for the district judge. 

 In the Partial Withdrawal of Motion portion of its filing, FRI is 

withdrawing the motion to compel component of ECF No. 174, leaving only 

the motion to exclude evidence of costs. ORI opposes on the grounds that the 

Court has already ruled on that motion and that ORI took certain actions in 

response to the Court’s ruling. The Court will address that matter below and 

will address the pending motion to exclude evidence of costs. 

ANALYSIS 

1. Withdrawal of Motion to Compel 

The motion to compel presented in ECF No. 174 sought an order 

requiring ORI to produce documents supporting its responses to certain 

interrogatories regarding its sales revenue. (See ECF No. 174 *4-5 (referring 

to ECF pagination)). During the hearing, the Court stated, “I believe that it's 

axiomatic that FRI does have the right to verify, validate, the statements 

made by ORI regarding its sales information.” Hearing Transcript at 3 (ECF 

No. 260). “[I am] telling you tentatively, that FRI does have the right to 

Case 3:15-cv-00595-BAS-MDD Document 269 Filed 06/07/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3 

15-cv-0595-BAS-MDD 

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

verify that information to at least a certain extent.” Id. at 5. Ultimately, the 

Court suggested, and the parties agreed, to meet and confer and present a 

plan or competing plans for the Court to consider in resolving the motion to 

compel. Id. at 24. ORI asserts that the Court granted the motion to compel 

so that FRI cannot withdraw it. If the Court allows FRI to withdraw its 

motion, or withdraws its ruling, ORI seeks compensation for the time spent 

in preparing its responsive plan. 

 The Court finds that its ruling was tentative, not final, and that ORI is 

not entitled to any sanction. The Court GRANTS FRI’s motion to withdraw 

the motion to compel presented in ECF No. 174. 

2. Motion to Exclude Evidence of Costs 

The motion to exclude evidence of costs presented in ECF No. 174 is 

based upon ORI’s allegedly tardy and incomplete response to a request for 

production (RFP 11) served in June 2015 for documents that ORI would use 

“to support any claim you may have to reduce or minimize the damages 

claimed by [FRI].” (See ECF No. 174 *5). FRI asserts that ORI did not 

respond at all to that RFP until February 24, 2016, just 5 days before the 

close of discovery, and then in a summary form. (Id. *6). FRI now seeks to 

exclude that evidence at trial. 

On October 5, 2015, FRI brought before the Court a discovery dispute 

regarding certain requests for production, among other things, served at the 

same time as RFP 11. (ECF No. 60). A hearing was held on that motion on 

October 27, 2015, and the Court ruled from the bench. (ECF Nos. 68-70). 

FRI did not move to compel regarding RFP 11 in its October 2015 motion. 

Instead, FRI now moves to exclude that evidence as untimely and 

insufficient. 

Case 3:15-cv-00595-BAS-MDD Document 269 Filed 06/07/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4 

15-cv-0595-BAS-MDD 

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

 Having made the tactical choice not to seek a motion to compel 

documents in connection with RFP 11, and the time within which to do so 

having long expired, the Court will neither exclude the evidence produced nor 

preclude its use at trial. Whether that evidence is admissible is a matter for 

the district judge. Accordingly, FRI’s motion to exclude evidence of costs is 

DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

CONCLUSION 

1. ORI’s objection to FRI’s Notice of Election of Damages Remedy (ECF 

No. 266) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

2. FRI’s Notice of Withdrawal of the Motion to Compel (ECF No. 263) 

presented in ECF No. 174 is GRANTED. ORI’s objection to that 

withdrawal (ECF No. 266) is DENIED.

3. FRI’s Motion to Exclude Evidence of Costs presented in ECF No. 174 

is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

4. Each party to bear its own costs. 

IT IS SO ORDERED:

Dated: June 7, 2016 

. 

Case 3:15-cv-00595-BAS-MDD Document 269 Filed 06/07/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4