Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-00235/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-00235-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 18:1836(b) Civil Action to Protect Trade Secrets

---

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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CUTERA, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

LUTRONIC AESTHETICS,

Defendants.

No. 2:20-cv-0235 KJM DB

ORDER

This matter came before the undersigned on April 29, 2022, for hearing of plaintiff’s 

motion to compel and for sanctions pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(1). (ECF No. 66.) Attorney 

Ulrico Rosales appeared via Zoom on behalf of plaintiff. Attorney James Odlum appeared via 

Zoom on behalf of defendant. Having considered the parties’ briefing and oral argument 

plaintiff’s motion is granted in part and denied in part. 

The parties’ Joint Statement re Discovery Disagreement reflects that the parties’ dispute 

concerns the following five issues.

1. Plaintiff’s RFP Nos. 27 & 59

Defendant argues that these requests are overbroad. (JS (ECF No. 74) at 11-12.) “When a 

request is overly broad on its face, the party seeking the discovery has the burden to show the 

relevancy of the request.” Johnson v. Kraft Foods N. Am., Inc., 236 F.R.D. 535, 542 (D. Kan. 

////

Case 2:20-cv-00235-KJM-DB Document 78 Filed 05/06/22 Page 1 of 4
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

2006). “[A] discovery request should be sufficiently definite and limited in scope[.]” ReganTouhy v. Walgreen Co., 526 F.3d 641, 649 (10th Cir. 2008). 

In this regard, “a request or interrogatory is overly broad or unduly burdensome on its face 

if it (1) uses an omnibus term such as ‘relating to’ or ‘concerning,’ and (2) applies to a general 

category or group of documents or a broad range of information.” Moses v. Halstead, 236 F.R.D. 

667, 672 (D. Kan. 2006). However, “a request that uses an omnibus phrase to modify a 

sufficiently specific type of information or group of documents will not be deemed objectionable 

on its face.” Dauska v. Green Bay Packaging Inc., 291 F.R.D. 251, 261 (E.D. Wis. 2013).

Here, the undersigned finds that plaintiff’s requests are over broad. In this regard, 

plaintiff’s RFP No. 27 seeks production of “DOCUMENTS, COMMUNICATIONS, and 

THINGS to identify and generally describe any actual or potential product or technology” 

defendant “developed, planned, designed, created, manufactured, tested, marketed, or offered for 

sale,” from “January 1, 2019 to the present[.]” (JS (ECF No. 74) at 7.) 

Plaintiff’s RFP No. 59 purports to seek a similar production related only to the “Derma V 

product or any vascular-related or vascular pigment and hair product or technology,” but 

concludes by stating that the “request includes . . . any DOCUMENTS, COMMUNICATIONS, 

and THINGS RELATING TO any work, tasks or activities performed by LUTRONIC, Lutronic 

Corporation,” three named individuals, “or that LUTRONIC outsourced to . . . any consultant or 

third-party.” (Id. at 7-8.) 

Such broadly worded requests are neither sufficiently definite nor limited in scope. 

Plaintiff’s motion to compel is, therefore, denied with respect to these requests.

2. Plaintiff’s RFP other than No. 27 & No. 59.

Plaintiff argues that the defendant has “not produced a single document,” in response to a 

request, even when the request “could not possibly necessitate the use of search terms[.]” (JS 

(ECF No. 74) at 12.) Defendant argues that plaintiff’s requests “in its entirety encompasses ESI,” 

apparently citing to the instruction and definition portion of plaintiff’s RFP. Plaintiff does not 

address this argument.

////

Case 2:20-cv-00235-KJM-DB Document 78 Filed 05/06/22 Page 2 of 4
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

Moreover, the undersigned could not find a copy of plaintiff’s RFP request to defendant

submitted in connection with the Joint Statement. The undersigned raised this issue with 

plaintiff’s counsel at the April 29, 2022 hearing. Plaintiff’s counsel directed the undersigned to 

exhibits C and I of the Joint Statement. Exhibit I is an email exchange. (JS (ECF No. 74-1) at 

167-222.) Exhibit C is defendant’s response to plaintiff’s request. (Id. at 42-113.) 

Requests for Production of Documents typically include definitions and instructions. See

Del Socorro Quintero Perez v. United States, Case No. 13cv1417 WQH BGS, 2016 WL 304877, 

at *5 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2016) (“In each set of RFPs propounded on Defendants, Plaintiffs put 

forth four pages of definitions and nearly five pages of general instructions.”). And that appears 

to be true here based on defendant’s argument and citation. Plaintiff has failed to provide 

argument and evidence to dispute defendant’s assertion. In the absence of such information, the 

undersigned cannot say that defendant’s argument is without merit. Plaintiff’s motion to compel, 

therefore, is denied as to this request. 

3. Privilege Log

Plaintiff argues that defendant has asserted the attorney client privilege but failed to 

provide a privilege log. (JS (ECF No. 74) at 13-14.) The parties, however, have yet to reach 

agreement on search terms for electronically stored information (“ESI”). As such, “the universe 

of documents” at issue is unknown. (Id. at 14.) To the extent plaintiff believes there is non-ESI 

discovery defendant should produce, plaintiff should address that in a separate motion specifically 

and clearly dealing with that issue. Plaintiff’s motion to compel is also denied with respect to this 

request. 

4. ESI Search Terms

Each party asserts the other has refused to meet and confer over necessary ESI search 

terms. (Id. at 15-17.) Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion to compel will be granted as to this request 

and the parties ordered to meet and confer over this issue. 

5. Attorney’s Fees

When the court grants a motion to compel it must “after giving an opportunity to be 

heard,” award “reasonable expenses incurred in making the motion, including attorney’s fees,” 

Case 2:20-cv-00235-KJM-DB Document 78 Filed 05/06/22 Page 3 of 4
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

unless the “opposing party’s position was ‘substantially justified’ or that ‘other circumstances 

make an award of expenses unjust.’” Infanzon v. Allstate Insurance Company, 335 F.R.D. 305, 

311 (C.D. Cal. 2020) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A)). Here, the plaintiff’s motion will only 

be granted in part. Moreover, the undersigned finds that defendant’s position was substantially 

justified. 

Nonetheless, defendant is cautioned that the undersigned is concerned about the pace of 

discovery. The issue of ESI search terms was before the undersigned at a November 22, 2021,

informal telephonic discovery conference. The undersigned is surprised the parties have resolved 

so little since that time. The undersigned believes that that both parties could have done more to 

resolve this dispute and expects them to do so.1

 As to the motion’s request for monetary 

sanctions, however, that request is denied. 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above and at the April 29, 2022 hearing, IT IS HEREBY 

ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s March 18, 2022 motion to compel (ECF No. 66) is granted in part and 

denied in part; and

2. Within 21 days of the date of this order that parties shall engage in further meet and 

confer in person or via telephone or video conferencing regarding these discovery disputes in 

general and the issue of ESI search terms in particular. 

DATED: May 5, 2022 /s/ DEBORAH BARNES 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

DLB:6

DB/orders/orders.civil/cutera0235.oah.042922

1 At the April 29, 2022 hearing the parties raised the issue of the appointment of a Special Master 

for discovery purposes. The parties are directed to refer to Rule 53 of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure. See also Federal Trade Commission v. Qualcomm Inc., Case No. 17-cv-0220 LHK 

(NC), Case No. 17-md-2773 LHK (NC), 2018 WL 3868976, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 24, 2018).

Case 2:20-cv-00235-KJM-DB Document 78 Filed 05/06/22 Page 4 of 4