Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01592/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01592-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 

---

1

12-cv-1592-JAH-AGS

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

IN RE: MORNING SONG BIRD FOOD 

LITIGATION

Case No.: 12-cv-1592-JAH-AGS

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION TO COMPEL (ECF No. 437)

AND HAGEDORN’S MOTION TO 

COMPEL (ECF No. 446)

On June 21, 2018, the Court held a hearing on Defendants Scotts Miracle-Gro Co. 

and The Scotts Co. LLC’s (Scotts) Motion to Compel (ECF No. 446) and Hagedorn’s 

Motion to Compel (ECF No. 446). The motions were granted in part and denied in part as 

stated on the record. (CD# AGS 6/21/18 4:19:26-6:04:27, 6:11:25-6:22:35.) The Court 

took under advisement Scotts’ Request for Admission No. 7 and Hagedorn’s Interrogatory 

No. 13. To memorialize the Court’s order at the hearing and rule on these final discovery 

requests, the Court issues the following order.

Scotts’ Request for Admission No. 7 and Hagedorn’s Interrogatory No. 13 are 

similar. The request for admission, of course, seeks to have plaintiffs admit that they have 

used products in a manner inconsistent with the instructions on the labels. The interrogatory 

seeks considerably more in that it asks plaintiffs to describe each instance in which they 

have done so. Consequently, while the interrogatory seeks a much more detailed response, 

Case 3:12-cv-01592-JAH-AGS Document 471 Filed 06/22/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

12-cv-1592-JAH-AGS

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

both the request for admission and the interrogatory seek discovery on the same 

information. 

Although relevance with regard to discovery is broad and does not concern whether 

the answer would be admissible at trial, “the purpose of the Rule is to separate the wheat 

from the chaff and to get down to the real issues in the case.” Johnstone v. Cronlund, 25 

F.R.D. 42, 44 (E.D. Pa. 1960); see also Asea, Inc. v. S. Pac. Transp. Co., 669 F.2d 1242, 

1245 (9th Cir. 1981) (“The purpose of Rule 36(a) is to expedite trial by establishing certain 

material facts as true and thus narrowing the range of issues for trial.”). Thus, RFAs should 

be “simple and direct, and should be limited to singular relevant facts.” Safeco of Am. v. 

Rawstron, 181 F.R.D. 441, 445 (C.D. Cal. 1998). RFAs “are not intended to be used as a 

means of gathering evidence[,]” and they “should not be used unless the statement of fact 

sought to be admitted is phrased so that it can be admitted or denied without explanation.” 

Johnstone, 25 F.R.D. at 44. “[T]he fact that the party can explain his answer at trial is of 

no assistance to sound judicial process.” Id.

The interrogatory and the request for admission both seek information which does 

not assist the fact finder. An admission to Request for Admission No. 7 would arguably 

include relatively minor and/or insignificant deviations from label instructions and is not 

comparable to the misuse plaintiffs’ allege in this lawsuit. The motion to compel as to 

Scott’s Request for Admission No. 7 and as to Hagedorn’s Interrogatory No. 13 is 

DENIED.

For the reasons set out on the record, the Court issues the following additional 

rulings. The motion to compel Scott’s Interrogatory No. 30 (Milt Cyphert No. 28; Kirby 

and Larson No. 29) is GRANTED. Plaintiffs must supplement their response, identifying

the specific misrepresentations plaintiffs allege defendant made.

The motion to compel Scott’s Interrogatory No. 33 (Milt Cyphert No. 31; Kirby and 

Larson No. 32) is GRANTED. Plaintiffs must supplement their response indicating how 

they evaluate their damages. They are not required to include expert opinions in this 

Case 3:12-cv-01592-JAH-AGS Document 471 Filed 06/22/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

12-cv-1592-JAH-AGS

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

response, but the response must provide a reasonably specific computation as to how 

plaintiffs compute their damages.

As to Scott’s Interrogatory No. 32 (Milt Cyphert No. 30; Kirby and Larson No. 31), 

the motion to compel is GRANTED to the extent that plaintiffs must produce the

advertisements, indicate what dates and times the advertisements were aired, provide the 

locations aired, and identify the vendor and/or communications entity which aired them.

As to Scott’s Request for Production No. 14, the motion to compel is GRANTED as 

set forth with respect to Interrogatory No. 32 above.

Finally, as to Scott’s Request for Production No. 15, the motion to compel is 

GRANTED. Plaintiffs must produce any advertisements related to this action that they saw 

or heard, in whatever medium those advertisements exist or existed. 

Request for Admission Nos. 14 and 15 were resolved by agreement.

By July 6, 2018, all ordered discovery must be produced. 

IT IS SO ORDERED

Dated: June 22, 2018

Case 3:12-cv-01592-JAH-AGS Document 471 Filed 06/22/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3