Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01166/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01166-13/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)

---

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

08cv1166 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HANSEN BEVERAGE COMPANY,

Plaintiff,

v.

INNOVATION VENTURES, LLC,

Defendant.

_____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 08‐CV‐1166‐IEG(WVG)

ORDER REGARDING JOINT DISCOVERY

STATEMENT RE: AUGUST 10, 2010

DISCOVERY CONFERENCE

(Doc. No. 232)

Defendant Innovation Ventures and Plaintiff Hansen filed a Joint Dispute Statement

August 6, 2010.(Doc.No. 232.)Defendant complainsthatHansen hasfailed to respond to discovery,

and has improperly redacted information from documents, not produced documents in native

format, and not in the time period for which documents were requested. Hansen asserts that the

discovery production date was mutually extended, that the redaction was proper to protect third

party privacy, and that documents producedwere produced in the  available formats and responsive

time periods. Defendant’s requests are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as detailed below.

I. Defendant’s Fourth Set of Interrogatories and Fifth Set of Document Production Requests

Defendantserved discovery on PlaintiffJune 14, 2010.Plaintiff hasnotresponded alleging

that Defendant granted a brief extension. Party stipulations are “recognized as binding on the court

only when approved by the judge.” Civ. Loc. R. 7.2(a).The parties did not consult the Court to

approve the alleged extension nor wasitmemorialized in any written document. Currently, Plaintiff

Case 3:08-cv-01166-WVG Document 234 Filed 08/16/10 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

1

Request for Production 93: All documents that refer or relate to the creation of and/or decision to use,     

           or continue to use, the following claim in Hansen’s advertising: “It’s a wicked mega hit that delivers twice       

           the buzz of a regular energy drink.”

08cv1166 2

is nearly an entire month late in responding to Defendant’s requests and only vaguely indicates

when it will serve responses. As part of its motion, Defendant asks the Court to order that Plaintiff

has waived any objections Plaintiff may assert to the interrogatories and document requests. “It is

well established that a failure to object to discovery requests within the time frame required

constitutes a waiver of any objection.” Richmark Corp. v. Timber Falling Consultants, 959 F.2d 1468,

1473 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing Davis v. Fendler, 650 F.2d 1154, 1160 (9th Cir. 1981). The Court

accordingly finds that Plaintiff has waived all objections to the interrogatories and document

production requests through its complete failure to respond. Plaintiff is ordered to respond to

Defendant’s discovery requests no later than August 23, 2010.

II. Redaction of Documents

Defendant complains that Plaintiff improperly redacted documents in response to

Plaintiff’s Third Set of Document Production Requests. Plaintiff argues that the documents were

redacted to protect privacy concerns and to exclude non‐responsive information. The Court’sruling

regarding each group of documentsis addressed below by Bates number. If not already completed,

Plaintiff is ORDERED to produce a privilege log no later than August 23, 2010.

1. Bates Stamp Numbers 50442 ‐ 50446

These documents respond to Defendant’s request for production number 931  to which

the Court compelled production. Plaintiff claimsthatthese documentswere received redacted from

Knobbe Martens and is unsure if unredacted copies exist. Plaintiff reports further that the

documents are redacted for reasons relating to a separate ongoing litigation. No later than August

23, 2010, Hansen is ordered to both inquire if unredacted copies exist and ifso, provide them to the

Court for review.  

///

///

///

Case 3:08-cv-01166-WVG Document 234 Filed 08/16/10 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

2

Request for Production 89 : Any documents that refer or relate to any adverse events and/or health          

              issues suffered by any consumers of Hansen’s ENERGY DRINKS that were asserted to be caused in whole or

              in part, by the consumption of any Hansen ENERGY DRINK.

Request for Production 91: Documents related to any communication between Hansen or any of its            

            attorneys or agents, on the one hand, and any governmental, regulatory, or similar body or entity, including

                  by way of example and not limitation, the Food and Drug Administration, Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco

              Firearms and Explosives and/or the Federal Trade Commission, on the other hand, that refer or relate to any

               Hansen ENERGY DRINK.

3

See Requests for Production 77 ‐ 80.

08cv1166 3

2. Bates Stamp Numbers 50687 ‐ 51027

These documentsreflect consumer complaints and communications with government or

regulatory bodies.2  Plaintiffindicatesthat BatesNumbersH051013 throughH51027 were redacted

by the Government.  Plaintiff aptly notes that this Court has already tailored the scope of certain

discovery responses to protect third party privacy rights. (See Doc. No. 201, Interrogatory 14.) The

Court hasreviewed the redactionsmade by Plaintiff and findsthemto be appropriate.All identifying

information,such as name or contactinformation is properly redacted to protectthird party privacy

rights. TheCourtfindsthatDefendantmay be entitled to contactthese individuals, howeverreminds

the parties that discovery cut‐off is near and extensions will not be favorably received.

To protect third party privacy rights, Plaintiff and Defendantshall draft a joint letter to all

consumers who submitted health related complaints, allowing these individuals an opportunity to

object to Plaintiff’s production of their contact information. Plaintiff shall provide a draft to

Defendant on or before August 23, 2010. Defendant and Plaintiff shall agree on changes and the

letter shall be sent no later than August 30, 2010.

3. Bates Stamp Numbers 58153 ‐ 58158

These documents represent two emails Plaintiff produced as responsive to Defendant’s

request for documents relating to Plaintiff’s 32 ounce can size.3 Plaintiff notes that the emails are

redacted for non responsive information. The Court agrees. Defendant’s challenge to the redaction

is DENIED.

4. Bates Stamp Numbers 58517 ‐ 58543

These documentsrepresentreportsfromtheAmericanAnalyticalChemistry Laboratories

Corporation. The reports were redacted to exclude information that was beyond the scope of

Case 3:08-cv-01166-WVG Document 234 Filed 08/16/10 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

See Request for Production 113.

08cv1166 4

“testing or analysis of Hansen energy drinks to determine amount of carbohydrates, sugars or

calories.”4 The Court has reviewed the redactions and finds them to be appropriate. Defendant’s

challenge to the redaction is DENIED.

III. Temporal Scope of Production

Defendant complains that Plaintiff has produced consumer complaints only from March

2008 to August 2009. Plaintiffrespondsthat priorto 2007, it did notmaintain a centralized database

to store consumer complaints. Plaintiff concedes that it is reviewing its consumer database and

records to provide all responsive documents in its possession. Plaintiff is ORDERED to produce all

consumer complaintsin its possession. If Plaintiff has previously produced all consumer complaints,

it mustso state in a sworn declaration. Plaintiff must provide a response or declaration on or before

August 23, 2010.

IV. Native Format

Defendant contendsthat Plaintifffailed to produce consumer health complaintsin native

format despite this Court’s February 2010 order. (See Doc. No. 201, Request 89.) However,

Defendant misinterprets  the Court’s order. Plaintiff was under obligation to produce documentsin

native format only if Plaintiff maintains them in native format. Because the complaints were not

produced in native format, it appearsthey are not available. To clarify the issue, PlaintiffisORDERED

to provide all available native format consumer complaints.Alternatively, if none exist, Plaintiffmust

so state in a sworn declaration. Plaintiff must provide a response or declaration on or before August

23, 2010.

DATED:  August 16, 2010

    Hon. William V. Gallo

    U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:08-cv-01166-WVG Document 234 Filed 08/16/10 Page 4 of 4