Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-md-02555/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-md-02555-9/pdf.json

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

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE: COCA-COLA PRODUCTS 

MARKETING AND SALES PRACTICES 

LITIGATION (NO. II) 

Case No. 14-md-02555-JSW (MEJ)

DISCOVERY ORDER

Re: Dkt. No. 85

INTRODUCTION

Pending before the Court is the parties’ Joint Discovery Letter in which Defendants1

request to compel the production of discovery from named Plaintiffs relating to their “food 

purchasing habits” to test their reliance on Defendants’ alleged misrepresentations. Dkt. No. 85. 

Having considered the parties’ positions, relevant legal authority, and the record in this case, the 

Court issues the following order.

BACKGROUND

This Multi-District Litigation consists of several class actions in which Plaintiffs allege 

Defendants failed to disclose that phosphoric acid is used in Coca-Cola (“Coke”) as an artificial 

flavor and chemical preservative. Jt. Ltr. at 1. Plaintiffs also allege that certain containers 

affirmatively misrepresented that Coke has “no artificial flavors. no preservatives added. since 

1886.” Id. Plaintiffs allege they relied on Coke labels and containers in making their purchasing 

decisions, and they would not have purchased Coke had they known it contains artificial flavoring 

and chemical preservatives. Id.

 

1 Defendants are The Coca-Cola Company, Coca-Cola Refreshments USA, Inc., BCI Coca-Cola 

Bottling Company of Los Angeles, and Coca-Cola Bottling Company of Sonora, California Inc. 

Consolidated Compl. at 2 & ¶¶ 41-46.

Case 4:14-md-02555-JSW Document 88 Filed 08/26/15 Page 1 of 9
2

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

Northern District of California

The presiding judge, the Honorable Jeffrey S. White, has ordered that discovery proceed in 

phases: Phase 1 is limited to the issue of Plaintiffs’ alleged reliance and is to be completed by 

September 18, 2015. Dkt. No. 69. 

On July 14, 2015, Defendants served discovery requests (“Requests”) on Plaintiffs. Jt. Ltr. 

at 1. The Requests seek, among other things, information regarding: “Plaintiffs’ past food and 

beverage purchases over the past five years; interrogatories to identify foods and beverages in 

Plaintiffs’ possession, as well as all foods and beverages purchased in the past two weeks; 

interrogatories to identify stores and restaurants from which Plaintiffs have purchased food or 

beverages; and requests to inspect and photograph the foods and beverages in Plaintiffs’ homes.” 

Dkt. No. 76 at 2 (footnotes omitted). Plaintiffs raised various concerns about the requests, after 

which Defendants agreed to (1) narrow the scope of the requests to processed foods; (2) limit the 

time period for Request 18; and (3) allow Plaintiffs to produce photographs of foods and 

beverages in their homes in lieu of inspections. Id. at 1-2. Plaintiffs advised Defendants that these 

changes did not fully remedy their concern. Id. Defendants then sought to compel their 

responses. Id.

On August 11, 2015, the Court denied without prejudice Defendants’ request to compel 

discovery responses, finding the issue was premature given that Plaintiffs had not yet provided 

their responses. Dkt. No. 81. On August 13, 2015, Plaintiffs provided their written responses and 

objections (“Responses”). Jt. Ltr. at 1.

Defendants now seek an Order compelling the following responses:

 Interrogatory (“Rog”) No. 2 (“concerning food in Plaintiffs’ 

possession as of July 14, 2015; Plaintiffs answered only with 

regard to soft drinks”) and Nos. 3 & 4 (“concerning food and 

beverages purchased within a two-week period; Plaintiffs other 

than Merritt (who objected in full) answered only with regard to 

either soft drinks or Coca-Cola”);

 Request for Information (“RFI”) No. 1 (“requesting inspection 

of Plaintiffs’ property for the purpose of documenting the foods 

and beverages in their possession, or photographs in lieu of an 

inspection, which all Plaintiffs refused”); and

 Request for Production (“RFP”) Nos. 5 & 10 (“documents 

relating to phosphoric acid”), 6 & 11 (“documents relating to 

artificial flavoring”), 7 & 12 (“documents relating to chemical 

Case 4:14-md-02555-JSW Document 88 Filed 08/26/15 Page 2 of 9
3

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

Northern District of California

preservatives”), 18 (“receipts from the past 5 years that include 

charges for foods or beverages, which all Plaintiffs have agreed 

to produce only relating to Coca-Cola products and other soft 

drinks”), and 20 & 21 (“documents relating to reward or club 

memberships with retailers that sell foods or beverages”).

Id. at 2.

LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 provides that a party may obtain discovery “regarding 

any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

26(b)(1). “Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears 

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Id. A court “must limit 

the frequency or extent of discovery otherwise allowed by [the Federal] rules” if “(i) the discovery 

sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can be obtained from some other source that 

is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive; (ii) the party seeking discovery has had 

ample opportunity to obtain the information by discovery in the action; or (iii) the burden or 

expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit, considering the needs of the case, 

the amount in controversy, the parties’ resources, the importance of the issues at stake in the 

action, and the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C). 

“The court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from 

annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense,” including by (1) prohibiting 

disclosure or discovery; (2) conditioning disclosure or discovery on specified terms; (3) 

preventing inquiry into certain matters; or (4) limiting the scope of disclosure or discovery to 

certain matters. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1). “Rule 26(c) confers broad discretion on the trial court to 

decide when a protective order is appropriate and what degree of protection is required.” Seattle 

Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 36 (1984).

DISCUSSION

Defendants argue “Plaintiffs have put their food purchasing habits at issue by alleging that 

‘[h]ad [they] known Coca-Cola contained artificial flavoring’ or ‘chemical preservatives,’ they 

‘would not have purchased Coca-Cola.’” Jt. Ltr. at 2 (citing Engurasoff Am. Compl., Case No. 

4:13-CV-03990-JSW, Dkt. No. 15, ¶¶ 108-09). They assert they are “entitled to test the veracity 

Case 4:14-md-02555-JSW Document 88 Filed 08/26/15 Page 3 of 9
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

and credibility of these allegations[,]” and contend Plaintiffs’ Responses fall short of what 

Defendants requested as they are limited to information about their soft drink or Coke purchases 

and consumption. Id. & n.5. They further contend that “information about where Plaintiffs shop, 

including any loyalty cards or club memberships they hold, is needed for possible third-party 

discovery of these as-yet unknown retailers.” Id. at 3. 

In response, Plaintiffs argue Defendants’ Requests go beyond the scope of Phase I 

discovery, which is limited to their reliance on Coke’s representations—not their general food 

purchasing habits. Id. at 4. To the extent the sought-after information is relevant, they contend 

the Requests are not in line with Rule 26(b)(2)(C)(iii)’s proportionality principle, as Defendants’ 

Requests are unduly burdensome, saddling Plaintiffs “with the tasks of preserving, sorting, and 

inventorying all food packaging, containers, and garbage in their possession—essentially 

Plaintiffs’ kitchen trash—even for unrelated products.” Id. at 4-5 (emphasis in original). They 

also contend that Defendants “encumber Plaintiffs with the task of identifying all stores and 

restaurants they may have bought or consumed foods with phosphoric acid [], chemical 

preservatives, or artificial flavors, or any food and drink.” Id. at 4 (emphasis in original). 

Plaintiffs maintain these Requests are particularly overly burdensome where “[q]uestions 

concerning the Plaintiffs’ general purchasing practices can be adequately covered at a deposition.” 

Id. at 4-5.

Both sides read into Judge White’s Minute Order following the Initial Case Management 

Conference, which states “Deadline to conduct Phase I Discovery (named Plaintiffs’ reliance): 

September 18, 2015.” Dkt. No. 69. In reviewing the record, it appears Judge White adopted the 

Defendants’ proposed discovery plan as to this first phase. See Jt. Case Mgmnt. Stmt. at 10, Dkt. 

No. 54. In Defendants’ proposed discovery plan, they stated: “During Phase 1, Defendants would 

take the depositions of the named Plaintiffs and propound written discovery and document 

requests in order to ascertain whether the named Plaintiffs relied specifically on Coca-Cola’s 

representations regarding phosphoric acid when they decided to purchase Coke, such that they 

have viable claims.” Id. But Defendants now phrase the issue as follows: “the issue is whether 

Plaintiffs actually relied on the absence of artificial flavoring and chemical preservatives when 

Case 4:14-md-02555-JSW Document 88 Filed 08/26/15 Page 4 of 9
5

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

Northern District of California

they made their purchasing decisions.” Jt. Ltr. at 3 n.8 (emphasis added). This statement appears 

to be much broader than the actual inquiry. As Plaintiffs argue, the issue in Phase I discovery is 

whether Plaintiffs actually relied on the absence of artificial flavoring and chemical preservatives 

when they made their purchasing decisions of Coke—not Plaintiffs’ purchasing decisions in 

general. Id. at 4. The aim of Judge White’s Minute Order is to facilitate streamlined discovery on 

this issue, not expand it.

Defendants have not shown how Plaintiffs’ potential purchases and consumption of other 

foods or beverages with artificial flavors or chemical preservatives are relevant to the 

determination about whether Plaintiffs relied on Coke’s alleged misrepresentations. They rely on 

two primary cases in asserting they are entitled to this discovery. First, they cite Red v. Kraft 

Foods, Inc., No. 10-cv-1028-GW, 2012 WL 8019257, at *12 n.17 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 12, 2012), for 

the proposition that “plaintiffs’ purchases of other products are ‘relevant as to the issue of 

individual reliance[.]’” Jt. Ltr. at 3. The footnote cited by Defendants states in full:

Kraft also argues that Plaintiffs are not typical of the class and 

cannot adequately represent the class because they purchase and 

consume other foods with the same ingredients they allege to be 

unhealthy in this suit. See Docket No. 176 at 42 (arguing Plaintiffs 

lack typicality because they purchase other foods that contain the 

ingredients they allege in the SAC to be unhealthy). This argument 

is wholly irrelevant; the claims here turn on whether Kraft’s

particular statements as to particular products were false or 

fraudulent such that Plaintiffs were injured; whether Plaintiffs 

purchased other products that may or may not have involved any 

representations at all about healthfulness does not bear on any of the 

elements of the purported class claims. Plaintiff’s other purchasing 

decisions will only be relevant as to the issue of individual reliance 

which, as discussed above, will not need to be proven at all, because 

it is not an element for the UCL and FAL claims, and the class will 

need to be decertified as to the CLRA claims if there is a finding 

that the misrepresentations were not material and thus that 

individual reliance must be proven.

Kraft, 2012 WL 8019257, at *12 n.17 (emphasis in original). Given Judge White’s limitation on 

Phase I discovery, it is unclear how this statement supports Defendants’ argument that they are 

entitled to the information about Plaintiffs’ use of unrelated products. Additionally, while 

Defendants are correct that the Kraft court noted “Plaintiff’s other purchasing decisions will only 

be relevant as to the issue of individual reliance,” Defendants have not explained how they intend 

Case 4:14-md-02555-JSW Document 88 Filed 08/26/15 Page 5 of 9
6

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

Northern District of California

to use the information about Plaintiffs’ general “food purchasing habits” to test their reliance on 

Coke’s representations or consequently that the Kraft court contemplated the use of such 

information in the way Defendants seek to use it here. Put another way, while the Court 

understands the importance of testing Plaintiffs’ allegations about their reliance on Coke’s 

representations, the Court cannot see why Plaintiffs’ use of other products has any bearing on that 

inquiry during this initial stage of discovery. 

Defendants also cite a Minute Order from In re ConAgra, Case No. 11-CV-5379-MMM 

(C.D. Cal. 2014), which involved allegations that Wesson cooking oil labels falsely represented 

the product was “natural.” Jt. Ltr. at 3. But that Minute Order is of little assistance here. 

According to Defendants, in ConAgra, “defendant sought discovery into the plaintiffs’ purchases 

beyond Wesson oil, including other oil products and other foods labeled as ‘natural’” and “[t]he 

court compelled discovery regarding ‘other cooking oils’ and all ‘food labels that contain the word 

‘natural.’” In re ConAgra., Dkt. No. 209. However, having reviewed the Minute Order, the Court

notes there was little dispute regarding the requested discovery, with plaintiffs’ counsel stating 

“we’re perfectly happy to ask them to photograph any labels in their house relating to ‘all natural’ 

or anything like that and send them over to us for production.” Id., Dkt. No. 218 at 97. The 

parties further agreed to a stipulation that made it unnecessary for the court to decide whether the 

defendant could obtain “all food labels that reference genetic modification, genetic engineering, 

GMOs, bioengineering, or equivalent terms.” Id. at 97-99; see also id., Dkt. No. 209 (reflecting 

the stipulation). Otherwise, the ConAgra court denied the motion to compel with respect to the 

other requests. Id., Dkt. No. 209 (denying without prejudice defendants’ motion to compel).2 

 

2 These document requests included:

 All documents relating to “natural” foods, “natural” advertising claims, genetic 

engineering, bioengineering, GMOs or food safety. 

 All documents relating to or reflecting reading, research, investigation or communications 

regarding: “natural” foods or food ingredients, foods derived from genetically modified or 

bioengineered plants, genetic modification or bioengineering of plants used for foods, 

and/or ingredients in Wesson Oils or other foods derived from genetically modified or

bioengineered plants. 

 All receipts for past food purchases made at grocery stores, including such purchases made 

prior to or during the pendency of this case. (Receipts for purchases made prior to 

Case 4:14-md-02555-JSW Document 88 Filed 08/26/15 Page 6 of 9
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Consequently, while the ConAgra Minute Order appears to support Defendants’ argument, the 

ConAgra court does not appear to have dealt with the same issues present here or the same 

adversity on these issues between the parties. This case does not clarify the analysis.

Plaintiffs cite a district court case that considered whether the named plaintiffs were typical 

of the proposed class, Astiana v. Kashi Co., 291 F.R.D. 493, 503 (S.D. Cal. 2013). Jt. Ltr. at 5 

n.13. In Kashi, the court noted, “the fact that Plaintiffs may also purchase unhealthy or otherwise 

artificial foods says nothing about whether they purchased Kashi products specifically because 

they were supposedly healthy and natural.” Kashi, 291 F.R.D. at 503. Based on this, Plaintiffs 

argue Kashi “recognized that the fact that the named plaintiffs might buy other unhealthy or artificial 

foods did not bear on their purchase of Kashi’s products that specifically claimed to be ‘healthy and 

natural.’” Jt. Ltr. at 5 n.13. They contend “[t]he same analysis holds true for individual reliance. A 

named plaintiff’s reliance on other products’ disclosures regarding artificial flavors or chemical 

preservatives does not bear upon their reliance regarding Coke.” Id. (emphasis in original). They 

further note, “Defendants do not even limit the Requests to soft drinks, let alone colas.” Id.

Defendants’ only attempt to distinguish Kashi’s finding is that the court considered Rule 23’s 

typicality inquiry, not the issue of the plaintiffs’ reliance. While Defendants are correct that Kashi

considered typicality issues, it is not clear how that distinction matters to this inquiry. 

Nonetheless, the Court need not conclusively resolve the relevance issue here. Rather,

given Rule 26(b)(2)(C)(iii)’s proportionality principle, the Court finds the burden of much of 

Defendants’ proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit at this preliminary stage. Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 26(b)(2)(C). First, Plaintiffs have articulated a basis for why Defendants’ Requests seeking 

information relating to their general food purchasing habits is beyond the scope of the Phase I 

discovery, and Defendants have not articulated why they need this information at this point. 

 

November 28, 2010, or made while you were traveling overnight away from home, may be 

excluded. References to nonfood items may be redacted from the receipts to protect 

legitimate privacy concerns.) 

 All documents relating to or reflecting communications with ConAgra or other food 

producers or with food retailers. 

In re ConAgra, Case No. 11-CV-5379-MMM, Dkt. No. 205.

Case 4:14-md-02555-JSW Document 88 Filed 08/26/15 Page 7 of 9
8

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

Northern District of California

Second, to the extent such information is relevant to this matter, the less burdensome means of 

discovering the same basic information is to question Plaintiffs about these issues at their 

depositions, and the Court has already ordered Plaintiffs to provide their scheduling availability. 

Dkt. No. 81. 

Finally, Plaintiffs argue several Requests do not bear on the named Plaintiffs’ reliance at 

all. Jt. Ltr. at 3 n.12 (citing Rog No. 1 (family members); RFP Nos. 9-12 (consumer complaints) 

14-15 (expert witnesses or any documents that may be used in this lawsuit at any time); 16 

(documents concerning “premium pricing for Coke); 22-23 (documents concerning named 

plaintiffs or any class member’s damages)). Defendants respond that “[t]hese requests are not at 

issue in this motion,” id. at 4 n.9, but this is not entirely correct. Defendants seek responses to 

RFP Nos. 10-12, which are in fact included in Defendants’ motion. See Jt. Ltr. at 2. These RFPs 

seek: “All Documents relating to any consumer complaint concerning phosphoric acid” (RFP No. 

10); “All Documents relating to any consumer complaint concerning Artificial Flavoring” (RFP 

No. 11); and “All Documents relating to any consumer complaint concerning Chemical 

Preservatives” (RFP No. 12). Dkt. No. 85-1. Defendants have not articulated how these requests 

bear on the issue of the named Plaintiffs’ reliance, and as such appear to be beyond the scope of 

Phase I discovery.

CONCLUSION

In light of the foregoing, the Court issues the following Order:

 Request to Compel responses to Interrogatory Nos. 2-4 is GRANTED but 

LIMITED to “soft drinks”; 

 Request to Compel responses to RFI No. 1 is DENIED;

 Request to Compel responses to RFP Nos. 5 & 10 (documents relating to 

phosphoric acid), 6 & 11 (documents relating to artificial flavoring), 7 & 12 

(documents relating to chemical preservatives) is DENIED;

 Request to Compel responses to RFP 18 (receipts from the past 5 years that include 

charges for foods or beverages, which all Plaintiffs have agreed to produce only 

relating to Coca-Cola products and other soft drinks), and 20 & 21 (documents 

Case 4:14-md-02555-JSW Document 88 Filed 08/26/15 Page 8 of 9
9

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

Northern District of California

relating to reward or club memberships with retailers that sell foods or beverages) 

is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 26, 2015

______________________________________

MARIA-ELENA JAMES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:14-md-02555-JSW Document 88 Filed 08/26/15 Page 9 of 9