Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00862/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00862-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Account Receivable

---

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

11cv862-IEG (BLM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DIANA STANLEY, On Behalf of Herself, All

Others Similarly Situated and the General

Public,

Plaintiff,

v.

BAYER HEALTHCARE LLC,

Defendant. 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 11cv862-IEG (BLM)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY 

On October 14, 2011, counsel for both parties contacted the Court regarding a

discovery dispute, for which the Court set a briefing schedule. ECF No. 30. In accordance

with the Court’s Order, Defendant filed a motion to compel discovery on October 21, 2011.

ECF No. 31. Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion on October 28, 2011 and Defendant

filed a reply on November 2, 2011. ECF Nos. 36 and 43. 

Having considered all of the briefing and supporting documents presented, and for

the reasons set forth below, Defendant’s motion is GRANTED as follows.

BACKGROUND

This class action arises from a dispute over Phillips’ Colon Health Probiotic Caps

(“PCH”). Plaintiff Diana Stanley purchased PCH on April 7, 2011 for $15.99. ECF No. 1.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant markets PCH by claiming that PCH’s unique combination of

Case 3:11-cv-00862-IEG-BLM Document 49 Filed 11/16/11 Page 1 of 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

-2- 11cv862-IEG (BLM)

probiotic bacteria strains provides digestive benefits and improved immune health

unavailable from other similar products. Id. at 4. Plaintiff asserts that this claim is false,

misleading and likely to deceive the public. Id. at 2 and 4. Plaintiff alleges that she relied

on Defendant’s claims when she purchased PCH and “suffered injury in fact and lost

money” as a result. Id. at 6. Plaintiff is suing for violations of the Consumer Legal

Remedies Act, the Unfair Competition Law, breach of the express warranty, and unjust

enrichment created by Defendant’s advertising, including its labeling. Id. at 5-6 and 22.

Legal Standard

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure generally allow for broad discovery, authorizing

parties to obtain discovery regarding "any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any

party’s claim or defense." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Also, "[f]or good cause, the court may

order discovery of any matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the action." Id.

Relevant information for discovery purposes includes any information "reasonably calculated

to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence," and need not be admissible at trial to be

discoverable. Id. There is no requirement that the information sought directly relate to a

particular issue in the case. Rather, relevance encompasses any matter that "bears on" or

could reasonably lead to matter that could bear on, any issue that is or may be presented

in the case. Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351 (1978). District courts

have broad discretion to determine relevancy for discovery purposes. See Hallett v.

Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002). Similarly, district courts have broad discretion

to limit discovery where 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." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C). Limits also should be imposed where the

burden or expense outweighs the likely benefits. Id.

A party may request the production of any document within the scope of Rule 26(b).

Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a). "For each item or category, the response must either state that

inspection and related activities will be permitted as requested or state an objection to the

request, including the reasons." Id. at 34(b)(2)(B). The responding party is responsible

Case 3:11-cv-00862-IEG-BLM Document 49 Filed 11/16/11 Page 2 of 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

-3- 11cv862-IEG (BLM)

for all items in "the responding party’s possession, custody, or control." Id. at 34(a)(1).

Actual possession, custody or control is not required. Rather, "[a] party may be ordered

to produce a document in the possession of a non-party entity if that party has a legal right

to obtain the document or has control over the entity who is in possession of the document.

Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 619 (N.D.Cal.1995).

DISCUSSION

Defendant seeks to have the Court compel Plaintiff to respond to its requests for

production (“RFP”) concerning Plaintiff’s medical records and history (RFP No. 24), Plaintiff’s

retention agreement with her attorneys in this matter (RFP No. 14), and an unredacted

copy of her receipt from the day Plaintiff purchased PCH (RFP No. 1). ECF No. 35-1 at 10.

Additionally, Defendant would like for the Court to order Plaintiff to answer deposition

questions regarding her medical history, conditions and treatment. Id. 

Plaintiff objects to all of Defendant’s requests on various grounds including that the

requests are overbroad, unrelated to the claims at issue, seek documents that are private,

confidential and privileged, and are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of

admissible evidence. ECF No. 41 at 4, 8 and 10. 

A. Request for Production No. 24 and Related Deposition Questions

Defendant seeks to have the Court order Plaintiff to (a) produce documents

responsive to Bayer’s RFP No. 24, and (b) answer deposition questions related to her

medical history and discussions with physicians about probiotics. ECF No. 35-1 at 7. RFP

No. 24, asks Plaintiff for “All of your medical records from 2007 to the present, including

but not limited to those reflecting or relating to your colon, digestive, or immune system;

constipation; diarrhea; gas; bloating; or diverticulitis.” Id. at 4. Defendant argues that it

is entitled to this information because Plaintiff has put her “medical condition directly at

issue” and because Plaintiff is challenging “the effectiveness of PCH in providing health

benefits to her, and alleges that rather than receiving those benefits, she suffered “injury

in fact” by purchasing and using the product.” Id. at 5-6.

Plaintiff responds by arguing that the requests for her medical records are

Case 3:11-cv-00862-IEG-BLM Document 49 Filed 11/16/11 Page 3 of 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

1

Defendant does cite to Weiss v. AstraZeneca Pharm., No. B215901, 2010 WL 3387220, (Cal. Ct. App.

Aug. 30, 2010) in its reply which has facts similar to this case. ECF No. 45 at 2-3. In Weiss, plaintiffs sued

defendant for violations of the Unfair Competition Law, the False Advertising Law, and the Consumer Legal

Remedies Act and for unjust enrichment in conjunction with the alleged deceptive marketing of defendant’s

prescription drug. Id. at *1. Plaintiffs did not allege that they suffered any adverse effects from the drug, just

that the deceptive marketing caused them to purchase the drug at a higher price than a less expensive and

equally effective alternative drug. Id. The case did not concern a motion to compel; however in resolving the

class certification and summary judgment motions at issue in the case, the court considered the plaintiffs’

medical conditions and histories and testimony from their physicians. Id. at 14-20. Although Weiss is not

binding on this Court because it is an unpublished California state court case, it is further support for the

conclusion that a plaintiff’s medical background can be at issue in a deceptive marketing case even if no

adverse physical effects from the product at issue are alleged.

-4- 11cv862-IEG (BLM)

“overbroad, seek medical records unrelated to the claims at issue, and seek records that

are private and confidential.” ECF No. 41 at 4. Plaintiff further argues that she has not

placed her medical history at issue in this matter because she has not alleged any physical

injury. Id. Finally, Plaintiff asks that if the Court does find that the medical records are

discoverable, limits be placed to narrow the scope of the medical records that Defendant

would be entitled to, and that a protective order be put into place with respect to Plaintiff’s

medical records and history. Id. at 7-8.

The parties have not directed the Court to a factually similar case in this Circuit, and

this Court has found none1

. Defendant cites to cases that concern the compelling of

medical records; however, those cases are dealing with causes of action other than the

Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law, breach of the express warranty,

and unjust enrichment. ECF No. 35-1 at 4-7. Plaintiff’s cases also fail to address discovery

in the context of the relevant causes of action. ECF No. 41 at 4-7. Additionally, many of

the cases Plaintiff cites are not from the Ninth Circuit. Id. After considering all of the

briefing and supporting documents submitted by the parties, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s

medical records are relevant to the subject matter involved in the action. FED. R. Civ. P.

(b)(1). Because Plaintiff alleges that PCH is not effective and did not provide Plaintiff with

the represented or advertised health and digestive benefits, Plaintiff’s medical records are

relevant to Defendant’s contention that an alternative explanation exists for PCH’s alleged

failure to provide health benefits to Plaintiff. However, Defendant’s request for all medical

records is overbroad as it potentially includes sensitive medical information unrelated to the

medical symptoms at issue in this case. 

Case 3:11-cv-00862-IEG-BLM Document 49 Filed 11/16/11 Page 4 of 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

-5- 11cv862-IEG (BLM)

Accordingly, Plaintiff is ordered to produce to Defendant all medical records from

2007 to the present reflecting or relating to gastrointestinal health, including consultation

or treatment of problems related to the colon, digestive system or immune system,

including symptoms such as constipation, diarrhea, gas, bloating or diverticulitis. Plaintiff

also must produce all medical records from 2007 to the present that reflect Plaintiff’s

questions about probiotics or a medical provider’s response to such questions or inquiries

or other information or advice provided to Plaintiff regarding probiotics. All of Plaintiff’s

medical records will be protected by the Protective Order previously filed in this matter.

ECF No. 28.

For the same reasons, Defendant’s request to re-depose Plaintiff on her medical

history as it relates to the symptoms and conditions at issue in this case and her discussions

with medical personnel about probiotics is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s follow-up deposition must

occur on or before December 9, 2011. 

B. Request for Production No. 14

Defendant seeks to have the Court compel Plaintiff to produce documents responsive

to RFP No. 14. ECF No. 35-1 at 7. RFP 14 requests: 

All documents evidencing the contract for performance of attorney services

in prosecution of this action, including all letters of representation, fee

agreements, written contracts, and other documents describing your role as

a proposed class representative, the role of your legal counsel, and the

financial terms of the relationship between you and your counsel in regard to

this action, as well as copies of any legal advertisement, solicitation for

participation in this litigation or written offer of legal representation that you

received or saw before filing your Complaint.

Id. at 7. 

In support of its position, Defendant argues that attorney retention or fee

agreements are not privileged and that the agreement is relevant in this case to assess

Plaintiff’s “fitness to serve as a class representative” and “Plaintiff’s law firm’s fitness to

serve as class counsel.” Id. at 8. Defendant further argues that if Plaintiff’s agreement

does contain privileged information as alleged, the agreement should be submitted to “the

Court for in camera review so that it can determine whether there are any portions of the

agreement that reveal privileged information and, if so, order that such sections be 

Case 3:11-cv-00862-IEG-BLM Document 49 Filed 11/16/11 Page 5 of 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

-6- 11cv862-IEG (BLM)

redacted before production.” ECF No. 45 at 7.

Plaintiff objects to Defendant’s request on the grounds that her agreement with her

attorneys is privileged, the request is overbroad and unduly burdensome, and it is not likely

to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. ECF No. 41 at 8. Plaintiff claims that

Defendant misapplies the law and that while Plaintiff has never objected to revealing the

names of her attorneys or whether or not she has tendered fees to her attorneys, the

retainer agreement between her and her attorneys does contain privileged information and,

therefore, should not be disclosed to Defendant. Id. at 8-10.

“The Ninth Circuit has repeatedly held retainer agreements are not protected by the

attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine.” Hoot Winc, LLC v. RSM McGaldrey Fin.

Process Outsourcing, LLC, 2009 WL 3857425 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 2009) (citing Ralls v.

United States, 52 F.3d 223, 225 (1995); United States v. Blackman, 72 F.3d 1418, 1424

(9th Cir. 1995); and In re Michaelson, 882 F.2d 882 (9th Cir. 1975)); see also Carrizosa v.

Stassinos, 2006 WL 2529503, *3 (N.D.Cal., Aug. 31, 2006) (stating that under Ninth Circuit

law, fee agreements generally fall outside the scope of the attorney-client privilege).

“Communications between attorney and client that concern the identity of the client, the

amount of the fee, the identification of payment by case file name, and the general purpose

of the work performed are usually not protected from disclosure by the attorney-client

privilege.” Paul v. Winco Holdings, Inc., 249 F.R.D. 643, 654 (D.Idaho, Feb. 27,

2008)(quoting Clarke v. Am. Commerce Nat'l Bank, 974 F.2d 127, 129 (9th Cir. 1992)).

However, “correspondence, bills, ledgers, statements, and time records which also reveal

the motive of the client in seeking representation, litigation strategy, or the specific nature

of the services provided, such as researching particular areas of law, fall within the

privilege.” Id. 

While it is clear that retainer agreements are not typically protected by attorneyclient privilege, here Plaintiff claims that “revealing the contents of her retainer agreement

with her attorneys would in fact reveal privileged communications between” herself and her

attorneys, ”including information pertaining to the scope and nature of the representation.”

Case 3:11-cv-00862-IEG-BLM Document 49 Filed 11/16/11 Page 6 of 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

-7- 11cv862-IEG (BLM)

ECF No. 41 at 10. In order to resolve this issue and determine if Plaintiff’s retainer

agreement contains information that is protected by the attorney-client privilege, this Court

ordered Plaintiff to submit an unredacted copy of the retainer agreement to chambers for

in camera review. ECF No.48. 

After conducting an in camera review of the retainer agreement, as well as careful

consideration of the briefing and exhibits provided by the parties, this Court finds that the

agreement does not contain any information that is entitled to the protections of attorneyclient privilege. Plaintiff’s refusal to produce the agreement on this ground is incorrect.

ECF Nos. 35-3 at 135, Exhibit I and 41 at 8. Therefore, Defendant’s request that the Court

compel Plaintiff to produce the retainer agreement in response to RFP 14 is GRANTED. 

C. Request for Production No. 1.

Defendant’s RFP No. 1 seeks “All documents and things reflecting or relating to every

purchase of any Phillips’ Colon Health products by you or anyone acting on your behalf

made between 2008 and the present, including but not limited to receipts of such

purchase(s).” ECF No. 35-1 at 9. In response, Defendant received one Ralphs grocery

store receipt from Plaintiff that had every purchase redacted with the exception of PCH.

Id. When Defendant requested that Plaintiff produce an unredacted copy of the receipt,

Plaintiff refused. Id. Defendant now seeks to have the Court compel Plaintiff to produce

an unredacted version of the receipt. Id. at 10. Plaintiff’s position is that Defendant is not

entitled to an unredacted copy of the receipt because Plaintiff’s “other purchases are not

likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” ECF No. 41 at 10. 

On November 1, 2011, the Court ordered Plaintiff to provide the Court with an

unredacted copy of the receipt at issue for in camera review. ECF No. 42. Plaintiff

submitted the receipt on November 2, 2011. After conducting an in camera review of the

receipt, as well as careful consideration of the briefing and exhibits provided by the parties,

this Court finds that the receipt does not contain any sensitive information. In addition,

given Plaintiff’s deposition testimony, the Court finds that the receipt does contain relevant

information. ECF No. 35-3 at 38, Exhibit B. Therefore, Defendant’s request that the Court

Case 3:11-cv-00862-IEG-BLM Document 49 Filed 11/16/11 Page 7 of 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

-8- 11cv862-IEG (BLM)

compel Plaintiff to provide Defendant with an unredacted copy of the receipt is GRANTED.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s motion to compel discovery responses from

Plaintiff is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to respond to Defendant’s Requests for

Production Nos. 24 and 14 and to produce and unredacted copy of the Ralphs receipt to

Defendant by November 30, 2011. The follow-up deposition of Plaintiff must occur on

or before December 9, 2011.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 16, 2011

BARBARA L. MAJOR

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:11-cv-00862-IEG-BLM Document 49 Filed 11/16/11 Page 8 of 8