Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_17-cv-03824/USCOURTS-cand-4_17-cv-03824-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

ORDER – No. 17-cv-03824-PJH (LB)

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 Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

San Francisco Division 

JOSEPH GREGORIO, et al.,

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

THE CLOROX COMPANY, 

Defendant. 

Case No. 17-cv-03824-PJH (LB)

DISCOVERY ORDER 

Re: ECF No. 67 

The district judge referred all discovery matters to the undersigned.1 The parties have pending 

discovery disputes.2 The court sets a case-management conference on August 2, 2018, at 11:00 a.m. 

to address the disputes and orders the following. 

 The case is about Clorox’s allegedly mislabeling certain products that it sells as “natural” or 

“naturally derived” when they actually contain ingredients that are synthetic and non-natural.3

 The 

discovery disputes are about the timing and scope of production. From the letter brief, the parties 

ought to be able to resolve some issues by conferring. For example, they can at least propose time 

frames for production (other than the unworkable July 12). They also should be able to propose first 

 

1

 Order of Reference, ECF No. 68. Citations refer to material in the Electronic Case File (“ECF”); 

pinpoint citations are to the ECF-generated page numbers at the top of documents. 

2

 Joint Letter – ECF No. 67. 

3

 FAC – ECF No. 35 at 2. 

Case 4:17-cv-03824-PJH Document 69 Filed 07/10/18 Page 1 of 2
ORDER – No. 17-cv-03824-PJH (LB) 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 Californi

a

steps for production (say, agreeing on a time period that begins at some reasonable time period 

preceding relevant label changes). Similarly, they should be able to agree on first steps for email 

searches and at least agree on a time frame for providing their respective positions. 

The court hopes that the parties can work out their disputes (given that their positions seem 

amenable to resolution through a meet-and-confer process) but asks for a new joint statement by 

July 26, 2018, a week before the hearing. The parties also may vacate the case-management 

conference by stipulation if they resolve their disputes. 

For all future disputes, the parties must comply with the undersigned’s standing order (attached). 

The dispute procedures in it require, among other things, that if a meet-and-confer by other means 

does not resolve the parties’ dispute, lead counsel for the parties must meet and confer in person (if 

counsel are local) and then submit a joint letter brief with information about any unresolved disputes. 

The letter brief must be filed under the Civil Events category of “Motions and Related Filings > 

Motions – General > Discovery Letter Brief.” After reviewing the joint letter brief, the court will 

evaluate whether future proceedings are necessary, including any further briefing or argument. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: July 10, 2018 

______________________________________ 

LAUREL BEELER 

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 4:17-cv-03824-PJH Document 69 Filed 07/10/18 Page 2 of 2