Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00894/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00894-7/pdf.json

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

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DELIA WILSON, on behalf of herself and 

others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CONAIR CORPORATION,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:14-cv-00894-WBS-SAB

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

TO COMPEL WITHOUT PREJUDICE 

(ECF Nos. 51, 52, 55, 57)

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s Second Motion to Compel Responses to 

Discovery Requests in this action. 

I.

BACKGROUND

A. Plaintiff’s Complaint

The complaint in this matter was filed on June 11, 2014. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff Delia 

Wilson brought this lawsuit as a class action against Defendant Conair Corporation 

(“Defendant”) and raises three causes of action: 1) for violation of the Consumers Legal 

Remedies Act, California Civil Code § 1750, et seq., 2) for violation of the Unfair Competition 

Law, California Business and Professions Code § 17200, et seq., and 3) for breach of implied 

warranty.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant manufactures a variety of curling irons, straightening 

Case 1:14-cv-00894-WBS-SAB Document 58 Filed 08/17/15 Page 1 of 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

2

irons, and curling brushes. (Compl. ¶ 1.) Defendant’s styling irons use a power cord connected 

to the iron via a “stress relief.” (Compl. ¶ 2.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant expressly and 

impliedly represent that their styling irons are well-designed and safe to use. (Compl. ¶ 4.) 

Plaintiff alleges that she, and others similarly situated, purchased Defendant’s styling irons based 

upon those representations regarding their safety and suffered injury from using the styling irons. 

(Compl. ¶ 5.)

In Plaintiff’s case, Plaintiff alleges that she purchased a Conair Instant Heat 11⁄2” Curling 

Iron in early 2010. (Compl. ¶ 9.) Less than a month after it was purchased, the curling iron 

malfunctioned and would not turn on. (Compl. ¶ 13.) Plaintiff contacted Conair’s Customer 

Service Department and received a replacement curling iron. (Compl. ¶ 13.) On February 12, 

2014, the replacement curling iron malfunctioned, and the power cord began to crackle and emit 

sparks. (Compl. ¶ 14.) A flash of sparks caused burns on Plaintiff’s face and chest. (Compl. ¶ 

14.) Plaintiff received a corneal abrasion in her eye. (Compl. ¶ 15.) Plaintiff alleges that the 

curling iron failed at the point where the curling iron’s power cord meets the stress relief. 

(Compl. ¶ 16.)

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant knew or should have known that its styling irons were 

defective. (Compl. ¶ 21.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant received complaints about similar 

incidents with the power cord from consumers as early as 2012. (Compl. ¶ 21.) Plaintiff further 

alleges that Defendant failed to warn consumers about the defects in its styling irons. (Compl. ¶ 

24.)

Plaintiff seeks to bring this action on behalf of a class defined as “All persons who 

purchased Conair Styling Irons in California.” (Compl. ¶ 30.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant 

violated the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act through its misrepresentations regarding 

the safety of their styling irons (Compl. ¶¶ 40-47); violated the California Unfair Competition 

Law by its misrepresentations and omissions regarding the safety of their styling irons (Compl. 

¶¶ 48-58); and breached the implied warranty with respect to their styling irons because of the 

safety defects inherent in the styling irons (Compl. ¶¶ 59-72).

On December 4, 2014, a scheduling order issued in this action setting forth pretrial 

Case 1:14-cv-00894-WBS-SAB Document 58 Filed 08/17/15 Page 2 of 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

3

deadlines. (ECF No. 26.) Plaintiff filed a motion to compel which was granted in part and 

denied in part on April 30, 2015. (ECF No. 46.) On July 22, 2015, Plaintiff filed this second 

motion to compel. (ECF No. 51.) On August 5, 2015, the parties filed a joint statement 

regarding the discovery disagreement. (ECF No. 52.) On August 10, 2015, Defendant filed an 

opposition to the joint statement. (ECF No. 55.) On August 11, 2015, the Court issued an order 

vacating the hearing on the motion and ordering Plaintiff to file a reply to Defendant’s 

opposition. (ECF No. 56.) On August 12, 2015, Plaintiff filed a reply. (ECF No. 57.)

II.

MOTION TO COMPEL LEGAL STANDARD

Motions to compel are governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37, which states, in 

pertinent part:

(a) Motion for an Order Compelling Disclosure or Discovery.

(1) In General. On notice to other parties and all affected persons, 

a party may move for an order compelling disclosure or discovery. 

The motion must include a certification that the movant has in 

good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the person or 

party failing to make disclosure or discovery in an effort to obtain 

it without court action.

Rule 37 states that “an evasive or incomplete disclosure, answer, or response must be treated as a 

failure to disclose, answer, or respond.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4). Rule 37 also provides that 

attorney’s fees must be awarded to the party that prevails on a motion to compel or the party who 

successfully opposes a motion to compel. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5). If the motion to compel is 

granted in part and denied in part, the Court has discretion to apportion the reasonable expenses 

for the motion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(C).

III.

DISCUSSION

The joint statement re discovery dispute filed in this action seeks to compel production of 

products returned to Defendant for problems related to failure or malfunction of the cord and to 

establish a deadline for documents responsive to the motion to compel granted on April 30, 

2015. (ECF No. 52.) Defendant opposes the statement contending that it is not a joint statement 

as Plaintiff added a response to Defendant’s portion of the statement and the second motion to 

Case 1:14-cv-00894-WBS-SAB Document 58 Filed 08/17/15 Page 3 of 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

4

compel after the original joint statement was presented for consideration by Defendant and 

without providing Defendant an opportunity to respond. (ECF No. 55.) 

A. Motion to Compel Production of Styling Irons

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34 provides that a party may serve upon any other party 

a request for production of any tangible thing within the party’s possession, custody, and control. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1)(B). Pursuant to Rule 34, Plaintiff served upon Defendant Requests for 

Production seeking production of “all Products returned to Conair for problems related to 

sparking, flashing, popping, fires, or any line cord failure or malfunction. (ECF No. 52-1 at 19.1) 

Defendant did not produce the things requested, but objected stating:

The definition of “Products” used by Plaintiff for this request is “Conair’s 

straightening irons, curling irons, wands, curling brushes, crimpers, and all similar 

styling items manufactured with the following: 1) LM 81 stress release; and 2) 

20-guage line cord.” The allegations in the Complaint define the alleged products 

at issue in this litigation as “Styling Irons” and limit this term to mean “curling 

irons, straightening irons and curling brushes.” Accordingly, Conair objects that 

this interrogatory is overbroad and seeks information that is irrelevant and beyond 

the scope of the allegations in the Complaint. 

Additionally, this interrogatory is overbroad as it is not limited by time. Further, 

this interrogatory is oppressive and burdensome. 

The parties have meet and conferred and have been unable to resolve this dispute without 

the intervention of the Court. Plaintiff has had an expert analyze her curling iron which sparked 

on February 12, 2014. Plaintiff contends that this testing revealed a defect in the power cord. 

Plaintiff seeks the styling irons to have testing conducted to see if they contain similar defects. 

(Joint Statement 3, ECF No. 52.) Plaintiff contends that items returned with a line cord rupture 

are placed in an “LCR bin. (Id. at 4.) Plaintiff seeks 12 to 40 styling irons with ruptured cords 

for testing. (Id.) 

Relevant to the issue the Court shall address here, Defendant contends that Plaintiff has 

failed to meet her burden to show that additional testing will yield any evidence to support the 

claims in this action. Defendant asserts that it has provided discovery consistent with the Court’s 

prior order which revealed that between February 2005 and April 2015 there had been 316 

 

1 All references to pagination of specific documents pertain to those as indicated on the upper right corners via the 

CM/ECF electronic court docketing system.

Case 1:14-cv-00894-WBS-SAB Document 58 Filed 08/17/15 Page 4 of 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

5

complaints and there were only similar issues in 24 of the 45 different models for which the 

Court ordered discovery. (Id. at 9.) Defendant contends there were 89 time relevant complaints 

and only 11 were from individuals who reside in California, which is the class at issue in this 

action. (Id.) Defendant also argues that, similar to her prior motion to compel, Plaintiff has not 

shown typicality to entitle her to the broad range of styling irons that she is requesting. (Id. at 

14.) 

“Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any 

party’s claim or defense. . . . Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the 

discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Relevancy is broadly defined for the purposes of discovery, but it does have 

“ultimate and necessary boundaries.” Gonzales v. Google, Inc., 234 F.R.D. 674, 680 (N.D. Cal. 

2006) (citations omitted).

“Prior to certification of a class action, discovery is generally limited and in the discretion 

of the court.” Del Campo v. Kennedy, 236 F.R.D. 454, 459 (N.D. Cal. 2006). Generally, it is 

the plaintiff’s burden to make a “prima facie showing that the class actions requirements of 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 are satisfied or that discovery is likely to produce 

substantiation of the class allegations.” Del Campo, 236 F.R.D. at 459 (quoting Tracy v. Dean 

Witter Reynolds, 185 F.R.D. 303, 304 (D.Co.1998). Especially when the material is in the 

possession of the defendant, the court should allow the plaintiff enough discovery to obtain 

evidence as to whether a class action is maintainable. Doninger v. Pac. Nw. Bell, Inc., 564 F.2d 

1304, 1313 (9th Cir. 1977). The court should consider “the need for discovery, the time 

required, and the probability of discovery providing necessary factual information” in exercising 

its discretion to allow or prohibit discovery. Doninger, 564 F.2d at 1313.

To make a prima facie showing under Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

a plaintiff must meet the prerequisites of numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of 

representation. Plaintiff must show “(1) that the class is so numerous that joinder of all members 

is impracticable; (2) that there are questions of law or fact common to the class; (3) that the 

claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class; 

Case 1:14-cv-00894-WBS-SAB Document 58 Filed 08/17/15 Page 5 of 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

6

and (4) that the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.” 

Ogden v. Bumble Bee Foods, LLC, 292 F.R.D. 620, 622 (N.D. Cal. 2013) (internal punctuation

and citation omitted).

The December 4, 2014 scheduling order provides that the motion to certify the class must 

be filed on or before January 5, 2016. Currently no such motion has been filed. While the Court 

is to allow Plaintiff to conduct discovery to obtain evidence on whether a class action is 

maintainable, the discovery requested here goes to the merits of the action and not class 

certification. Plaintiff is seeking to conduct destructive testing on other styling wands that were 

returned for sparking issues to determine if they contain the same defect as she alleges was found 

by her expert. However, at this juncture, the Court is unable to determine the appropriate scope 

of the discovery requested. 

Based upon the discovery to date, there are approximately ten similar instances within the 

class at issue in this action. This may raise numerosity, as well as typicality, as issues that could 

preclude class certification. The discovery requested here is not reasonably calculated to obtain 

admissible evidence regarding the numerosity or typicality of injuries suffered by the consumers 

that could potentially be class members in this action, but addresses the merits of the action. 

Additionally, the Court considers that the testing which Plaintiff seeks to conduct on these units 

will be destructive. The Court finds that Plaintiff’s request to conduct testing on other styling 

wands is premature at this stage of the litigation. Once a motion for class certification is filed 

and ruled upon, the Court and the parties will be able to determine the appropriate scope of 

discovery on the merits in this action. 

As previously stated, the motion for class certification shall be filed on or before January 

5, 2016. The scheduling order provides that discovery in this action will conclude on July 1, 

2016. Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiff will not be prejudiced by delaying the requested 

discovery as she will have approximately six months following the ruling on the motion for class 

certification to conduct any additional discovery that will be relevant to the claims remaining 

following decision on any such motion. 

Since this action is still in the pre-class certification stage of discovery, Plaintiff’s request 

Case 1:14-cv-00894-WBS-SAB Document 58 Filed 08/17/15 Page 6 of 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

7

to compel the production of additional styling irons in Defendant’s possession for testing is 

denied. 

B. Motion to Compel Compliance with Court Order

In the joint statement, Plaintiff included a motion to compel production of discovery 

granted in the Court’s prior order. Plaintiff seeks to have the Court establish dates by which 

Defendant must produce e-mails and additional consumer complaints. (ECF No. 52 at 17.) 

Defendant contends that Plaintiff added this second motion to compel after the joint statement 

had been approved by Defendant and without providing Defendant with an opportunity to 

address the motion. (ECF No. 55 at 6-14.)

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for the Court to establish dates by which Defendant must 

produce ESI discovery is DENIED. The parties are ordered to meet and confer in an attempt to 

establish the appropriate scope of the discovery requested and an acceptable timeline for

Defendant to produce documents responsive to discovery requests.2

C. Any Further Discovery Disputes Seeking Court Intervention Will Require 

the Personal Appearance of Counsel

In the opposition to the August 5, 2015 statement of discovery dispute, Defendant 

contends that Plaintiff filed the joint statement regarding Plaintiff’s motion to compel without 

receiving the approval of Defendant. Further Defendant states that he requested Plaintiff to 

change the date of the scheduled hearing so he could appear in person and Plaintiff refused. 

Plaintiff replies that the joint statement did not contain the signature of defense counsel and the 

declaration of counsel filed with the joint statement described why counsel was unable to secure 

the cooperation of the opposing party in executing the joint statement.

The statement filed by Plaintiff is entitled “Joint Statement Regarding Plaintiff’s Motion 

to Compel Further Responses and Motion to Compel Compliance with Court Order.” (ECF No. 

 

2

If all parties agree to participate, the Court is available to resolve discovery disputes informally. The Court 

provides this option at the request of the parties to conserve resources and provide for expedited resolution of 

discovery disputes. The informal discovery procedure can be found at the United States District Court for the 

Eastern District of California’s website (http://www.caed.uscourts.gov) under Judges; United States Magistrate 

Judge Stanley A. Boone (SAB). In the area entitled “Case Management Procedures,” there is a link to “Standard 

Information” and the informal discovery dispute procedure is included at paragraph 7. The process is only voluntary 

and parties are not required to participate if they do not wish. 

Case 1:14-cv-00894-WBS-SAB Document 58 Filed 08/17/15 Page 7 of 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

8

52.) While Plaintiff points to the declaration of counsel, which was included after the twenty 

page joint statement and one hundred and thirty six page attachment, nothing in the joint 

statement itself indicated that there was a continuing dispute regarding the statement nor that 

Defendant objected to the joint statement. Further, the Court finds that the lack of Defendant’s 

signature on the joint statement was insufficient to inform the Court that Plaintiff was submitting 

the joint statement without the consent of Defendant. 

Plaintiff contends that Defendant has failed to provide timely discovery and refuses to 

settle these disputes through the informal discovery dispute procedure provided by this Court. 

Defendant argues that the delay in providing the requested ESI discovery is due to Plaintiff 

continually changing the ESI criteria which has prevented them from establishing the ESI 

protocol to be observed in this case. Further, Defendant asserts that Plaintiff refused to resolve 

the discovery dispute regarding the ESI discovery through the informal discovery process. 

The parties have shown that meet and confer efforts in this action have not been 

successful in resolving these disputes and each assert it is due to the fault of the other party. Due 

to the parties’ inability to meet and confer and resolve these issues, the parties are advised that 

the personal appearance of all counsel shall be required for any further motion to compel that is 

filed with the Court. The parties are encouraged to work together during meet and confer 

sessions prior to any scheduled hearing. However, if a resolution is not reached prior to the 

scheduled hearing, the parties shall be required to personally appear and should plan to engage in 

an extended meet and confer session with the assistance of the Court which could require an allday appearance on the day of the scheduled hearing. 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 1:14-cv-00894-WBS-SAB Document 58 Filed 08/17/15 Page 8 of 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

9

VI.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Based on the foregoing IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to compel 

filed July 22, 2015, is DENIED in its entirety. Further, any further motions to compel will 

require that the parties personally appear on the date of the scheduled hearing to engage in 

extended meet and confer in an attempt to resolve the outstanding discovery issues. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 17, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00894-WBS-SAB Document 58 Filed 08/17/15 Page 9 of 9