Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-00711/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-00711-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1446 Petition for Removal

---

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

PRESTON JONES,

Plaintiff,

v.

NUTIVA, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 16-cv-00711-HSG (KAW)

ORDER TERMINATING 9/16/16 JOINT 

LETTER REGARDING DEFINITION 

NOS. 7 & 8 IN LIGHT OF DISTRICT 

COURT'S 9/22/16 RULING

Re: Dkt. No. 50

On September 16, 2016, the parties filed a joint discovery letter regarding “whether 

discovery properly includes information only about the Nutiva Virgin Coconut Oil that plaintiff 

purchased, or also should include information about Nutiva’s Extra Virgin and Refined Coconut 

Oils, based on plaintiff also seeking to represent purchasers of those products.” (Joint Letter, Dkt. 

No. 50 at 2.) The letter also addressed whether Plaintiff’s definition of “Nutiva Coconut Oil 

Claims” could include challenged statements on Nutiva’s website considering that Plaintiff never 

accessed the website himself. (Joint Letter at 3.) At the time of filing, both issues were pending 

before the district court. Indeed, Defendant acknowledged that its discovery position was the 

same position it advocated in the fully briefed motion for judgment on the pleadings, and, that 

should the district court find in Plaintiff’s favor, it would provide information related to all 

products. (Joint Letter at 4.) On September 22, 2016, the district court granted in part and denied 

in part Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, which appears to resolve the pending 

disputes in their entirety. Notwithstanding, to the extent that certain challenged statements were 

not contained in the Complaint, Defendant need not respond. Thus, Defendant need not 

supplement its responses to address subparts (l) through (q).

///

///

Case 4:16-cv-00711-HSG Document 58 Filed 09/23/16 Page 1 of 2
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

Accordingly, the Court TERMINATES the joint letter. Should the parties believe that any 

disputes contained therein remain unresolved, they are ordered to meet and confer in an effort to 

resolve those disputes informally before seeking further court intervention.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 23, 2016

__________________________________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:16-cv-00711-HSG Document 58 Filed 09/23/16 Page 2 of 2