Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02810/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02810-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 00:0000 Cause Code Unknown

---

1

16cv2810 BEN (BGS)

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CERTIFIED NUTRACEUTICALS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

AVICENNA NUTRACEUTICAL, LLC,

Defendant.

Case No.: 16cv2810 BEN (BGS)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF 

CERTIFIED NUTRACEUTICAL 

INC.’S MOTION TO REOPEN 

DISCOVERY RELATED TO RFPs 4 

AND 6

[ECF 24]

On December 7, 2017 the Court allowed a limited re-opening of discovery as 

follows:

Fact discovery is reopened, but only as to Plaintiff’s First Set of 

Request for Production of Documents 4 and 6, and only to the extent 

Defendant has not already produced the requested documents. 

Plaintiff may not modify RFPs 4 and 6 and Defendant’s objections are 

limited to its previously stated objections. If Defendant does not seek 

to enforce any of its previously stated objections, Defendant shall 

supplement its production to RFPs 4 and 6 by January 3, 2018.

(Court’s Dec. 7, 2017 Order [ECF 20] at ¶ 1.) The Court’s Order further provided: 

///

Case 3:16-cv-02810-BEN-BGS Document 29 Filed 02/13/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

16cv2810 BEN (BGS)

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

If Defendant’s supplemental production to RFPs 4 and 6 requires any 

additional fact discovery by either party, the parties must jointly contact the 

Court by January 10, 2018 to seek leave to conduct specifically identified 

discovery. Any party seeking additional discovery should be prepared to 

address why the discovery was not previously sought, how the limited 

supplemental production ordered here justifies additional discovery, and 

how long it will take to complete.

(Id. at ¶ 5.) 

Plaintiff now seeks to reopen discovery pursuant to this Order. (Pl.’s Mot. to 

Reopen Discovery Related to RFPs 4 & 6 (“Pl.’s Mot.”) [ECF 24].) In sum, Plaintiff 

concedes that Defendant produced numerous invoices and purchase orders regarding 

Neocell Corporation, but alleges that this production is wholly incomplete, bearing 

inconsistent amounts and gaps in timing. (Id. at 2.) Specifically Plaintiff states that 

Neocell began doing business with Defendant in June of 2014, yet the invoices do not 

begin until January 2016. Further, the invoices stop in June of 2017, over six months 

ago. And the invoices total $955,140, yet the purchase orders total $982, 870. (Id.) As

regards the emails, Plaintiff claims that while the supplemental production includes 

emails from other customers, it produces no emails from Neocell. (Id.) On this basis, 

Plaintiff seeks to directly subpoena Neocell for documents and information to ascertain

whether they exist. (Id. at 4.) Plaintiff requests two additional months of fact discovery 

to accomplish this task. (Id.)

In response, Defendant claims that that all agreed upon documents have been 

produced and a verification under oath has been provided attesting to the production’s 

completeness. (Def.’s Opp’n [ECF 25] at 3.) Defendant asserts that it has produced all 

invoices and purchase orders with NeoCell, a fact that is attested to in the signed 

verification. (Id.) Defendant attaches the verification under oath by Ali Elnajjar, Chief 

Executive Officer of Avicenna Nutraceutical, LLC. (Adams Decl., Ex. B, [ECF 25-3 at 

Case 3:16-cv-02810-BEN-BGS Document 29 Filed 02/13/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

16cv2810 BEN (BGS)

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

101]. As regards the lack of responsive emails, Defendant points to an agreement with 

Plaintiff which limited the email production to those relating to any representation by

Defendant that its products are patented, or emails necessary to reflect any sales not 

reflected in the purchase orders and invoices. (ECF 25 at 3).2 Defendant states that there 

are no emails responsive to this narrow scope. (Id.)

Of note, Plaintiff has not called into question his agreement memorialized in ECF 

25-2 at 3-4 with Defendant which limits the supplemental discovery to production of all 

invoices and purchase orders for sales of Defendant’s collagen to Vibrant, Emenee, 

NeoCell, and any other third party up to January 3, 2018; all emails relating to any 

representation by Defendant that is products are patented, or emails necessary to reflect 

any sales not reflected in the purchase orders and invoices. Plaintiff’s issue in this 

dispute is whether or not the Defendant is withholding this agreed upon discovery, which 

is based on alleged gaps and inconsistencies in the invoices and purchase orders, as well 

as the lack on any emails regarding NeoCell. The Defendant in turn has provided a 

declaration under penalty of perjury that it has provided all the discovery agreed upon. 

Pursuant to the Court’s December 7, 2017 Order, Plaintiff bears the burden to 

show how the supplemental discovery provided by Defendant justifies the additional 

discovery he now requests. Plaintiff’s stated purpose for requesting this additional 

discovery is to ascertain whether or not Defendant is indeed withholding discovery from 

Plaintiff. (Pl.’s Mot. at 4.) The Court finds that Plaintiff’s disbelief of Defendant does 

not meet this burden, and therefore does not justify reopening discovery. Martin v. State 

Farm Mut. Ins. Co., No. 3:10-cv-0144, 2011 WL 13228851 (S.D. W. Va. Jan. 20, 2011) 

(“The Court cannot compel defendants to produce documents ‘based solely on opposing 

 

1 The Court cites the CM/ECF pagination for the documents attached to Defendant’s 

Opposition.

2 Defendant attaches an email exchange with Plaintiff which corroborates this agreement. 

(ECF 25-2 at 3-4.)

Case 3:16-cv-02810-BEN-BGS Document 29 Filed 02/13/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

16cv2810 BEN (BGS)

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

speculation and belief that responsive documents exists and that the producing party is 

withholding them”); Hubbard v. Potter, 247 F.R.D. 27, 29 (D. D.C. 2008) (“Instead of 

chasing the theoretical possibility that additional documents exist, courts have insisted 

that the documents that have been produced permit a reasonable deduction that other 

documents may exist”); see also Heilman v Silva, No. 13cv2984 JLS (MDD), 2015 WL 

1632693, at *4 (S.D. Cal. April 13, 2015) (“Plaintiff provides no basis (besides his own 

disbelief) for concluding that the Defendants’ responses were evasive”). 

The Court also notes that under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(e)(1)(A) the 

parties are under a continuing obligation to timely supplement responses to discovery if 

the party determines its prior responses are incomplete or incorrect. Failure to comply 

with this obligation may result in sanctions, including being precluded from using that 

information, payment of reasonable expenses caused by the failure to supplement, and 

“other appropriate sanctions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1). 

Plaintiff’s Motion to Reopen Discovery is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 13, 2018

Case 3:16-cv-02810-BEN-BGS Document 29 Filed 02/13/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4