Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02318/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02318-7/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Honest Tea, Inc.
Defendant
Sarah A. Salazar
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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 

SARAH A. SALAZAR, on behalf of 

herself and all others similarly situated, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

HONEST TEA, INC., 

Defendant. 

No. 2:13-cv-02318-KJM-EFB 

ORDER 

 This matter is before the court on defendant Honest Tea, Inc.’s (“defendant” or 

“Honest Tea”) Motion for Reconsideration of the magistrate judge’s July 13, 2015 discovery 

order under Local Rule 303(c), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), and 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1)(A). Def.’s Mot. Recons., ECF No. 70. Plaintiff Sarah A. Salazar (“plaintiff” or “Ms. 

Salazar”) opposes the motion. Pl.’s Opp’n Mot. Recons., ECF No. 73. The court held a hearing 

on the matter on September 25, 2015, at which L. Timothy Fisher, Yeremey Krivoshey, and 

Annick Persinger appeared for plaintiff; Travis Tu, Pro Hac Vice, and appellant Tammy Webb 

appeared for defendant. As explained below, the court DENIES defendant’s motion. 

I. BACKGROUND 

On June 24, 2015, Ms. Salazar moved for an order compelling Honest Tea to 

produce documents in response to plaintiff’s requests for production numbered 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 16, 

Case 2:13-cv-02318-KJM-EFB Document 87 Filed 10/28/15 Page 1 of 7
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

and 17 and to provide further responses to plaintiff’s interrogatories numbered 1, 2, and 3. Pl.’s 

Mot. Compel, ECF No. 57. Honest Tea opposed the motion, arguing that the requests are 

premature and irrelevant. See generally Joint Statement Re Disc. Disagreement, ECF No. 57-1. 

On July 1, 2015, the magistrate judge held a hearing and heard the parties’ positions on each of 

the discovery requests. See 7/1/2015 Tr., Persinger Decl., Ex. 5, ECF No. 73-1; 7/1/2015 Tr., 

Cohen Decl., Ex. D, ECF No. 70-6 (“7/1/2015 Tr.”). 

After considering the parties’ briefing and arguments at the hearing, the pleadings, 

this court’s prior rulings, and transcripts of prior proceedings, the magistrate judge granted in 

large part plaintiff’s Motion to Compel.1 Order Mot. Compel, ECF No. 66. The magistrate judge 

found that the requests are not premature, because this court specifically decided not to bifurcate 

discovery, and class certification and merits discovery often overlap. Id. at 1; 7/1/2015 Tr. at 9:4-

10:10, 14:9-14:13. The magistrate judge also found that the discovery requests are relevant to the 

claims asserted by plaintiff in the First Amended Complaint. Order Mot. Compel at 2-4; 7/1/2015 

Tr. 

On July 27, 2015, defendant filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the magistrate 

judge’s discovery order. Def.’s Mot. Recons., ECF No. 70. Specifically, defendant seeks 

reversal of the ruling that Honest Tea must respond to the following document requests and 

interrogatories: 

Request for Production No. 5: ALL DOCUMENTS that REFER 

OR RELATE TO the development of HONEY GREEN TEA, 

including, but not limited to, COMMUNICATIONS with 

consultants and third parties, internal COMMUNICATIONS, and 

ANY analysis or opinions concerning the ingredients, antioxidant 

content, including but not limited to EGCG, flavonoids, or other 

catechins, or formulation of HONEY GREEN TEA, without 

limitation to time period. 

Request for Production No. 6: ALL DOCUMENTS that REFER 

OR RELATE TO COMMUNICATIONS with ANY in-house or 

outside scientific, medical, or other consultants concerning the 

 1

 The magistrate judge granted the motion with respect to all of the requests except 

interrogatory number 2, which he denied without prejudice. Order Mot. Compel at 4, ECF 

No. 66. 

Case 2:13-cv-02318-KJM-EFB Document 87 Filed 10/28/15 Page 2 of 7
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

ingredients, or formulation of HONEY GREEN TEA without 

limitation to time period. 

Request for Production No. 7: ALL DOCUMENTS that REFER 

OR RELATE TO the nutritional content of HONEY GREEN TEA, 

including but not limited to the amount of Vitamin C, Vitamin E, 

and Vitamin A, without limitation to time period, including but not 

limited to the milligram amount of the ingredients, listed or not 

listed in the nutrition facts panel on HONEY GREEN TEA’s label 

without limitation to time period. 

Request for Production No. 8: ALL DOCUMENTS that REFER 

OR RELATE TO testing of the antioxidant content, including but 

not limited to Epigallocatechin Gallate (“EGCG”), flavonoids, or 

other catechins, in HONEY GREEN TEA, including, but not 

limited to, clinical study proposals, descriptions, abstracts, reports, 

results, and ANY other DOCUMENTS concerning studies, tests or 

evaluations concerning the ingredients, or formulation of HONEY 

GREEN TEA, without limitation to time period. 

Interrogatory No. 3: IDENTIFY EACH ingredient and the amount 

in HONEY GREEN TEA for each variation, if any, for HONEY 

GREEN TEA since its introduction to the market. 

See id. at 8-9. Plaintiff opposes the motion. Opp’n Mot. Recons., ECF No. 73.

II. LEGAL STANDARD 

Courts review motions to reconsider a magistrate judge’s ruling under the “clearly 

erroneous or contrary to law” standard. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Miller v. 

Akanno, No. 1:12-CV-01013-LJO-SKO (PC), 2015 WL 566304, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 16, 2015); 

see also Local Rule 303(f). “A finding is clearly erroneous when although there is evidence to 

support it, the reviewing [body] on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction 

that a mistake has been committed.” Concrete Pipe & Prods. of Cal., Inc. v. Constr. Laborers 

Pension Trust for S. Cal., 508 U.S. 602, 622 (1993) (internal quotation marks omitted) (alteration 

in original) (quoting United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948)). 

“[R]eview under the ‘clearly erroneous’ standard is significantly deferential . . . .” Id. at 623. 

“The ‘contrary to law’ standard allows independent, plenary review of purely legal 

determinations by the magistrate judge.” Estate of Stephen E. Crawley v. Robinson, No. 1:13-

CV-02042-LJO-SAB, 2015 WL 3849107, at *2 (E.D. Cal. June 22, 2015). “An order is contrary 

to law when it fails to apply or misapplies relevant statutes, case law, or rules of procedure.” Id. 

(quoting Knutson v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Minn., 254 F.R.D. 553, 556 (D. Minn. 2008)). 

Case 2:13-cv-02318-KJM-EFB Document 87 Filed 10/28/15 Page 3 of 7
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

In reviewing pretrial orders of a magistrate, the district court “may not simply 

substitute its judgment for that of the deciding court.” Grimes v. City & County of San Francisco, 

951 F.2d 236, 241 (9th Cir. 1991). “To succeed [on a motion for reconsideration], a party must 

set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior 

decision.” Enriquez v. City of Fresno, No. CV F 10–0581 AWI DLB, 2011 WL 1087149, at *1 

(E.D. Cal. Mar. 23, 2011). 

III. DISCUSSION 

A. “Contrary to Law” 

The applicable legal standard for relevance is provided by Rule 26(b)(1) of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which allows a party to “obtain discovery regarding any 

nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). 

The Rules create a “broad right of discovery” because “wide access to relevant facts serves the 

integrity and fairness of the judicial process by promoting the search for the truth.” Shoen v. 

Shoen, 5 F.3d 1289, 1292 (9th Cir. 1993). However, Honest Tea contends that the 2000 

Amendment to Rule 26(b)(1) “signals to the parties that they have no entitlement to discovery to 

develop new claims or defenses that are not identified in the pleadings.” Def.’s Mot. Recons. at 

10 (quoting In re Ashworth, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 99-CV-121, 2002 WL 33009225, at *2 (S.D. Cal. 

May 10, 2002)).

The court finds that the magistrate judge correctly applied the Rule 26(b) standard 

within the context of the case. At the hearing, the judge considered how each discovery request is 

relevant to an element of the claims asserted in the First Amended Complaint. See 7/1/2015 Tr. at 

1:19-1:23 (“As to the relevancy objection, obviously, I’ll be informed by the claims that are put at 

issue in the amended complaint as well as Judge Mueller’s rulings on the prior 12(b)(6) motions, 

but in particular the second of those two rulings. And I have read those rulings.”). He did not 

grant the motion in order to allow Ms. Salazar to engage in a fishing expedition or to develop new 

claims that are not identified in the pleadings. See Order Mot. Compel; 7/1/2015 Tr. Accordingly, 

Honest Tea has not met its burden of showing that the magistrate judge’s order is “contrary to law.”

Case 2:13-cv-02318-KJM-EFB Document 87 Filed 10/28/15 Page 4 of 7
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

B. “Clearly Erroneous” 

1. Testing of the Antioxidant Content 

Honest Tea argues that the request for production number 8, relating to the testing 

of antioxidants in Honey Green Tea, is irrelevant, because Ms. Salazar’s First Amended 

Complaint does not contest the quantity of antioxidants in Honey Green Tea. See Def.’s Mot. 

Recons. at 12. Ms. Salazar initially brought claims challenging the accuracy of Honest Tea’s 

representations about the milligram content of antioxidants in its tea, but this court dismissed 

those claims as expressly preempted by federal law. Id. at 12 (citing ECF No. 29 at 10); see also 

Compl. ¶¶ 2, 19, 23, 31, ECF No. 1 (challenging accuracy of statement “247 mg Antioxidants 

Green Tea Flavonoids Per Bottle”). Ms. Salazar’s First Amended Complaint alleges that different 

statements on the labels violate the Federal Drug Administration’s (“FDA”) requirements for 

nutrient content claims. See First Am. Compl. ¶ 28, ECF No. 32 (challenging the phrases 

“. . . EGCG is our favorite flavonoid, one of many tea antioxidants”; “. . . to us EGCG is a key 

green tea antioxidant”; “. . . EGCG is the most potent antioxidant around, and our organic green 

tea is packed with it.”). 

Honest Tea contends that although the testing of antioxidants would have been 

relevant to the dismissed milligram content claims, it is not relevant to the nutrient content claims 

alleged in the First Amended Complaint. Def.’s Mot. Recons. at 12-14 (citing Salazar Dep., 

Cohen Decl., Ex. A, ECF No. 70-3 at 75:15-76:1, 87:2-87:7, 90:18-91:5, 119:19-119:21). After 

considering the arguments presented in the briefing and at the hearing, the magistrate judge 

rejected Honest Tea’s arguments and determined that the testing of antioxidants is relevant to 

whether the nutrient content claims are material to consumers. 7/1/15 Tr. at 21:22-22:6. 

Reviewing the magistrate judge’s decision, the court is not left with a “definite and 

firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Concrete Pipe, 508 U.S. at 622 (citation 

omitted). Although this court previously dismissed plaintiff’s milligram content claims, the 

magistrate judge did not mistakenly base his decision on the dismissed claims. Instead, he 

correctly applied Rule 26(b)(1) to the claims asserted in the First Amended Complaint and found 

that the discovery requests are relevant to the nutrient content claims. The magistrate judge 

Case 2:13-cv-02318-KJM-EFB Document 87 Filed 10/28/15 Page 5 of 7
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

reasoned that the testing of antioxidants might shed light on whether Honest Tea believes that the 

alleged nutrient content claims are material to consumers, make the product more marketable, or 

command a price premium. 7/1/15 Tr. at 21:22-22:6. Honest Tea’s decisions about what quantity 

of antioxidants to include in the tea may reasonably relate to its decisions about how to market and 

maximize profits for the tea. The court therefore holds that the magistrate judge’s ruling with 

regard to the testing of antioxidants is not clearly erroneous. 

2. Ingredient Amounts and Formulation 

Honest Tea presents similar arguments regarding the discovery requests relating to 

the ingredient amounts and formulation of Honey Green Tea (requests for production numbers 5-

7 and interrogatory number 3). Def.’s Mot. Recons. at 14-15. Honest Tea contends the First 

Amended Complaint alleges that the antioxidant statements are unlawful because they do not 

comply with the federal labeling requirements for nutrient content claims, not because they are 

literally false. Id. The actual formula of the product is not needed to determine whether the 

statements are unauthorized nutrient content claims under the regulations. See 7/1/15 Tr. at 

11:23-12:1. 

Ms. Salazar responds that the ingredient amounts and formulation are relevant to 

the issue of consumer deception. She alleges that the unauthorized nutrient content claims are 

misleading because they make consumers believe that Honey Green Tea contains antioxidant 

nutrients, such as vitamins A and C. See Pl.’s Opp’n Mot. Recons. at 15-16. The ingredient 

amounts and formulation of the tea will show whether Honey Green Tea actually contains any 

antioxidant nutrients. Id. In addition, Ms. Salazar argues the ingredient amounts and formulation 

are relevant to establish standing as to the 2008 label. Id. Because Ms. Salazar never purchased 

the product with the 2008 label, she is required to show that the products she purchased in 2012 

and 2013 are substantially similar to the product with the 2008 label in order to have standing. 

See ECF No. 40 at 8-10; ECF No. 29 at 11-13. Plaintiff notes that she proposed a stipulation that 

would have obviated the need for Honest Tea to respond to these discovery requests, but Honest 

Tea declined the offer. Pl.’s Opp’n Mot. Recons. at 16. 

Case 2:13-cv-02318-KJM-EFB Document 87 Filed 10/28/15 Page 6 of 7
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

The magistrate judge determined that the requests are relevant to materiality, for 

the reasons discussed above, as well as to the issue of consumer deception. 7/1/15 Tr. at 11:7-

11:12 (applying a similar analysis of materiality to each of the discovery requests); id. at 12:8-

12:18, 14:9-14:10. The ingredient amounts and formulation of the tea are in fact relevant to the 

issues of materiality, standing, and consumer deception. The magistrate judge’s conclusion on 

this issue is not clearly erroneous. 

IV. CONCLUSION 

In sum, defendant has not shown clear error or other meritorious grounds for relief. 

Honest Tea’s Motion for Reconsideration is based on a mere disagreement with the magistrate 

judge’s determination that the requested documents and interrogatories are relevant. For the 

foregoing reasons, Honest Tea’s Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 70) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: October 27, 2015. 

Case 2:13-cv-02318-KJM-EFB Document 87 Filed 10/28/15 Page 7 of 7