Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00894/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00894-16/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Conair Corporation
Defendant
Delia Wilson
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

DELIA WILSON, on behalf of herself and 

others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CONAIR CORPORATION,

Defendant.

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

ORDER GRANTING IN PART 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL 

THIRD PARTY SURESOURCE TO 

PRODUCE RESPONSIVE DOCUMENTS

AND VACATING DECEMBER 9, 2015 

HEARING

(ECF No. 79, 85, 86)

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to compel non-party SureSource to 

produce documents responsive to a subpoena duces tecum. The Court, having reviewed the 

record, finds this matter suitable for decision without oral argument. See Local Rule 230(g). 

Accordingly, the previously scheduled hearing set on December 9, 2015 will be vacated and the 

parties will not be required to appear at that time.

I.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Delia Wilson 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 

Case 1:14-cv-00894-WBS-SAB Document 87 Filed 12/04/15 Page 1 of 14
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

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 filed a class action complaint on June 11, 2014, against Defendant Conair 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

24.)

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

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 May 8, 2015, Plaintiff served a subpoena 

duces tecum on non-party SureSource LLC seeking production of documents. (ECF No. 85 at 

54.1) 

On July 22, 2015, Plaintiff filed a second motion to compel Defendants to produce 

 

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 87 Filed 12/04/15 Page 2 of 14
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

documents which was denied on August 17, 2015. (ECF Nos. 51, 58.) Plaintiff filed a motion 

for reconsideration by the district judge of the denial of the motion to compel which was denied 

on September 16, 2015. (ECF Nos. 63, 70.) 

On October 21, 2015, Plaintiff filed an action in the United States Court for the District 

of Connecticut seeking to compel non-party SureSource to comply with the subpoena duces 

tecum. (ECF No. 85.) On November 13, 2015, the District of Connecticut transferred the 

motion to compel to this Court. (ECF No. 85 at 4-5.)

II.

LEGAL STANDARD

Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes the issuance of a subpoena to 

command a nonparty to “produce designated documents, electronically stored information, or 

tangible things in that person’s possession, custody, or control. . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

45(a)(1)(A)(iii). It is well settled that the scope of discovery under a subpoena is the same as the 

scope of discovery under Rule 26(b) and 34. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Kirk’s Tire & 

Auto Service Center, 211 F.R.D. 648, 662 (D. Kan. 2003) (quoting Advisory Committee Note to 

the 1970 Amendment of Rule 45(d)(1) that the amendments “make it clear that the scope of 

discovery through a subpoena is the same as that applicable to Rule 34 and the other discovery 

rules.”). Rule 34(a) provides that a party may serve a request that is within the scope of Rule 26.

At the time this motion was filed, Rule 26 provided that “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.”2 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). 

 

2 As of December 1, 2015, Rule 26 provides “[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that 

is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of 

the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties' relative access to relevant information, the 

parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the 

proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible 

in evidence to be discoverable.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). 

Case 1:14-cv-00894-WBS-SAB Document 87 Filed 12/04/15 Page 3 of 14
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

While discovery should not be unnecessarily restricted, discovery is more limited to 

protect third parties from harassment, inconvenience, or disclosure of confidential documents. 

Dart Industries Co., Inc. v. Westwood Chemical Co., Inc., 649 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1980). In 

deciding discovery disputes, courts must be careful not to deprive the party of discovery that is 

reasonably necessary to their case. Dart Industries Co., Inc., 649 F.2d at 680. “Thus, a court 

determining the propriety of a subpoena balances the relevance of the discovery sought, the 

requesting party’s need, and the potential hardship to the party subject to the subpoena.” 

Gonzales, 234 F.R.D. at 680.

III.

DISCUSSION

In Plaintiff’s current motion to compel she seeks discovery for forty five models of 

styling irons that she alleges contain the same allegedly defective power cord. (ECF No. 85 at 

14-.) Non-party SureSource objects on the grounds that Plaintiff’s requests are overbroad, seek 

irrelevant information, and burden an unrelated non-party to this action. (ECF No. 85 at 83-

101.)

“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.

The Court has already held that Plaintiff was entitled to receive discovery on whether 

other individuals experienced similar failure in the forty-five styling irons with a similar power 

Case 1:14-cv-00894-WBS-SAB Document 87 Filed 12/04/15 Page 4 of 14
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

cord and stress relief, but that Plaintiff was not entitled to additional discovery on the forty-five 

styling irons at this time. (ECF No. 46 at 9.) Further, the Court has found that Plaintiff’s request 

to conduct testing on these forty-five models is premature at the pre-class certification stage of 

the litigation. (ECF No. 58 at 6.) 

In deciding the requests to compel production here, the Court considers that while 

counsel for SureSource is the same counsel for Defendant in this action, SureSource is a nonparty to this action and therefore discovery is more limited to protect the third party from 

harassment, inconvenience, or disclosure of confidential documents. Dart Industries Co., Inc.., 

649 F.2d at 649. Finally, while the Court finds that many of the Requests for Production address 

the merits of Plaintiff’s claims and are beyond the scope of what the Court would find to be preclass certification discovery, where SureSource has agreed to produce a response such 

production shall be ordered.

1. Request for Production No. 1

Request for Production No. 1 seeks:

DOCUMENTS sufficient to show what information YOU capture about

purchasers of CONAIR PRODUCTS through www.conair-store.com. 

including, for example, names, addresses, emails, phone numbers, 

transaction dates, method of payments, PRODUCTS purchased, and prices 

paid.

Defendant’s objection states:

This Request is vague, ambiguous and uncertain regarding what type of 

documents are sought by the phrase “YOU capture about purchasers.” It 

is unclear what specific categories of documents are being sought by this 

part of the Request. The Request is also overbroad and seeks irrelevant 

information in its use of the term “CONAIR PRODUCTS” since it seeks 

information beyond the model CD87 curling iron. Additionally, this 

Request is overbroad because it is not limited to consumers who 

purchased products in the State of California. Finally, this Request is 

overbroad because it is not limited to a reasonable time frame.

Plaintiff argues that this information is necessary to show that the class is ascertainable. 

Plaintiff states that the parties agreed that SureSource could respond to the request by declaration 

and limit the response to California. SureSource indicates that it will provide information 

sufficient to show what data is captured by SureSource regarding purchasers of products.

SureSource shall produce a declaration stating the information that is captured 

Case 1:14-cv-00894-WBS-SAB Document 87 Filed 12/04/15 Page 5 of 14
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

through the website www.conair-store.com.

2. Request for Production No. 2

Request for Production No. 2 seeks:

DOCUMENTS IDENTIFYING for each PRODUCT purchased through

www.conair-store.com, the customer’s name, address, email, phone 

number, transaction date, method of payment, PRODUCT purchased, and 

price paid.

Defendant’s objection states:

The Request is overbroad and seeks irrelevant information in its use of the 

term “PRODUCT” since it seeks information beyond the model CD87 

curling iron. This Request violates third party privacy rights. 

Additionally, this, Request is overbroad because it is not limited to 

consumers who purchased products in the State of California. Finally, this 

Request is overbroad because it is not limited to a reasonable time frame.

Since this litigation is at the pre-class certification stage, the Court finds that merits 

discovery is premature. During meet and confer sessions the parties agreed that this information 

would not be produced until after a class has been certified and a protective order is in place. 

Therefore, SureSource is not required to provide responsive documents to this request at 

this time.

3. Request for Production Nos. 3 and 4

Request for Production No. 3 seeks:

DOCUMENTS sufficient to IDENTIFY the average retail price of each 

PRODUCT sold through www.conair-store.com.

Request for Production No. 4 seeks:

DOCUMENTS sufficient to IDENTIFY the average wholesale price of 

each PRODUCT sold through www.conair-store.com.

Defendant’s objection to both requests states:

The Request is overbroad and seeks irrelevant information in its use of the 

term “PRODUCT” since it seeks information beyond the model CD87 

curling iron. Additionally, this Request is overbroad because it is not 

limited to consumers who purchased products in the State of California. 

Finally, this Request is overbroad because it is not limited to a reasonable 

time frame.

Plaintiff argues that this information is necessary to demonstrate the existence of a class

Case 1:14-cv-00894-WBS-SAB Document 87 Filed 12/04/15 Page 6 of 14
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

wide method of awarding relief that is consistent with her theory of liability. The parties have

agreed that SureSource may provide a declaration limited to model CD87 and California 

purchasers. Plaintiff moves for an order compelling production of a declaration that states the 

average retail and wholesale price for all forty-five models of styling irons sold in California for 

January 1, 2005 through the present. 

SureSource additionally objects on the ground that Plaintiff has provided no basis for 

which the average wholesale price is relevant to any claim for damages. Plaintiff replies that 

equitable disgorgement of profits may be awarded for the alleged illegal conduct. While 

Plaintiff seeks information on the forty-five models of styling irons, there has been no class 

certification in this action. The information on all forty five of these models may be relevant 

once a class is certified, however at this time the parties are to be conducting discovery relevant 

to class certification. While some merits discovery may be relevant to class certification, 

Plaintiff is not entitled to conduct merits discovery on all forty-five models of styling irons until 

after a class is certified and the scope of the claims is established. Unless otherwise specified in 

this order, the Court finds that it would be unduly burdensome to require the non-party to 

produce responsive information for all forty-five models of styling irons prior to a class being 

certified in this action. 

SureSource agrees to produce a declaration containing the average retail price for the 

model CD87 sold in California, but argues that the time period requested is overbroad since the 

statute of limitations in this action is four years. Additionally, SureSource states that sales 

information is not available beyond 2010. 

The Court finds that the request for retail and wholesale price information from 2005 is 

overbroad and burdensome. Plaintiff contends that this information is relevant to a disgorgement 

of profits remedy, yet the longest statute of limitations in this action is four years and Plaintiff is 

seeking ten years of information. Further, SureSource contends that it does not have information 

prior to 2010. The responding party cannot be required to produce information that is not in its 

possession. Plaintiff’s motion to compel the wholesale prices of the forty-five styling irons 

sold through www.conair-store.com is denied without prejudice to be raised during the 

Case 1:14-cv-00894-WBS-SAB Document 87 Filed 12/04/15 Page 7 of 14
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

merits phase of the action. SureSource is not required to provide a response to Request for 

Production No. 4 at this time. SureSource shall produce a declaration stating the average 

retail price for the model CD87 sold in California for the period of January 1, 2010 

through the present.

4. Request for Production No. 5

Request for Production No. 5 seeks:

DOCUMENTS sufficient to IDENTIFY the number of units of each 

PRODUCT sold through www.conair-store.com, broken down by month 

and State.

Defendant’s Objection states:

The Request is overbroad and seeks irrelevant information in its use of the 

term “PRODUCT” since it seeks information beyond the model CD87 

curling iron. Additionally, this Request is overbroad because it is not 

limited to consumers who purchased products in the State of California. 

Finally, this Request is overbroad because it is not limited to a reasonable 

time frame.

Plaintiff argues that this information is also necessary prior to class certification to 

demonstrate the existence of a class wide method of awarding relief. The Court finds that this 

request is overbroad as it seeks information on all forty-five models of styling irons sold from 

2005 through the present and did not limit production to the location of sale. Further, this 

request goes to the merits of the claims and is beyond the scope of class certification discovery. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request to compel production to Request for Production No. 5 is 

DENIED.

5. Request for Production Nos. 6 and 7

Request for Production No. 6 seeks:

All DOCUMENTS, including COMMUNICATIONS, YOU received 

from CONAIR CONCERNING promoting, advertising, and marketing the 

PRODUCTS.

Request for Production No. 7 seeks:

Exemplars of sales materials, promotional materials, and advertisements 

CONCERNING PRODUCTS sold through www.conair-store.com.

Defendant’s objection for both requests state:

Case 1:14-cv-00894-WBS-SAB Document 87 Filed 12/04/15 Page 8 of 14
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

The Request is overbroad and seeks irrelevant information in its use of the 

term “PRODUCT” since it seeks information beyond the model CD87 

curling iron. Additionally, this Request is overbroad because it is not 

limited to consumers who purchased products in the State of California. 

Finally, this Request is overbroad because it is not limited to a reasonable 

time frame.

Plaintiff contends that this information is necessary to show that the advertising for all 

forty-five models failed to warn consumers of the defect in the power cord. However, the Court 

finds these requests to be beyond the scope of pre-class certification discovery and is related to 

the merits of the action. 

Defendant has agreed to produce responsive documents related to the CD87 and CD12 

from 2010 to the present. Therefore, Defendant shall produce documents responsive to 

Request for Production Nos. 6 and 7 for the CD87 and CD12 styling irons for the time 

period from January 1, 2010 to the present.

6. Request for Production Nos. 8, 10, 11

Request for Production No. 8 seeks:

All DOCUMENTS, including COMMUNICATIONS, CONCERNING

complaints, inquiries, or reports of PROBLEMS with PRODUCTS sold 

through www.conairstore.com.

Request for Production No. 10 seeks:

All DOCUMENTS, including, but no limited to, any reports, 

investigations, studies, analysis, or testing relating to PROBLEMS with 

the PRODUCTS sold through www.conair-store.com.

Request for Production No. 11 seeks:

All DOCUMENTS, including COMMUNICATIONS, relating to 

PROBLEMS with PRODUCTS sold through www.conair-store.com. 

including, but not limited to between YOU and CONAIR.

Defendant’s objection to these requests state:

The Request is overbroad and seeks irrelevant information in its use of the 

term “PRODUCT” since it seeks information beyond the model CD87 

curling iron. Additionally, this Request is overbroad because it is not 

limited to consumers who purchased products in the State of California. 

Finally, this Request is overbroad because it is not limited to a reasonable 

time frame.

Case 1:14-cv-00894-WBS-SAB Document 87 Filed 12/04/15 Page 9 of 14
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

10

Plaintiff contends that this information is needed to show that the problem with the 

styling iron was not unique to her styling iron. The Court has previously found that:

Plaintiff alleges that she purchased a styling iron that failed to turn on after a 

month and the replacement styling iron failed where the power cord met the stress 

relief. Plaintiff alleges that other consumers have experienced the same failure of 

the power cord. The parties have identified forty-five styling irons that have the 

same power cord and stress relief as the model that injured Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s 

allegations are sufficient to establish typicality only for those claims where an 

individual experienced a similar failure of the power cord. Plaintiff has not made 

a prima facie case for any malfunction of styling irons manufactured by 

Defendant.

The Court finds that Plaintiff has sufficiently pled a prima facie case to be 

allowed discovery to determine if other individuals have experienced similar 

failure in those forty-five models with the similar power cord and stress relief. 

Therefore, Defendants shall be ordered to supplement their responses to Request 

for Production No. 18 for all forty-five models where the complaint is a failure of 

the power cord. If ambiguity exists as to the reasons for the complaint, Defendant 

shall err on the side of caution and produce such documents.

(ECF No. 46 at 9:1-13.)

Similarly, SureSource shall be required to provide documents responsive to Request for 

Production No. 8 regarding all forty-five models where the complaint is a failure of the power 

cord. However, Requests No. 10 and 11 are beyond the scope of the discovery found to be 

appropriate at the pre-class certification stage of the proceedings. Accordingly, SureSource

shall produce documents responsive to Request for Production No. 8 regarding all fortyfive models where the complaint is a failure of the power cord. No production is required 

for Request for Production No. 10 and 11. 

7. Request for Production No. 9

Request for Production No. 9 seeks:

All DOCUMENTS, including COMMUNICATIONS, CONCERNING 

customer returns, exchanges of, or refunds for PRODUCTS sold through 

www.conair-store.com.

Defendant’s objection states:

The Request is overbroad and seeks irrelevant information in its use of the 

term “PRODUCT” since it seeks information beyond the model CD87 

curling iron. Additionally, this Request is overbroad because it is not 

limited to consumers who purchased products in the State of California. 

Finally, this Request is overbroad because it is not limited to a reasonable 

Case 1:14-cv-00894-WBS-SAB Document 87 Filed 12/04/15 Page 10 of 14
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

11

time frame.

Plaintiff contends that this information is also necessary to demonstrate the existence of a 

class wide method of awarding relief. Plaintiff seeks a declaration identifying the number of 

returns or exchanges for the model CD87 from June 2010 through the present. Defendant has 

agreed to produce such a declaration. 

SureSource shall produce a declaration responsive to Request for Production No. 9 

identifying the number of returns or exchanges for the model CD87 from June 2010 

through the present.

8. Request for Production No. 12

Request for Production No. 12 seeks:

All DOCUMENTS, including COMMUNICATIONS, CONCERNING a 

recall or the possibility of a recall of any of the PRODUCTS sold through 

www.conair-store.com.

Defendant’s objection states:

The Request is overbroad and seeks irrelevant information in its use of the 

term “PRODUCT” since it seeks information beyond the model CD87 

curling iron. Additionally, this Request is overbroad because it is not 

limited to consumers who purchased products in the State of California. 

Finally, this Request is overbroad because it is not limited to a reasonable 

time frame.

Plaintiff contends that SureSource has agreed to produce responsive documents relating 

to CD87 and CD12, but that recall documents regarding all forty-five models must be produced. 

SureSource argues that information on the other models is overbroad and irrelevant as the 

information sought is not limited to the subject matter of this litigation, a defective power cord.

Plaintiff’s request for production is overbroad as it seeks information regarding recalls 

beyond the subject matter of this litigation. As SureSource argues, if a product was recalled due 

to a defective on/off switch it would be irrelevant here. However, a recall that was due to a 

power cord defect could lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and it does not appear to be 

overly burdensome to require production of such documents. Accordingly, SureSource is 

ordered to produce responsive documents for any recall due to power cord defects for all 

forty-five styling irons from January 1, 2005 to the present. 

Case 1:14-cv-00894-WBS-SAB Document 87 Filed 12/04/15 Page 11 of 14
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

12

9. Request for Production No. 13

Request for Production No. 13 seeks:

All agreements or contracts between YOU and CONAIR CONCERNING

PRODUCTS sold through www.conair-store.com.

Defendant’s objection states:

The Request is overbroad and seeks irrelevant information in its use of the 

term “PRODUCT” since it seeks information beyond the model CD87 

curling iron. Additionally, this Request is overbroad because it is not 

limited to consumers who purchased products in the State of California. 

Finally, this Request is overbroad because it is not limited to a reasonable 

time frame.

Plaintiff contends that production of the contract between SureSource and Conair is 

necessary to determine if SureSource is under a contractual agreement to keep information 

confidential and to understand what information SureSource has that Conair does not. Defendant 

replies that Plaintiff can obtain this information by way of deposition.

The Court finds that the Request for Production of the contract between SureSource and 

Conair is beyond the scope of pre-class certification discovery. Plaintiff’s motion to compel 

production in response to Request for Production No. 13 is denied.

10. Request for Production No. 14

Request for Production No. 14 seeks:

DOCUMENTS sufficient to IDENTIFY what services YOU provide to 

CONAIR CONCERNING PRODUCTS sold through www.conairstore.com.

Defendant’s objection states:

The Request is overbroad and seeks irrelevant information in its use of the 

term “PRODUCT” since it seeks information beyond the model CD87 

curling iron. Additionally, this Request is overbroad because it is not 

limited to consumers who purchased products in the State of California. 

Finally, this Request is overbroad because it is not limited to a reasonable 

time frame.

Plaintiff contends that this information is necessary to determine if SureSource has 

critical documents that Conair claims to not possess. The parties have agreed that SureSource 

may provide a response to this request by declaration. Accordingly, SureSource shall provide a 

declaration identifying those services which it provides to Conair responsive to this request.

Case 1:14-cv-00894-WBS-SAB Document 87 Filed 12/04/15 Page 12 of 14
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

13

11. Preservation of Evidence

Plaintiff requests that SureSource be required to include in their declaration a statement 

that they will preserve all evidence or notify Plaintiff of the intent to purge or overwrite any 

information during the course of the litigation. “Litigants owe an uncompromising duty to 

preserve what they know or reasonably should know will be relevant evidence in a pending 

lawsuit, or one in the offing . . . .” JUDGE WILLIAM W. SCHWARZER ET AL., FEDERAL 

CIVIL PROCEDURE BEFORE TRIAL § 11:125 (2004) (internal quotations and citations 

omitted); see also Leon v. Sys. Corp., 464 F.3d 951, 959 (9th Cir. 2006). This obligation, backed 

by the court’s power to impose sanctions for the destruction of such evidence, Chambers v. 

Nasco, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 43-46 (1991), is sufficient in most cases to secure the preservation of 

relevant evidence. SureSource is now on notice that the evidence is in issue in this action and 

therefore is advised that any responsive documents must be preserved until the class allegations 

in this action are resolved. 

IV.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The December 9, 2015 hearing is VACATED and the parties are not required to 

appear on that date;

2. Plaintiff’s motion to compel production is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED 

IN PART as follows:

a. The motion to compel responses to Requests for Production Nos. 2, 4, 5, 10, 11, 

and 13 is DENIED;

b. SureSource shall produce responsive documents as discussed herein for Requests 

for Production Nos. 1, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, and 14 within fourteen days from the date 

of entry of this order; and

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 1:14-cv-00894-WBS-SAB Document 87 Filed 12/04/15 Page 13 of 14
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

14

3. Failure to comply with this order may result in the issuance of monetary 

sanctions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 4, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00894-WBS-SAB Document 87 Filed 12/04/15 Page 14 of 14