Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Cedar Bear Naturales v. Liquid Herbals Manufacturing

United States District Court, D. Utah

October 2, 2018

Cedar Bear Naturales, Plaintiff,
v.
Liquid Herbals Manufacturing et al, Defendants.

          Clark Waddoups District Judge.

          MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SHORT FORM DISCOVERY

          Brooke C. Wells United States Magistrate Judge.

         This matter is referred to the undersigned in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 616 (b)(1)(A).[1]Pending before the court is Defendants' Short Form Discovery Motion asking the court to compel Plaintiff Cedar Bear Naturales to produce samples of their products, which were allegedly misappropriated.[2] As set forth below the court will grant the motion.

         The current dispute centers on the alleged misappropriation by Defendants of Plaintiff's products. Cedar Bear “has developed and formulated over 150 proprietary liquid herbal formulas using … proprietary manufacturing processes.”[3] Carl Robinson, the founder, President and CEO of Cedar Bear, is the inventor of the “proprietary herbal extraction process” that led to the production of these liquid herbal formulas and this extraction process “forms the basis of this trade secret action.”[4] Among the alleged misappropriated products are “Cleans Drops, Immune Booster, Nervestra, Prostavec, and Uricel.”[5] Defendants seek samples of these products under Federal Rule 26 and Plaintiff resists their production due to Federal Regulations.

Rule 26(b)(1) provides:
Parties 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.[6]

         Additionally, under Rule 26(a) a party is required to disclose “a copy--or a description by category and location--of all documents, electronically stored information, and tangible things that the disclosing party has in its possession, custody, or control and may use to support its claims or defenses, ….”[7]

         Defendants have requested a sample of each of the products at issue for testing to refute Plaintiff's allegations. Mr. Robinson testified that the only testing of both parties' products which has been done is taste testing. Under the Federal Rules, and based upon the nature of this case, the court finds the requested discovery regarding the products at issue-Cleans Drops, Immune Booster, Nervestra, Prostavec, and Uricel-is relevant and proportional to the needs of this case. In fact, Cedar Bear does not dispute the relevancy of the requested product samples or that the requests are proportional. Rather, Cedar Bear asserts it will violate Federal Regulations if it produces the samples.

         Cedar Bear manufactures dietary supplements and therefore is subject to Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 111.[8] The Federal Regulations impose the following requirement on Cedar Bear regarding the need to reserve samples of products.

(a) You must collect and hold reserve samples of each lot of packaged and labeled dietary supplements that you distribute.
(b) The reserve samples must:
(1) Be held using the same container-closure system in which the packaged and labeled dietary supplement is distributed, or if distributing dietary supplements to be packaged and labeled, using a container-closure system that provides essentially the same characteristics to protect against contamination or deterioration as the one in which it is distributed for packaging and labeling elsewhere;
(2) Be identified with the batch, lot, or control number;
(3) Be retained for 1 year past the shelf life date (if shelf life dating is used), or for 2 years from the date of distribution of the last batch of dietary supplements associated with the reserve ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.