*1 Before the Court are the parties' Letter Briefs (“Ltr. Br.”) submitted following a discovery conference held on July 21, 2020 at which Plaintiff Strategic Partners, Inc. (“Plaintiff” or “SPI”) argued that Defendant FIGS, Inc. (“Defendant” or “FIGS”) had failed to comply with the Court's May 27, 2020 Order (Dkt. No. 117) to produce documents regards Defendant's donated scrubs. (Dkt. Nos. 142, 143.)

RELEVANT BACKGROUND

On May 27, 2020, after concluding that Plaintiff's discovery requests seeking documents regarding each and every individual country where Defendant donated scrubs were not proportionate to the needs of the case under Rule 26(b)(1), the Court directed,

(Dkt. No. 117 at 3.) The parties do not dispute that FIGS produced the summary information as directed by the Court.

However, on July 21, 2020, the Court held another discovery conference with the parties regarding Defendant's compliance with the May 27, 2020 Order. At that time, SPI sought additional factual evidence that supported the summary that FIGS produced in compliance with the Court's Order of May 27, 2020. (See Dkt. No. 135.) Plaintiff complained that despite Defendant producing the summary information about the total scrubs it donated, FIGS did not produce any evidence “that they actually donated the scrubs.” (Id.) Thus, Plaintiff sought additional, more detailed discovery about the donations, including documents regarding FIGS's “Thread for Threads” program, as well as quarterly and yearly breakdowns of FIGS's donation figures, and documents to establish that FIGS actually made the donations. (Id.) The Court directed the parties to submit letter briefs regarding the additional discovery sought about FIGS's donation. (Id. at 4.) Accordingly, on July 27, 2020, the parties submitted the Letter Briefs addressed in this Order. (Dkt. Nos. 142, 143.)

THE PARTIES' POSITIONS

Defendant argues that it fully complied with the Court's May 27, 2020 Order and no further donation-related discovery is warranted. (FIGS Ltr. Br. at 6-7.) FIGS has produced a document showing that it donated a total of 610,000 sets of scrubs. (Id. at 5.) Further, FIGS emphasizes that the Court previously determined that more detailed discovery regarding FIGS's global donations was not proportionate to the needs of the case. (Id.) Defendant emphasizes that Plaintiff seeks to circumvent the Court's May 27, 2020 Order by seeking further broad donation-related discovery. (Id. at 2-5.) Defendant argues that SPI's efforts are “another example of SPI's pattern of using the instant lawsuit to harass and unduly burden FIGS and waste the Court's and FIGS's time” by relitigating issues already decided. (Id. at 7.) FIGS requests an order directing SPI “to abide by the Court's May 27, 2020 order, and precluding SPI from seeking further donation-related discovery.” (Id.)

*2 Plaintiff, on the other hand, contends that FIGS has not fully complied with the May 27, 2020 Order and requests that the Court either “order [FIGS] to comply with [the] May 27, 2020 Order, or alternatively, either a ruling that the Court's prior discovery orders do not preclude SPI from conducting further discovery as to FIGS's ‘Threads for Threads’ Donation Program or evidentiary sanctions.” (SPI Ltr. Br. at 1.) SPI contends that although FIGS produced a summary document showing the total number of scrubs it donated and the countries to which FIGS donated the scrubs, that only complies with the second part of the May 27, 2020 Order. (Id.) SPI insists that FIGS should be ordered to further produce additional “source documents” concerning the total number of scrubs that FIGS donated during the relevant time period. (Id. at 2.)

Plaintiff emphasizes that one of the alleged misrepresentations by FIGS at issue in the case is that “through its ‘Threads for Threads’ Donation Program, it donated one set of scrubs for every set of scrubs sold.” (Id.) Plaintiff argues that the summary of total scrubs donated that FIGS produced pursuant to the May 27, 2020 Order does not “match up” with FIGS total sales figures FIGS produced for units of scrubs sold. (Id.) Plaintiff contends that if FIGS's statements about its donation policy were/are true, there should be a one-to-one correlation between the total number of scrubs sold and the total donation figures outlined in the summary document provides, but the figures do not match. (Id.)

SPI argues that it should be permitted additional donation-related discovery in the form of: (1) “a written interrogatory response providing SPI with FIGS's ‘Thread for Threads’ program's one-for-one donation claim time frame”; (2) “a written interrogatory response providing SPI with FIGS's ‘Threads for Threads’ program's donation figures broken down by quarter and year so that SPI can compare against the sales figures for the same time period”; and (3) within 14 days, FIGS should “produce the source documents that prove FIGS actually made the donations they claim during the relevant time period.” (Id.) Alternatively, SPI seeks an evidentiary sanction against FIGS in the form of an “evidence exclusionary order that Defendants are not entitled to introduce any other fact, document, declaration, testimony or other evidence to oppose a dispositive motion or at trial, in the ‘Threads for Threads’ issue.” (Id. at 5.)

DISCUSSION

A. Legal Standard

A party may obtain discovery concerning any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and is proportional to the needs of the case. FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(1). Rule 26(b)(1) identifies six factors to be considered when determining if the proportionality requirement has been met, namely, the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties' relative access to the 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. Id. Relevant information need not be admissible to be discoverable. Id. District courts have broad discretion in controlling discovery. See Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002).

B. FIGS Complied with the Court's May 27, 2020 Order

Despite SPI's contentions to the contrary, FIGS complied fully with the May 27, 2020 Order, which only required that FIGS provide a single summary of total number of scrubs donated during the relevant period and a list of the “top ten” countries and/or entities to which those donations were made. (See Dkt. No. 117.) FIGS has done just that. (FIGS Ltr. Br. at 5.) Moreover, SPI acknowledges as much. (SPI Ltr. Br. at 1.) Nothing in the May 27, 2020 Order required that FIGS produce documents demonstrating any correlation between the “Thread for Threads” program and total unit sales or quarterly donation figures.

*3 SPI contends that if FIGS had fully complied with the “first part” of the May 27, 2020 Order, it would have produced documents that “include manufacturing records, import and export records, order records, donation requests, donation receipts, donation distribution confirmation records and the like.” (SPI Ltr. Br. at 2.) But none of this information was required by the Court's order. The May 27, 2020 Order did not mention any additional documents to be produced concerning the “Thread for Threads” program at all. (See Dkt. No. 117.) Indeed, these additional types of documents SPI seeks here are precisely the type of information the Court found to be overly broad and not proportionate to the needs of the case, and not necessary to establish the “total number” of donated scrubs. Hence, the Court's Order required FIGS to simply provide a single summary document identifying the total number of donated scrubs and the “top ten” locations that received those donations. (See Dkt No. 117.) SPI's contentions that additional categories of documents were required to comply with the May 27, 2020 Order effectively seeks to re-write the Court's Order. The Court, however, concludes there is nothing further required from FIGS to comply with the May 27, 2020 Order.

Accordingly, SPI's request for an order directing FIGS to make further document production regarding the “Thread for Threads” program in order to comply with the May 27, 2020 Order is DENIED. To the extent SPI seeks now documents sufficient to establish and/or refute any correlation between the donation figures and the total units of scrubs FIGS sold, those are different discovery requests.

C. Plaintiff's Request for Additional Donation-Related Discovery

Indeed, Plaintiff appears to acknowledge that the further records it seeks about FIGS donation program are “additional discovery.” (SPI's Ltr. Br. at 2.) SPI urges that “the Court should allow SPI to obtain additional discovery responses and documents” to address the discrepancy between the aggregate donation figures and FIGS's total unit sales date. (Id.)

Discovery, while broad, is not limitless. Here, the Court has considered the appropriate scope of donation-related discovery in this action on several occasions — at discovery conferences held on September 27, 2019, May 2, 2020, May 27, 2020, and again on July 17, 2020. At these conferences, the Court has expressed concern that the breadth of the discovery Plaintiff seeks regarding FIGS's donations is not proportionate to the needs of the case. For that reason, the May 27, 2020 Order only required FIGS to produce aggregate information regarding its total donations in summary form. (Dkt. No. 117.)

SPI seeks an order requiring Defendant to produce “manufacturing records, import and export records, order records, donation requests, donation receipts, donation distribution confirmation records and the like.” (SPI Ltr. Br. at 2.) In requiring FIGS to produce only summary information on its total donations, the Court expressly narrowed the scope of Plaintiff's original document request that sought a host of other types of documents about FIGS's donation program—the very types of documents that SPI now argues FIGS should have produced in response to the May 27, 2020 Order. Not so. That said, the May 27, 2020 Order did not preclude additional discovery on any other issue.

SPI gives two reasons why it needs these additional documents: (1) because FIGS has not produced evidence that it “actually donated” any scrubs; and (2) because FIGS's summary of total donations does not establish a one-to-one correlation between the number of scrubs donated and the unit sales of scrubs as identified in other discovery FIGS has produced. (SPI Ltr. Br. at 2-3.) But any additional discovery requests, by either party, must still satisfy both the relevance and proportionality requirements of Rule 26. While SPI's arguments may establish that further discovery concerning the “Threads for Threads” program may be relevant to SPI's misrepresentation claims, they do not, however, establish that this additional discovery meets the proportionality requirements of Rule 26.

It is entirely unclear how requiring FIGS to produce “manufacturing records, export records or donation requests” is proportionate to the needs of the case in terms of the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues in the case. If SPI needs confirmation that FIGS actually donated the number of scrubs identified in the discovery already provided, it can readily obtain that information in a deposition. It is not necessary for FIGS to search for, review, and/or produce the plethora of documents that SPI seeks here simply to confirm that donations actually were made. SPI can readily depose FIGS witnesses and/or representatives to inquire about any perceived discrepancies between the summary information produced and the allegations in the Complaint. Indeed, on February 28, 2020, the Court granted SPI's request that FIGS produce a Rule 30(b)(6) witness to testify about the number of sets of scrubs FIGS donated. (SPI Ltr. Br. at 3.)

*4 SPI also requests that FIGS provide a “written interrogatory response” regarding the “Threads for Threads” program as to the one-to-one donation claim time frame, and “the program's donations figures broken down by quarter and year,” so that SPI can “verify the donation claims.” (SPI Ltr. Br. at 5.) Although the Court's May 27, 2020 Order foreclosed additional document discovery regarding the number of donated scrubs, as noted above, the order did not preclude SPI from serving additional interrogatories, up to the limit of 35 written interrogatories as set by the Court. See FED. R. CIV. P. 33. But SPI does not identify any pending interrogatory that it has served seeking this information for which FIGS refused to provide a timely response. The Court cannot compel a party to respond to a hypothetical discovery request to which the responding party has not had an opportunity to answer and/or object.

Accordingly, as the Court has previously concluded, discovery of what SPI describes as “source documents” regarding the quantity of scrubs that FIGS donated during the relevant time period is not proportionate to the needs of the case and SPI's request for an order compelling FIGS to produce additional documents that were not called for by the May 27, 2020 Order is DENIED. Further, SPI's request that the Court order FIGS to provide written interrogatory responses to interrogatories about the “Threads for Threads” donation program that have never been served upon FIGS is also DENIED, without prejudice.

Finally, because the Court finds that FIGS fully complied with the May 27, 2020 Order and has not failed to respond to SPI's proposed written interrogatories about “Thread for Threads” donation program, SPI's request for evidentiary sanctions against FIGS is DENIED.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons outlined above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that SPI's requests for: (1) an order requiring FIGS to produce additional documents in response to the Court's May 27, 2020 Order; (2) FIGS to provide a written interrogatory response about FIG's “Threads for Threads” one-to-one donation claim time frame; (3) FIGS to provide a written interrogatory response with the “Threads for Threads” program figures broken down by quarter and year; and (4) evidentiary sanctions against FIGS are DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.