Alcon Entm't, LLC v. Autos. Peugeot SA
Alcon Entm't, LLC v. Autos. Peugeot SA
2021 WL 8055689 (C.D. Cal. 2021)
May 7, 2021

MacKinnon, Alexander F.,  United States Magistrate Judge

Failure to Produce
Proportionality
Download PDF
To Cite List
Summary
The Court denied a motion to compel filed by Defendant Publicis Media France, S.A. against the Peugeot Defendants, citing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) and the need for a just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of the case. The Court found that the requested ESI was overly broad and not tied to the scope of the case, and sustained Peugeot's objections based on lack of relevance and proportionality.
Alcon Entertainment, LLC
v.
Automobiles Peugeot SA et al
Case No. 2:19-cv-00245-CJC-AFMx
United States District Court, C.D. California
Filed May 07, 2021

Counsel

Edward Muir Anderson, Regina Yeh, Anderson Yeh PC, Santa Monica, CA, for lcon Entertainment, LLC.
Colm A. Moran, Shook Hardy and Bacon LLP, Michael L. Turrill, Laura M. Groen, Panteha Alyssa Saviss, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Samaa A. F. Haridi, Hogan Lovells LLP, New York, NY, for Automobiles Peugeot SA et al.
MacKinnon, Alexander F., United States Magistrate Judge

Proceedings (In Chambers): Order Denying Defendant Publicis Media France, S.A.'s Motion to Produce Documents (ECF No. 218)

*1 Defendant Publicis Media France, S.A. (“Publicis”) has filed a motion to compel (ECF No. 218) against the Peugeot Defendants (Automobiles Peugeot SA (“Peugeot”) and Isabel Salas Mendez). The Court has determined that the matter can be resolved on the briefing and without a hearing. See L.R. 7-15. As set forth below, the Court denies the motion to compel.[1]
 
1. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) provides that a party 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[.]” Factors to consider include “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.” Id. The “proportionality requirement is designed to avoid ... sweeping discovery that is untethered to the claims and defenses” at issue in a lawsuit. Mfg. Automation & Software Sys., Inc. v. Hughes, 2017 WL 5641120, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 21, 2017). A court “must limit the frequency or extent of discovery otherwise allowed by [the Federal] rules” if “(i) the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive; (ii) the party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity to obtain the information by discovery in the action; or (iii) the proposed discovery is outside the scope permitted by Rule 26(b)(1).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C). Further, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure must be “construed, administered, and employed by the court and the parties to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 1.
 
2. This action involves claims of, inter alia, breach of contract and fraud. Plaintiff alleges that it is owed substantial damages due to a failed deal for a potential brand placement and co-promotion of the film Blade Runner 2049 (“BR2049”). The film was produced by Plaintiff. Publicis is a successor to Casablanca S.A., which acted as a brand agent for Peugeot in negotiating a contract to place the Peugeot brand on a futuristic flying car in the film. Peugeot alleges that Casablanca acted outside its scope of authority and against Peugeot's wishes. Peugeot was dissatisfied with the product placement in BR2049 and refused to pay for it, which led to the present suit.
 
3. On February 16, 2021, Publicis served Rule 34 requests for production (RFPs). At issue in the present motion to compel are RFPs 3, 4, and 5, to which Peugeot has objected.
 
4. In its Introductory Statement, Publicis asserts that the RFPs seek “a modest additional production,” but this is belied by the actual broad language of the requests as discussed below. (ECF No. 218-1 at 4.) In addition, Publicis argues in the Introductory Statement that information about other Peugeot “co-promotion campaigns” is relevant regarding the feasibility of Peugeot's co-promotion campaign at issue in this case – including the costs of creating a promotion and the time and actions necessary to create a promotion. (Id.) Not only is the purported justification extremely vague and not tied to the scope of its actual requests, but Publicis has failed to show (or even suggest) how other Peugeot co-promotions in other places and involving other products are comparable to the present case. Moreover, its requests are not limited to some definable sub-set of documents that would be relevant to the “feasibility” inquiry. Instead, as show in the language of the requests, Publicis has requested “any” documents that Peugeot has concerning other promotions or advertisements around the world.
 
*2 5. RFP 3 seeks any documents relating to any “advertising or promotional campaigns, advertisements, activation campaigns, or other promotions for Peugeot automotive products for the territories outside of North America that were planned to be, or in fact were, executed between June 30, 2017 and January 31, 2018.” Peugeot asserted a variety of objections, but its briefing focuses on the lack of relevance to any claim or defense and undue burden/lack of proportionality. In attempting to justify the request, Publicis generally argues that the requested material “bears upon the cost and process for developing such a campaign and whether existing campaigns could have been adapted to co-promote Blade Runner 2049 and the additional costs, or value, to Peugeot of doing so.” (ECF No. 218-1 at 11.) The Court agrees with Peugeot, sustains its objections based on lack of relevance and lack of proportionality, and denies the motion as to this RFP 3. This RFP seeks documents concerning planned or actual promotions around the world that are not connected to Blade Runner 2049 and not connected to the promotion and campaign at issue in this case. Instead, the RFP would require Peugeot to attempt to find, review and produce documents over a 30-month period from 160 countries where it does business – all for documents that do not relate to the events surrounding BR2049 and the promotion campaign that is the subject of this litigation. Publicis essentially argues that if it were allowed to look at all Peugeot automotive advertising and promotion documents from all projects (planned and actual) outside of North America in 2017-18, it might find something that might relate to feasibility of promotions and thus help it in this case. That speculative argument falls far short of establishing relevance or proportionality – particularly given that this motion comes at the end of the discovery period.
 
6. RFP 4 seeks any documents relating to any “advertising or promotional campaigns, advertisements, activation campaigns, or other promotions for Peugeot products associated with any film or television works, whether for theatrical, home entertainment or television release, which campaigns were executed between January 1, 2016 and June 30, 2018.” Peugeot again asserts lack of relevance and lack of proportionality, and Publicis repeats the same general argument as it did for RFP 3, that is the requested material “bears upon the cost and process for developing such a campaign and whether existing campaigns could have been adapted to co-promote Blade Runner 2049 and the additional costs, or value, to Peugeot of doing so.” (ECF No. 218-1 at 13-14.) Publicis's argument fares no better the second time, when used to justify a request for documents regarding all film or TV projects in 2016-18. As Peugeot points out, the request is not limited to any geographic region and seeks documents over a 30-month period – all for film or TV campaigns or promotions that have no connection to Blade Runner 2049 or the events at issue in this case. On its face, this broad request is a classic “fishing expedition” at the end of discovery for unrelated documents not relevant to the claims and defenses in this case and not proportional to the needs of the case. Publicis has not shown otherwise. Therefore, the motion to compel is denied as to RFP 4.
 
7. RFP 5 seeks any documents relating to any “advertising or promotional campaigns, advertisements, activation campaigns, or other promotions for Peugeot products associated with the films The Adventures of Tintin (otherwise known as Les Aventures de Tintin: Secret de la Licorne), Toy Story 3, and Ice Age Continental Drift (otherwise known as Ice Age 4; L'Age de glace 4: La Derive des continents).” For the third time, Publicis makes the same general argument to support its RFP, contending that the requested material “bears upon the cost and process for developing such a campaign and whether existing campaigns could have been adapted to co-promote Blade Runner 2049 and the additional costs, or value, to Peugeot of doing so.” (ECF No. 218-1 at 16.) Again, the Court finds that this argument does not salvage a broad RFP that is divorced from the claims and defenses of this case and would result in unreasonable burdens to locate, review and produce extensive materials from other film projects that have nothing to do with this case. Publicis's boilerplate argument in support of the RFP again fails to show how any of this material (much less the breadth of material actually requested) regarding different films from different time periods could have relevance to the claims and defenses of this case or why it is proportional to the needs of the case – particularly as discovery rapidly approaches its end date. Therefore, the motion to compel is denied as to RFP 5.
 
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Footnotes
Although the timeliness of the motion to compel was questioned via an Order to Show Cause (ECF No. 219), the Court has determined that it is more efficient to address the motion on its merits without first addressing the timeliness question.