*1 Plaintiffs move to compel Defendants L'Oréal, [537], Namaste, [543], House of Cheatham LLC, [547], Revlon, [548], and Avlon [549] to complete discovery responses and document production in response to their initial interrogatories and requests for production. Defendants move to compel Plaintiffs to respond to “outstanding” interrogatories. [550]. Plaintiffs’ motion to compel L'Oréal is granted in part and denied in part. [537]. Plaintiffs’ motions to compel Namaste [543], House of Cheatham [547], and Revlon [548] are denied. Plaintiffs’ motion to compel Avlon [549] under advisement pending resolution or further briefing [560] [573]. Defendants’ motion to compel Plaintiffs’ responses is denied. [550].

I. Standard

District courts have broad discretion in supervising discovery and ruling on discovery motions. Cent. States, Se. & Sw. Areas Pension Fund v. Waste Mgmt. of Mich., Inc., 674 F.3d 630, 636 (7th Cir. 2012). “In ruling on motions to compel discovery, courts have consistently adopted a liberal interpretation of the discovery rules.” Kodish v. Oakbrook Terrace Fire Prot. Dist., 235 F.R.D. 447, 450 (N.D. Ill. 2006) (internal citation omitted).

II. Analysis

The dispute here involves L'Oréal's responses to Interrogatories Number 2 and 3. The questions are straightforward: Plaintiff asks L'Oréal to provide each of the brand names under which L'Oréal made hair relaxer products available for sale or distribution and then for each brand, L'Oréal is to provide each product made available for sale or distribution. The problem arose because, according to the briefs, L'Oréal identified products sold by limiting review to its records from its finance department. Pursuant to the company's retention policies, these records date back only until 2007. Therefore, L'Oréal identifies products it distributed back to 2007 only.[1] This was confirmed by the Rule 30(b)(6) witness on brand identification, Noah Yung-Hing. [550] Ex. A. There is no dispute that in other productions, L'Oréal has produced documents that identifies products other than those identified in response to Interrogatory No. 3.

*2 The debate, then, is whether L'Oréal is required to review documents other than financial documents to identify all brands and products sold during the relevant time. The Court finds L'Oréal must identify all hair relaxer products it is able to identify through a diligent search. This includes searching documents outside of financial documents dating to 2007. As the Court has already found, this is highly relevant information. [353] at 8. The interrogatories request information about items made “available for sale/distribution” -- there is nothing limiting L'Oréal's duty to search financial documents. Advertising and meeting minutes could and likely would contain information about brands and products “available for sale/distribution”.

L'Oréal shall file a certified supplement by April 30, 2024, identifying further brands/products or indicating that no further brands/products have been identified. The Court trusts that L'Oréal acted in good faith and denies Plaintiffs’ request to preclude L'Oréal from defending against any pre-2007 brand/product that is not identified by April 30th.

Before turning to the next motion, the Court must observe the extent of irrelevant information contained in the response. L'Oréal's nine-page response to Interrogatory No. 2 is akin to watching a PBS special on the development of black owned hair care industry. The Response the company's founding in 1953 and its enduring commitment to self-expression, acting responsibly and ethically and protecting the environment. [545-2] at 7-8. Then, the history lesson begins when the reader learns the story of George Johnson, the son of a sharecropper who sold homemade hair products from his station wagon and founded Johnson Products. Id. at 11-12. Johnson Products is a well-known Chicago story and Johnson's success in the face of entrenched racism is to be admired. But the Court wonders why this information is included in response to Interrogatory No. 2. The Court did not know the story of Carson, Inc. (apparently one of its employees escaped Castro) and its invention of Dark and Lovely. Id. at 12, nor the fact that Dr. Keith, the eighth President of Moorehouse College, made the decision to invest in Carson. Id. But again, what is the point? Next, is a compelling story regarding the development and growth of Soft Sheen Products, Inc, another iconic Chicago business. (The interrogatory response shares that this entity contributed to Mayor Harold Washington's campaign). Id. at 13-14. It is interesting to know that these three Black hair care product giants have all been joined under the L'Oréal corporate umbrella. But for purposes of this litigation, what is more important to know is that the parties need to get to the point.

Reasonable fees awarded to plaintiff per the Court's Order of March 7, 2024. [307]. Plaintiff is awarded two hours of attorney fees and two hours of paralegal time.

Plaintiffs take issue with Defendant Namaste due to the relative lack of foreign regulatory documents and testing documents Namaste has produced. [543] Plaintiffs state that out of 12,750 documents produced by Namaste thus far, only 3 unique documents qualify as foreign regulatory submissions. According to Plaintiffs, this dearth of documents implies that Namaste's collection of documents was incomplete.

Plaintiffs did not, however, raise their concerns to Namaste in the meet and confer process. Moreover, Namaste has already “certified” its good faith search and completion of production. In a March 18, 2024, email to Plaintiffs, counsel for Namaste wrote: “As of February 29, 2024, in response to Plaintiffs’ First Set of Requests for Production of Documents, Namaste has produced all responsive, non-privileged documents identified through a fulsome and good faith search of all documents in its possession, custody, and control.” [565-4]. The Court has no reason to doubt this representation of Namaste's document collection and production. Namaste cannot be compelled to produce documents that do not exist.

*3 Plaintiffs’ motion to compel Namaste [543] is hereby denied. Reasonable fees awarded to Namaste per the Court's Order of March 7, 2024. [307]. Namaste is awarded two hours of attorney fees and two hours of paralegal time.

Plaintiffs challenge Defendant House of Cheatham's (HOC) production of 18 foreign regulatory documents out of all 18,224 documents produced. [547] HOC responds that “there is nothing further ... to produce at this point” and it has “conducted a good faith and diligent search for additional responsive documents” and has not located any. [566] at 1. HOC acknowledges that the ESI process might result in additional documents being discovered, and that third parties may be in possession of responsive documents. HOC accordingly acknowledges its duty to supplement.

Considering this record, Plaintiffs’ motion to compel HOC [547] is denied. Reasonable fees awarded to House of Cheatham per the Court's Order of March 7, 2024. [307]. HOC awarded two hours of attorney fees and one hour of paralegal time.

Defendant Revlon has produced 933 documents to date, a number Plaintiffs contend falls far behind other “first wave” Defendants. Plaintiff also contends that though Revlon has identified 23 different products it sells outside the United States, less than 50 documents out of the total production are foreign regulatory documents.

Revlon responds that it sold its line of hair relaxer products to The Colomer Group in 2000, then stopped selling most of the products at issue after it acquired Colomer in 2013. According to Revlon, it sold no hair relaxers for 13 years between 2000 and 2013, hence the relatively smaller overall production. The Court will not grant a motion to compel because Plaintiffs speculate that a defendant should have more documents.

As to the foreign regulatory documents, Revlon attaches an affidavit from its Senior Director of Regulatory Affairs, Anna Montero Comas, that details the collection process she and her team it undertook to locate foreign regulatory documents. [567-1]. As ESI is being supervised by Judge Finnegan, this Court will not pass on Revlon's use of appropriate search terms or custodians. But for purposes of this motion to compel, Revlon has established that it adequately searched its records for documents related to foreign regulatory documents.

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel Revlon [548] is denied. Reasonable fees awarded to Revlon per the Court's Order of March 7, 2024. [307]. Revlon is awarded two hours of attorney time and two hours of paralegal time.

Defendants move to compel Plaintiffs to respond to seven (7) interrogatories contained in Defendants’ First Set of Interrogatories. [550]. Both sides agree the issue concerns what are essentially contention interrogatories numbered 3, 5-7, 9-10 and 14 served in August of 2023. Defendants’ First Set of Interrogatories served as the basis for extensive negotiations between the parties during the fall of 2023 to create the Plaintiff Fact Sheets (PFS).

The interrogatories request all individual Plaintiffs to identify all chemicals that caused the Health Effects at issue; other products used that contain said chemicals; scientific research and literature that supports the individual plaintiffs’ claims; all entities that contributed to causation aside from Defendants. (Interrogatories 3, 5, 6, 9, and 14). These are causation interrogatories. The Court has already ruled (most recently in discussing the timing of a Science Day) that Plaintiffs will be required to establish causation but that Plaintiffs responses to these inquiries will be due during expert discovery. See [421] at 7-9. The motion to compel on these interrogatories is denied without prejudice.[2]

*4 The interrogatories also request all grants or funding that the individual Plaintiff or any counsel has made the Sister Study, the Boston University's Black Women's Health Study or the Non-Toxic Black Beauty Project (Interrogatory 10) and all sources of funding that each Plaintiff had received in connection with the lawsuit (Interrogatory 7).

At to Interrogatory 10, the Court agrees with Plaintiffs that it is improperly aimed at Plaintiffs’ counsel. While “a party cannot refuse to answer an interrogatory merely on the ground that the information sought is solely within the knowledge of his attorney, Priddy v. Health Care Serv. Corp., 14-CV-3360, 2016 WL 6237800, at *4 (C.D. Ill. Oct. 25, 2016), the information sought must still be relevant and proportional. Interrogatory 10 does not seek counsel's knowledge of the facts or legal theories underlying a claim. Cf. id. Any scientific funding provided by Plaintiffs’ counsel is not “directly relevant to the underlying legal issue.” Cf. Loendorf v. PeopleConnect, Inc., 21 C 51, 2022 WL 2867174, at *7 (N.D. Ill. July 21, 2022). The Court denies the motion to compel without prejudice.

Finally, the Court joins the chorus of courts to find that litigation funding is not relevant to the claims and defenses in the case. See Fulton v. Foley, 17-CV-8696, 2019 WL 6609298 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 5, 2019) (collecting cases), accord Art Akiane LLC. v. Art & Soulworks LLC, 19-CV-2952, 2020 WL 5593242, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 18, 2020). The motion to compel Interrogatory 7 is denied with prejudice.

Defendants’ motion to compel Plaintiffs [550] is denied. Reasonable fees are awarded to Plaintiffs per the Court's Order of March 7, 2024. [307]. Plaintiffs are awarded three hours of attorney time and two hours of paralegal time.

For the stated reasons, Plaintiffs’ motion to compel L'Oréal is granted in part and denied in part. [537]. Plaintiffs’ motions to compel Namaste [543], House of Cheatham [547], and Revlon [548] are denied. Plaintiffs’ motion to compel Avlon [549] under advisement pending resolution or further briefing [560, 573]. Defendants’ motion to compel Plaintiffs’ responses is denied. [550].

Based on the financial documents, L'Oréal identified the following products: Bantu No Base Relaxer Regular Strength; Bantu No Base Relaxer Super Strength; Bantu No Base Relaxer Mild Strength; Dark and Lovely Beautiful Beginnings No- Mistake Smooth Relaxer – For All Hair Types; Dark and Lovely Beautiful Beginnings No Mistake Curl Softener – For All Curly Hair Types; Dark and Lovely Healthy Gloss 5 Shea Moisture No Lye Relaxer – Regular; Dark and Lovely Healthy Gloss 5 Shea Moisture No Lye Relaxer – Super; Dark and Lovely Healthy Gloss 5 Shea Moisture No Lye Relaxer – For Color Treated Hair; Dark and Lovely Triple Nourished Silkening Relaxer – Regular; Dark and Lovely Triple Nourished Silkening Relaxer – Super; Optimum Advanced Keratin Whipped Crème Relaxer – Regular; Optimum Advanced Keratin Whipped Crème Relaxer – Mild/Color Treated; Optimum Care Bodifying Relaxer; Optimum Multi-Mineral Reduced pH Crème Relaxer Regular Strength; Optimum Multi-Mineral Reduced pH Crème Relaxer Mild Strength; Optimum Multi-Mineral Reduced pH Crème Relaxer Super Strength; Optimum Salon Haircare Defy Breakage No-Lye Relaxer – Regular; Optimum Salon Haircare Amla Legend Relaxer; Ultra Precise No-Lye Conditioning Relaxer Original Formula (mild); Ultra Precise No- Lye Conditioning Relaxer Supreme Formula (super); Mizani Butter Blend Relaxer (Medium/Normal); Mizani Butter Blend Relaxer (Fine/Color-Treated); Mizani Butter Blend Relaxer (Coarse/Resistant); Mizani Butter Blend Sensitive Scalp Rhelaxer; Mizani Butterblend Prosolvent Relaxer - Coarse/Resistant; Mizani Butterblend Prosolvent Relaxer-Fine/Color Treated; Mizani Classic Rhelaxer Medium/Normal; Mizani Classic Rhelaxer – Coarse/Resistant; Mizani Classic Rhelaxer – Fine/Color Treated Hair; Mizani Sensitive Scalp Rhelaxer; Roots of Nature Restorative Relaxer – Normal/Medium and Roots of Nature Restorative Relaxer – Fine. [545-2] at 14.

The parties exchange positions as to whether Defendants formerly withdrew these requests. The Court has reviewed the email exchanges and finds them inconclusive. Defendants never formally withdraw the Interrogatories and now assert in declarations that they did not withdraw them. More persuasive to the Court is Plaintiffs’ argument that these are not proper requests to serve on each individual Plaintiff. This would defeat the efficiency of the MDL. Moreover, as discussed supra, causation discovery is yet to take place.