1038-00007 · Cascade Retail Holdings · Pleadings

joint-discovery-plan-scheduling-order.docx DOCUMENT Litigation

31 / 35 ← → ✕

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

JOINT DISCOVERY PLAN AND PROPOSED SCHEDULING ORDER

Submitted jointly by counsel for all parties:

For Defendant Cascade Retail Holdings Inc.:

CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP Douglas Carmichael (SBN 198452) Francesca Morano (SBN 241736) Yuki Nakamura (SBN 287091) Carlos Espinoza (SBN 302514) 600 South Grand Avenue, Suite 3200 Los Angeles, California 90071 Telephone: (213) 555-4200 Facsimile: (213) 555-4201

Email: dcarmichael@calderwoodharkness.com

For Plaintiff Vantor Holdings Corp.:

KESSLER, BRANDT & WHITFIELD LLP Martin Kessler (SBN 156789) Natalie Whitfield (SBN 223841) Jason Okafor (SBN 295167) 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2800 Los Angeles, California 90067 Telephone: (310) 555-8800 Facsimile: (310) 555-8801

Email: mkessler@kbwlaw.com

Right-click to update Table of Contents

I. INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Vantor Holdings Corp. ("Vantor" or "Plaintiff") and Defendant Cascade Retail Holdings Inc. ("Cascade" or "Defendant") (collectively, the "Parties"), through their respective counsel of record, respectfully submit this Joint discovery Plan and Proposed Scheduling Order (the "Plan") to the Court pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.724, and the Court's direction at the initial case management conference held on November 5, 2021.

The procedural history of this action is as follows:

1. Complaint Filed. On September 7, 2021, Vantor filed its Complaint for Damages in this Court, asserting three causes of action against Cascade: (1) tortious interference with contractual relations; (2) tortious interference with prospective economic advantage; and (3) unfair business practices in violation of California Business and Professions Code Section 17200 et seq. The Complaint alleges that Cascade engaged in a deliberate and systematic campaign to induce three key consumer-goods suppliers to breach their exclusive supply agreements with Vantor, resulting in substantial economic harm to Vantor.

2. Service of Process. Cascade was served with the summons and Complaint on September 28, 2021, through its registered agent for service of process in California.

3. Answer and Affirmative Defenses. On October 18, 2021, Cascade timely filed its Answer and Affirmative Defenses to the Complaint, denying the material allegations of Vantor's Complaint and asserting various affirmative defenses, including, inter alia, lack of knowledge of the exclusivity provisions at issue, independent action by the suppliers, failure to mitigate damages, and the availability of termination-for-convenience provisions in the underlying supplier agreements.

4. Initial Case Management Conference. On November 5, 2021, the Parties appeared before this Court for an initial case management conference. At the conference, the Court directed the Parties to meet and confer in good faith regarding a joint discovery plan and proposed scheduling order, and to file the same with the Court no later than January 14, 2022.

5. Meet and Confer. In compliance with the Court's directive, counsel for the Parties have conducted multiple meet-and-confer sessions, including telephonic conferences on November 22, 2021, December 8, 2021, December 20, 2021, and January 4, 2022, as well as extensive correspondence regarding the terms of this Plan. The Parties have reached agreement on the discovery framework, timing, and deadlines set forth herein, subject to the reservations and objections specifically noted below.

The Parties now submit this Joint discovery Plan and Proposed Scheduling Order for the Court's review and adoption.

II. NATURE OF THE ACTION

A. Plaintiff's Claims

Vantor Holdings Corp. is a California corporation engaged in the wholesale distribution and retail sale of consumer goods, including household products, personal care items, and lifestyle accessories. Vantor maintains a network of exclusive supplier relationships that form the core of its business operations and competitive position in the consumer-goods marketplace.

Vantor alleges that Cascade Retail Holdings Inc., a Delaware corporation that competes with Vantor in the consumer-goods distribution and retail sector, systematically induced three key consumer-goods suppliers to breach their existing exclusive supply agreements with Vantor. Specifically, Vantor alleges that Cascade induced the following suppliers — each of which was, at the time, a party to an exclusive supply agreement with Vantor — to terminate or breach those agreements and enter into new supply arrangements with Cascade:

(i) Hemsworth Consumer Products LLC ("Hemsworth");

(ii) Tridale Manufacturing Inc. ("Tridale"); and

(iii) Orion Lifestyle Brands Corp. ("Orion")

(collectively, the "Suppliers").

Vantor further alleges that Cascade's conduct was undertaken pursuant to a coordinated corporate initiative known internally at Cascade as "Project Atlas," which was launched in or around February 2021. The purpose and design of Project Atlas, as alleged by Vantor, was to identify and target Vantor's most significant supplier relationships and to divert those suppliers to Cascade by offering superior financial terms, guarantees, and other inducements calculated to cause each supplier to breach its existing contractual obligations to Vantor.

According to Vantor's Complaint, as a direct result of Project Atlas, Cascade entered into new supply agreements with each of the three Suppliers on the following dates:

(a) Orion Lifestyle Brands Corp.: Supply agreement executed on or about May 10, 2021;

(b) Hemsworth Consumer Products LLC: Supply agreement executed on or about June 1, 2021; and

At the time each of these new agreements was executed, each of the Suppliers was party to an exclusive supply agreement with Vantor. The relevant Vantor–Supplier agreements are as follows:

(a) Hemsworth–Vantor Supply Agreement: Executed on March 15, 2019, with a three-year term expiring on March 14, 2022, containing a minimum annual purchase commitment by Vantor of $12,500,000 and an exclusivity provision requiring Hemsworth to supply products exclusively to Vantor within specified product categories and geographic territories during the term of the agreement;

(b) Tridale–Vantor Supply Agreement: Executed on January 10, 2020, with a two-year term expiring on January 9, 2022, containing a minimum annual purchase commitment by Vantor of $8,300,000 and an exclusivity provision of similar scope to the Hemsworth agreement; and

(c) Orion–Vantor Supply Agreement: Executed on July 1, 2018, with a four-year term expiring on June 30, 2022, containing a minimum annual purchase commitment by Vantor of $14,600,000 and an exclusivity provision requiring Orion to supply products exclusively to Vantor within defined product categories and sales channels.

Vantor alleges that the combined minimum annual purchase commitments across the three supplier agreements totaled approximately $35,400,000, and that the loss of these supplier relationships has caused Vantor to suffer damages of approximately $87,400,000 in lost profits, calculated over the remaining terms of the agreements and the reasonably anticipated renewal periods, as well as additional consequential damages arising from disruption to Vantor's supply chain, loss of customer goodwill, and increased procurement costs from replacement suppliers.

B. Defendant's Defenses

Cascade Retail Holdings Inc. denies the material allegations of Vantor's Complaint and denies that it is liable to Vantor on any of the three causes of action asserted. In its Answer and Affirmative Defenses, Cascade asserts, among other affirmative defenses, the following:

(1) Lack of Knowledge. Cascade did not have actual knowledge of the specific exclusivity provisions contained in Vantor's supply agreements with the Suppliers at the time Cascade entered into its own supply arrangements with those entities. Cascade contends that the supply agreements between Vantor and the Suppliers were confidential, bilateral contracts that were not disclosed to Cascade, and that Cascade had no duty to investigate the existence or terms of such agreements before engaging in ordinary competitive business conduct.

(2) Independent Supplier Conduct. The Suppliers independently chose to enter into supply agreements with Cascade without inducement, coercion, or the use of any improper means by Cascade. Cascade contends that each of the Suppliers made its own independent business judgment to diversify its distribution channels and that Cascade's conduct was nothing more than ordinary, lawful competition in the consumer-goods marketplace.

(3) Termination-for-Convenience Clauses. Each of the Vantor–Supplier agreements contained termination-for-convenience provisions that permitted the Suppliers to terminate the agreements upon specified notice, typically ranging from sixty to ninety days. Cascade contends that the Suppliers properly exercised those contractual rights and that, accordingly, no breach of the Vantor–Supplier agreements occurred.

(4) Failure to Mitigate. Vantor failed to take reasonable steps to mitigate its alleged damages by, among other things, failing to enforce the exclusivity provisions of the supply agreements through timely legal action against the Suppliers, failing to secure replacement suppliers in a timely manner, and failing to renegotiate its supply arrangements.

(5) Duplicative § 17200 Claim. Vantor's third cause of action under California Business and Professions Code Section 17200 is duplicative of Vantor's tortious interference claims and does not allege any conduct that is independently unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent within the meaning of the statute.

Cascade further denies that Vantor's alleged damages are recoverable, that Vantor's damages calculation is reasonable or adequately supported, and that Vantor has standing to assert its Section 17200 claim.

III. PARTIES' AGREEMENT ON SCOPE OF DISCOVERY

A. Core discovery Scope

The Parties have met and conferred regarding the appropriate scope of discovery in this action. The Parties agree that discovery shall initially focus on the following core areas, which are directly relevant to the claims and defenses at issue:

1. The Three Supplier Relationships. discovery shall encompass all documents, communications, and information relating to the three supplier relationships at issue — i.e., the relationships between Vantor and each of Hemsworth Consumer Products LLC, Tridale Manufacturing Inc., and Orion Lifestyle Brands Corp. — including the negotiation, execution, performance, modification, and termination of the exclusive supply agreements between Vantor and each of those Suppliers.

2. Project Atlas. discovery shall encompass all documents, communications, and information relating to Cascade's "Project Atlas" initiative, including the formation, planning, approval, implementation, and execution of the initiative, the internal deliberations and communications at Cascade regarding Project Atlas, and the supplier onboarding activities conducted pursuant to Project Atlas.

3. Cascade–Supplier Communications. discovery shall include all communications between Cascade (including its officers, employees, agents, and representatives) and each of the three Suppliers regarding potential supply arrangements, the terms and conditions of any proposed or executed supply agreements, and any discussions regarding the Suppliers' existing contractual obligations to Vantor or any other distributor.

4. Damages and Financial Information. discovery shall include financial records, projections, and analyses necessary to evaluate Vantor's claimed damages, including records relating to the financial performance of the Vantor–Supplier relationships, Vantor's lost profits calculations, and any mitigation efforts undertaken by Vantor.

5. Vantor–Supplier Agreements. discovery shall include all exclusive supply agreements between Vantor and each of the three Suppliers, together with all amendments, modifications, side letters, purchase orders, and correspondence relating to the performance and termination of those agreements.

B. Reservation of Rights Regarding Expanded discovery

The Parties have been unable to reach agreement on whether discovery should extend beyond the three supplier relationships specifically at issue in the Complaint. The Parties' respective positions are as follows:

Vantor's Position. Vantor reserves the right to seek discovery into additional Cascade supplier relationships beyond the three at issue — including, but not limited to, any additional suppliers that were targeted or approached as part of Project Atlas or any related Cascade initiative — to establish pattern-and-practice evidence relevant to Vantor's claims. Vantor contends that evidence of a broader pattern of targeting competitors' exclusive suppliers would be highly relevant to establishing the intentional and systematic nature of Cascade's conduct and to rebutting Cascade's defense that it lacked knowledge of the exclusivity provisions in Vantor's supplier agreements.

Cascade's Position. Cascade objects to any such expanded discovery as disproportionate to the needs of the case, unduly burdensome, and overbroad. Cascade contends that discovery should be limited to the three specific supplier relationships alleged in the Complaint and that pattern-and-practice evidence regarding other supplier relationships is irrelevant, prejudicial, and would impose significant costs and burdens on Cascade without corresponding probative value. Cascade reserves the right to oppose any motion to compel such expanded discovery.

Agreement on Process. Notwithstanding the foregoing disagreement, the Parties agree that any dispute regarding the scope of additional supplier discovery shall be raised by noticed motion pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Sections 2016.040 and 2017.010 et seq., after the Parties have met and conferred in good faith. The Parties further agree that any such motion should be deferred until after initial document discovery has been substantially completed, so that the Court may evaluate the request in light of the evidence already produced.

IV. DOCUMENT DISCOVERY

A. Requests for Production of Documents

The Parties agree to the following schedule and procedures for requests for production of documents:

1. Service of Requests. Each Party shall serve its first set of requests for production of documents no later than March 15, 2022. Either Party may serve supplemental or additional sets of requests for production thereafter, subject to the requirements of California Code of Civil Procedure Section 2031.010 et seq. and the discovery cut-off dates set forth herein.

2. Responses and Objections. The responding Party shall serve its written responses and objections to the requests for production within thirty (30) days of service, plus any applicable extensions for method of service as provided by California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1013.

3. Substantial Completion of Production. Production of responsive documents shall be substantially completed within forty-five (45) days of service of responses. The Parties acknowledge that certain categories of documents may require additional time for collection, review, and processing, and the Parties agree to work cooperatively regarding any reasonable extensions of time needed for production. Any disputes regarding the timeliness or completeness of document production shall be raised first through the meet-and-confer process before any motion to compel is filed.

B. Document Collection and Processing

The Parties have each taken steps to preserve potentially relevant documents and electronically stored information ("ESI") in anticipation of and in connection with this litigation.

Cascade's Preservation and Collection Efforts. Cascade represents that, as of the date of this filing, it has issued written litigation hold notices, dated December 10, 2021, to all relevant custodians identified to date. The recipients of Cascade's litigation hold notices include, but are not limited to, the following individuals:

(a) Annika Bergström, Vice President, Strategic Sourcing;

(b) Lena Torvik, Senior Vice President, Supply Chain & Procurement;

(d) Margaret Prumvane, Chief Executive Officer & President; and

(e) Raj Subramanian, Chief Financial Officer.

Cascade has retained Krane Investigations LLC ("Krane") as its e-discovery vendor to manage the collection, processing, hosting, and production of documents in this litigation. Krane's designated project manager for this matter is Samuel Byrd, and Krane's offices are located at 333 South Hope Street, Suite 1600, Los Angeles, California 90071. Krane will host the document review platform and manage all aspects of ESI processing, including de-duplication, extraction of text and metadata, and application of search terms and other culling methodologies as agreed upon by the Parties or ordered by the Court.

Vantor's Preservation Efforts. Vantor represents that it has likewise implemented appropriate litigation hold procedures, including the issuance of written litigation hold notices to relevant custodians and the preservation of potentially relevant documents and ESI. Vantor will supplement this disclosure with additional details regarding its preservation and collection efforts as discovery progresses.

The Parties agree to meet and confer in good faith regarding the identification of custodians, search terms, date ranges, and other parameters for document collection and processing, with the goal of reducing unnecessary burden and expense while ensuring that all responsive documents are identified and produced.

C. Format of Productions

The Parties agree to the following protocols for the format of document productions:

1. TIFF Format. Documents shall be produced in single-page TIFF image format (Group IV, 300 dpi resolution) with extracted text files (in .txt format) and metadata load files (in .dat or .csv format). Each TIFF image shall be endorsed with a unique Bates number.

2. Native Format. Documents for which TIFF production would not accurately represent the content, functionality, or relevant characteristics of the document — including, but not limited to, spreadsheets (e.g., Microsoft Excel files), databases, and presentations with embedded formulas, macros, or dynamic content — shall be produced in their native file format with associated metadata.

3. Load Files. Each production shall be accompanied by a load file containing, at a minimum, the following metadata fields: Bates Begin, Bates End, Custodian, Date Sent, Date Received, Author, From, To, CC, BCC, Subject, File Name, File Path, File Extension, File Size, Date Created, Date Modified, and MD5 Hash Value.

4. Privilege Logs. Each Party shall produce a privilege log concurrent with, or within thirty (30) days of, each document production. Privilege logs shall comply with the requirements of California Code of Civil Procedure Section 2031.240(c) and shall include, at a minimum, the following information for each document withheld: document date, author(s), recipient(s), a general description of the document sufficient to allow the opposing Party to evaluate the privilege claim, and the specific privilege or protection asserted.

D. Estimated Document Volume

Cascade estimates that document collection from identified custodians and data sources will involve a substantial volume of electronically stored information, potentially exceeding several hundred thousand documents. The Parties acknowledge that the volume of documents may necessitate phased review and production, and the Parties agree to cooperate in establishing a reasonable production schedule that accounts for the volume and complexity of the ESI at issue. The Parties further agree to discuss and, where possible, agree upon search terms, technology-assisted review methodologies, and other culling mechanisms designed to reduce unnecessary costs while ensuring the completeness and integrity of document productions.

V. INTERROGATORIES

A. Timing. The Parties agree to the following schedule for the service and response to interrogatories:

1. Service of First Set. Each Party shall serve its first set of interrogatories no later than March 15, 2022. The Parties have agreed to serve their first sets of interrogatories concurrently with their first sets of requests for production of documents, in order to facilitate efficient coordination of written discovery.

2. Responses. Responses to interrogatories shall be served within thirty (30) days of service, plus any applicable extensions for method of service as provided by California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1013.

B. Limitations.

1. Initial Limitation. The Parties agree to limit initial interrogatories to twenty-five (25) interrogatories per side, including all discrete subparts, consistent with the limitations set forth in California Code of Civil Procedure Section 2030.030. Each subpart of an interrogatory that calls for a separate response shall be counted as a separate interrogatory for purposes of this limitation.

2. Supplemental Interrogatories. Either Party may serve supplemental interrogatories following the substantial completion of document discovery, subject to the statutory limitations set forth in California Code of Civil Procedure Section 2030.040 et seq. and subject to the discovery cut-off dates established herein. The Parties agree that supplemental interrogatories should be served promptly after the information giving rise to the need for supplementation becomes available, and in no event later than the applicable discovery cut-off date.

VI. REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION

The Parties agree to the following schedule and procedures for requests for admission:

1. Service of Requests. Each Party may serve requests for admission no later than June 1, 2022. The Parties have agreed that requests for admission should be served after the initial exchange of document productions, so that the requests may be informed by the documents produced.

2. Responses. Responses to requests for admission shall be due within thirty (30) days of service, plus any applicable extensions for method of service as provided by California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1013.

3. Scope. Requests for admission may address the genuineness of documents, the truth of specified matters of fact, and the application of law to fact, in accordance with California Code of Civil Procedure Section 2033.010 et seq. The Parties agree that requests for admission should be narrowly tailored to matters that are genuinely in dispute and should not be used as a substitute for interrogatories or as a tool to impose undue burden.

VII. DEPOSITIONS

A. Fact Depositions

1. Number and Duration. Each side shall be entitled to take up to ten (10) fact depositions of individual witnesses, each limited to seven (7) hours on the record, consistent with the limitations set forth in California Code of Civil Procedure Section 2025.290. The Parties agree that the seven-hour limitation refers to actual time on the record during which the deponent is being examined by counsel, exclusive of breaks, lunch, and off-the-record discussions.

The Parties reserve the right to seek leave of Court for additional depositions or extended deposition time if warranted by the scope and complexity of discovery. Any such request shall be made by noticed motion after the Parties have met and conferred regarding the need for additional depositions.

2. Priority Witnesses. The Parties have identified the following preliminary, non-exhaustive lists of priority witnesses whom they intend to depose during the fact discovery period:

Plaintiff Vantor Holdings Corp. intends to depose the following Cascade witnesses:

(a) Annika Bergström, Vice President, Strategic Sourcing — Ms. Bergström is believed to have had direct responsibility for identifying, evaluating, and negotiating supply arrangements with the Suppliers as part of Project Atlas;

(b) Lena Torvik, Senior Vice President, Supply Chain & Procurement — Ms. Torvik is believed to have been the senior executive with overall responsibility for Cascade's supply chain operations and for the strategic direction of Project Atlas;

(c) David Pruitt, General Counsel & Corporate Secretary — Mr. Pruitt is believed to have provided legal advice and oversight regarding Cascade's supplier onboarding efforts and the assessment of legal risks associated with Project Atlas;

(d) Margaret Prumvane, Chief Executive Officer & President — Ms. Prumvane is believed to have been the ultimate decision-maker regarding the approval and implementation of Project Atlas at the senior leadership level; and

(e) Other Cascade personnel involved in Project Atlas supplier negotiations, to be identified following the completion of document discovery.

Defendant Cascade Retail Holdings Inc. intends to depose the following Vantor witnesses:

(a) Thomas Brennecke, Vice President, Supplier Relations — Mr. Brennecke is believed to have had primary responsibility for managing Vantor's relationships with the three Suppliers at issue;

(b) Richard "Rick" Ellsworth, Founder & Chief Executive Officer — Mr. Ellsworth is believed to have been personally involved in the negotiation and execution of the exclusive supply agreements at issue and in the decision to initiate this litigation;

(c) Patricia Sung, Chief Operating Officer — Ms. Sung is believed to have been responsible for Vantor's day-to-day operations, including supply chain management and the response to the alleged supplier departures;

(d) Deborah Marcelino, Chief Financial Officer — Ms. Marcelino is believed to have relevant knowledge regarding Vantor's financial performance, damages calculations, and mitigation efforts; and

(e) Other Vantor personnel involved in supplier management and the events giving rise to this litigation, to be identified following the completion of document discovery.

The Parties acknowledge that the foregoing lists are preliminary and non-exhaustive, and that each Party reserves the right to identify additional deponents as discovery progresses. The Parties agree to cooperate in scheduling depositions and to provide reasonable notice of deposition dates.

3. Third-Party Witness Depositions. Either Party may notice depositions of witnesses employed by or affiliated with the three Suppliers at issue. The Parties have identified the following individuals as likely third-party deponents:

(a) Janet Kohler, Chief Executive Officer, Hemsworth Consumer Products LLC;

(b) Gregory Fontaine, President, Tridale Manufacturing Inc.; and

In addition, either Party may seek to depose other employees or representatives of the Suppliers who have relevant knowledge of the events at issue, including individuals involved in the negotiation and execution of the supplier agreements with Vantor and Cascade, the decision to terminate or modify the exclusive supply arrangements with Vantor, and the circumstances surrounding the transition to supply arrangements with Cascade.

Third-party depositions shall count against the deposing Party's total deposition allotment of ten (10) fact depositions, unless otherwise stipulated by the Parties or ordered by the Court. The Parties agree to meet and confer regarding any requests to increase the deposition allotment to accommodate third-party depositions.

For depositions of witnesses located outside the State of California, the Parties agree to utilize the applicable provisions of the Uniform Interstate Depositions and discovery Act ("UIDDA") or equivalent state law procedures, and to cooperate in obtaining any necessary out-of-state subpoenas.

4. Scheduling of Fact Depositions. Fact depositions shall commence no earlier than September 1, 2022, following the substantial completion of document discovery. The Parties agree that conducting depositions after document discovery has been substantially completed will promote efficiency and reduce the need for reconvening depositions after the production of additional documents.

All fact depositions shall be completed by November 30, 2022, which is the fact discovery cut-off date established herein.

The Parties agree to cooperate in good faith regarding the scheduling of depositions and to provide at least twenty-one (21) days' written notice of deposition dates, unless a shorter notice period is agreed upon by the Parties. The Parties further agree to avoid, to the extent reasonably practicable, scheduling depositions on the same date or during the same week as depositions noticed by the opposing Party.

B. Expert Depositions

Expert depositions shall be taken following the exchange of expert reports, as set forth in Section IX below.

Each side shall be entitled to depose each opposing retained expert witness for up to seven (7) hours on the record. The Parties agree that expert depositions should be scheduled promptly after the service of expert reports, and that the Parties will cooperate in making their respective experts available for deposition within the expert discovery period.

All expert depositions shall be completed by February 15, 2023, which is the expert discovery cut-off date established herein.

VIII. THIRD-PARTY DISCOVERY

A. Subpoenas Duces Tecum

The Parties anticipate serving subpoenas duces tecum on the three Suppliers at issue to obtain documents and records relevant to the claims and defenses in this action. The Suppliers' principal places of business are as follows:

(a) Hemsworth Consumer Products LLC, 4720 NW Yeon Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97210;

(b) Tridale Manufacturing Inc., 6300 South Pecos Road, Suite 210, Las Vegas, Nevada 89120; and

For Orion Lifestyle Brands Corp., which is located in California, subpoenas duces tecum shall be issued and served in accordance with the provisions of California Code of Civil Procedure Section 2020.010 et seq.

For Hemsworth Consumer Products LLC (located in Oregon) and Tridale Manufacturing Inc. (located in Nevada), the Parties will utilize the applicable interstate subpoena procedures, including the Uniform Interstate Depositions and discovery Act ("UIDDA") as enacted in Oregon (ORS 44.640 et seq.) and Nevada (NRS 53.100 et seq.), or such other equivalent statutory procedures as may be applicable. The Parties agree to cooperate in the issuance and service of interstate subpoenas and to share the costs of such issuance where appropriate.

Third-party subpoenas duces tecum shall be served no later than April 30, 2022, with document production due within thirty (30) days of service, or as otherwise negotiated with the third parties or ordered by the issuing court. The Parties agree to provide courtesy copies of all third-party subpoenas to opposing counsel at or before the time of service.

B. Additional Third Parties

Either Party may seek discovery from additional third parties to the extent that such discovery is relevant to the claims and defenses in this action and proportional to the needs of the case. The Parties have identified the following additional potential third-party discovery source:

Granville & Associates, P.C., 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 5000, Seattle, Washington 98101 — Cascade's outside auditors. The Parties acknowledge that financial records prepared or maintained by Cascade's outside auditors may be relevant to the damages analysis in this case, including issues relating to Cascade's financial performance, revenue attributable to the supply arrangements at issue, and other financial metrics.

Any disputes regarding the scope, relevance, or burden of third-party discovery shall be resolved by noticed motion after the Parties have met and conferred in good faith. The Parties agree that third-party discovery requests should be narrowly tailored to avoid imposing undue burden on non-parties and that the Parties will cooperate in resolving any objections raised by third parties.

IX. EXPERT DISCOVERY

A. Designation of Experts

Each Party shall designate its retained expert witnesses, together with a brief description of the general substance of each expert's expected testimony, no later than October 15, 2022.

Rebuttal expert designations shall be made no later than November 1, 2022. Rebuttal expert designations shall identify any additional experts retained solely for the purpose of rebutting the opinions of the opposing Party's designated experts.

B. Expert Reports

1. Opening Expert Reports. Opening expert reports shall be served no later than December 9, 2022. Each opening expert report shall comply with the requirements of California Code of Civil Procedure Section 2034.260 and shall include, at a minimum, a complete statement of all opinions the expert will express, the basis and reasons for each opinion, the data and information considered by the expert in forming the opinions, any exhibits to be used as a summary or support for the opinions, the expert's qualifications and publications, a listing of all cases in which the expert has testified as an expert at trial or by deposition within the preceding four years, and a statement of the compensation to be paid for the expert's study and testimony.

2. Rebuttal Expert Reports. Rebuttal expert reports shall be served no later than December 22, 2022. Rebuttal reports shall be limited to opinions offered in response to the opinions set forth in the opening expert reports and shall not introduce new, affirmative opinions beyond the scope of rebuttal.

C. Expert Depositions

Depositions of all designated expert witnesses shall be completed by February 15, 2023. The Parties agree to cooperate in scheduling expert depositions promptly after the exchange of expert reports to ensure that all expert depositions can be completed within the expert discovery period.

D. Scope of Expert discovery

The Parties have discussed the anticipated scope of expert discovery and have indicated the following preliminary positions regarding expert retention:

Vantor's Position. Vantor has indicated that it intends to retain a damages expert to opine on the amount of lost profits arising from the alleged interference with the three supplier relationships. Vantor's damages expert is expected to provide opinions regarding the calculation of lost profits, the valuation of the disrupted supplier relationships, the reasonably anticipated duration of those relationships absent Cascade's alleged interference, and any other economic damages flowing from Cascade's conduct. Vantor reserves the right to retain additional experts in other disciplines as warranted by the evidence developed in discovery.

Cascade's Position. Cascade reserves the right to retain its own damages and economics expert to rebut Vantor's damages analysis and to provide independent economic analysis regarding, among other things, the proper methodology for calculating lost profits (if any), the effect of mitigation (or lack thereof) on Vantor's claimed damages, the terminability of the Vantor–Supplier agreements under their express terms, and the economic reasonableness of Vantor's damages claims. Cascade further reserves the right to retain experts in other disciplines, including industry experts on competitive practices in the consumer-goods distribution sector.

X. PRIVILEGE AND PROTECTIVE ORDER

A. Privilege Log

Each Party shall maintain and produce a privilege log identifying all documents and communications withheld from production on the basis of the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, or any other applicable privilege or protection. The privilege logs shall provide sufficient information to enable the opposing Party and the Court to evaluate the applicability of the asserted privilege or protection.

Privilege logs shall be produced concurrent with, or within thirty (30) days of, each document production. The Parties shall comply with California Code of Civil Procedure Section 2031.240(c) in logging privileged documents, and each privilege log entry shall include, at a minimum, the following information:

(a) The date of the document or communication;

(b) The author(s) or sender(s) of the document or communication;

(d) A general description of the nature and subject matter of the document or communication, providing sufficient detail to allow the opposing Party to evaluate the privilege claim without revealing the privileged content;

(e) The specific privilege or protection asserted (e.g., attorney-client privilege, attorney work product — opinion, attorney work product — fact); and

(f) The basis for the privilege or protection asserted, including the identity of the attorney(s) involved and the nature of the legal advice or litigation-related activity at issue.

B. Stipulated Protective Order

The Parties agree to negotiate and submit a stipulated protective order governing the designation, handling, use, and disclosure of confidential, proprietary, and trade secret information produced in discovery. The Parties recognize that discovery in this action is likely to involve the production of highly sensitive business information, including financial records, supplier agreements, pricing information, strategic plans, customer lists, and other proprietary data that could cause competitive harm if disclosed beyond the confines of this litigation.

The stipulated protective order shall provide for at least two tiers of confidentiality designation:

(a) "CONFIDENTIAL" — for information that a producing Party in good faith believes constitutes confidential business information, the disclosure of which to persons other than those authorized under the protective order could cause competitive or other harm to the producing Party; and

(b) "HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL — ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY" — for information that a producing Party in good faith believes constitutes its most sensitive trade secrets, proprietary business strategies, pricing information, or other competitively sensitive information, the disclosure of which, even to the opposing Party's employees or officers, could cause significant competitive harm. Access to documents designated at this tier shall be limited to outside counsel, their support staff, retained experts, and the Court.

The Parties shall submit the proposed stipulated protective order to the Court for approval no later than February 15, 2022.

C. Clawback Agreement

The Parties agree that the inadvertent production of documents or information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, or any other applicable privilege or protection shall not constitute a waiver of the applicable privilege or protection. This agreement is intended to be consistent with the protections afforded by California Evidence Code Section 912 and, to the extent applicable in state court proceedings, Federal Rule of Evidence 502(d).

The Parties agree to the following clawback procedures:

(a) Notice of Inadvertent Production. A Party that discovers that it has inadvertently produced privileged or protected documents shall promptly notify the receiving Party in writing, identifying the documents at issue and the privilege or protection asserted.

(b) Obligations of Receiving Party. Upon receipt of such notice, the receiving Party shall promptly return, sequester, or destroy all copies of the inadvertently produced documents (including any copies, notes, or summaries of such documents) pending resolution of the privilege claim. The receiving Party shall not use the inadvertently produced documents for any purpose, including in any filing with the Court, until the privilege claim has been resolved.

(c) Resolution of Privilege Claims. If the receiving Party disputes the assertion of privilege over an inadvertently produced document, the Parties shall meet and confer in good faith to attempt to resolve the dispute. If the dispute cannot be resolved informally, the producing Party may seek a determination from the Court regarding the applicability of the asserted privilege.

(d) Preservation of Rights. Nothing in this clawback agreement shall be construed as an admission by any Party that any particular document is or is not privileged. The Parties expressly reserve all rights and objections regarding the applicability of any privilege or protection to any document produced in this litigation.

XI. DISCOVERY CUT-OFF

The Parties agree to the following discovery cut-off dates:

1. Fact discovery Cut-Off. All fact discovery, including all fact depositions, responses to written discovery, and productions of documents, shall be completed by November 30, 2022.

2. Expert discovery Cut-Off. All expert discovery, including the service of expert reports and the completion of expert depositions, shall be completed by February 15, 2023.

3. Modification. The discovery cut-off dates set forth herein are subject to modification by stipulation of the Parties approved by the Court or by order of the Court upon a showing of good cause. The Parties acknowledge that unforeseen circumstances — including, without limitation, the volume and complexity of document productions, the need for additional depositions, or the discovery of new evidence — may necessitate adjustments to the discovery schedule, and the Parties agree to cooperate in seeking appropriate modifications when warranted.

XII. MOTION PRACTICE AND DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS

A. Discovery Motions

The Parties agree to the following procedures for discovery-related motion practice:

1. Meet and Confer Requirement. Before filing any motion to compel or other discovery motion, the moving Party shall meet and confer in good faith with the opposing Party in a genuine attempt to resolve the discovery dispute informally, as required by California Code of Civil Procedure Section 2016.040. The meet-and-confer process shall include, at minimum, a telephonic or in-person conference between counsel with authority to resolve the dispute.

2. Filing Deadline. Any motions to compel or other discovery motions must be filed within forty-five (45) days of the service of the discovery response at issue, after the Parties have met and conferred in good faith. The Parties acknowledge that this forty-five-day deadline is intended to ensure the prompt resolution of discovery disputes and to avoid unnecessary delays in the progress of discovery.

3. Informal Resolution. The Parties agree to make good-faith efforts to resolve discovery disputes informally before resorting to motion practice. The Parties further agree to comply with any procedures established by the Court for informal discovery dispute resolution, including telephonic conferences with the Court or discovery referees, if applicable.

B. Dispositive Motions

The Parties agree to the following schedule for dispositive motions:

1. Filing Deadline. Motions for summary judgment or summary adjudication shall be filed no later than February 28, 2023. The Parties acknowledge that this deadline is designed to allow sufficient time for the completion of all fact and expert discovery before the filing of dispositive motions.

2. Opposition. Oppositions to motions for summary judgment or summary adjudication shall be filed within thirty (30) days of the filing and service of the motion.

3. Reply. Reply briefs in support of motions for summary judgment or summary adjudication shall be filed within fifteen (15) days of the filing and service of the opposition.

4. Hearing. Hearings on dispositive motions shall be set at the Court's convenience. The Parties respectfully request that the Court schedule hearing dates no later than April 30, 2023, in order to permit the resolution of dispositive motions in advance of the anticipated trial date.

XIII. SETTLEMENT AND ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION

The Parties acknowledge the Court's authority to order a mandatory settlement conference pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1380, and the Court's inherent authority to manage the progress of litigation toward resolution.

The Parties are amenable to participating in mediation or a mandatory settlement conference at an appropriate time in the course of this litigation. The Parties believe that alternative dispute resolution will be most productive after the completion of expert discovery, when both sides will have a full understanding of the facts, the documentary evidence, and the expert opinions relevant to the claims and defenses at issue.

Accordingly, the Parties propose that any mandatory settlement conference be scheduled for a date no earlier than March 2023 and no later than May 2023. The Parties are also willing to discuss the selection of a mutually agreeable mediator or settlement conference officer and to participate in private mediation in lieu of, or in addition to, a court-sponsored settlement conference, should the Parties agree that private mediation would be beneficial.

The Parties acknowledge that nothing in this Plan shall be construed as a limitation on either Party's right to initiate settlement discussions at any time, and the Parties reserve the right to propose alternative dispute resolution at an earlier stage of the litigation if circumstances warrant.

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
JOINT DISCOVERY PLAN AND PROPOSED SCHEDULING ORDER
Submitted jointly by counsel for all parties:
For Defendant Cascade Retail Holdings Inc.:
CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP Douglas Carmichael (SBN 198452) Francesca Morano (SBN 241736) Yuki Nakamura (SBN 287091) Carlos Espinoza (SBN 302514) 600 South Grand Avenue, Suite 3200 Los Angeles, California 90071 Telephone: (213) 555-4200 Facsimile: (213) 555-4201
Email: dcarmichael@calderwoodharkness.com
For Plaintiff Vantor Holdings Corp.:
KESSLER, BRANDT & WHITFIELD LLP Martin Kessler (SBN 156789) Natalie Whitfield (SBN 223841) Jason Okafor (SBN 295167) 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2800 Los Angeles, California 90067 Telephone: (310) 555-8800 Facsimile: (310) 555-8801
Email: mkessler@kbwlaw.com
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Right-click to update Table of Contents
I. INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Vantor Holdings Corp. ("Vantor" or "Plaintiff") and Defendant Cascade Retail Holdings Inc. ("Cascade" or "Defendant") (collectively, the "Parties"), through their respective counsel of record, respectfully submit this Joint discovery Plan and Proposed Scheduling Order (the "Plan") to the Court pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.724, and the Court's direction at the initial case management conference held on November 5, 2021.
The procedural history of this action is as follows:
1. Complaint Filed. On September 7, 2021, Vantor filed its Complaint for Damages in this Court, asserting three causes of action against Cascade: (1) tortious interference with contractual relations; (2) tortious interference with prospective economic advantage; and (3) unfair business practices in violation of California Business and Professions Code Section 17200 et seq. The Complaint alleges that Cascade engaged in a deliberate and systematic campaign to induce three key consumer-goods suppliers to breach their exclusive supply agreements with Vantor, resulting in substantial economic harm to Vantor.
2. Service of Process. Cascade was served with the summons and Complaint on September 28, 2021, through its registered agent for service of process in California.
3. Answer and Affirmative Defenses. On October 18, 2021, Cascade timely filed its Answer and Affirmative Defenses to the Complaint, denying the material allegations of Vantor's Complaint and asserting various affirmative defenses, including, inter alia, lack of knowledge of the exclusivity provisions at issue, independent action by the suppliers, failure to mitigate damages, and the availability of termination-for-convenience provisions in the underlying supplier agreements.
4. Initial Case Management Conference. On November 5, 2021, the Parties appeared before this Court for an initial case management conference. At the conference, the Court directed the Parties to meet and confer in good faith regarding a joint discovery plan and proposed scheduling order, and to file the same with the Court no later than January 14, 2022.
5. Meet and Confer. In compliance with the Court's directive, counsel for the Parties have conducted multiple meet-and-confer sessions, including telephonic conferences on November 22, 2021, December 8, 2021, December 20, 2021, and January 4, 2022, as well as extensive correspondence regarding the terms of this Plan. The Parties have reached agreement on the discovery framework, timing, and deadlines set forth herein, subject to the reservations and objections specifically noted below.
The Parties now submit this Joint discovery Plan and Proposed Scheduling Order for the Court's review and adoption.
II. NATURE OF THE ACTION
A. Plaintiff's Claims
Vantor Holdings Corp. is a California corporation engaged in the wholesale distribution and retail sale of consumer goods, including household products, personal care items, and lifestyle accessories. Vantor maintains a network of exclusive supplier relationships that form the core of its business operations and competitive position in the consumer-goods marketplace.
Vantor alleges that Cascade Retail Holdings Inc., a Delaware corporation that competes with Vantor in the consumer-goods distribution and retail sector, systematically induced three key consumer-goods suppliers to breach their existing exclusive supply agreements with Vantor. Specifically, Vantor alleges that Cascade induced the following suppliers — each of which was, at the time, a party to an exclusive supply agreement with Vantor — to terminate or breach those agreements and enter into new supply arrangements with Cascade:
(i) Hemsworth Consumer Products LLC ("Hemsworth");
(ii) Tridale Manufacturing Inc. ("Tridale"); and
(iii) Orion Lifestyle Brands Corp. ("Orion")
(collectively, the "Suppliers").
Vantor further alleges that Cascade's conduct was undertaken pursuant to a coordinated corporate initiative known internally at Cascade as "Project Atlas," which was launched in or around February 2021. The purpose and design of Project Atlas, as alleged by Vantor, was to identify and target Vantor's most significant supplier relationships and to divert those suppliers to Cascade by offering superior financial terms, guarantees, and other inducements calculated to cause each supplier to breach its existing contractual obligations to Vantor.
According to Vantor's Complaint, as a direct result of Project Atlas, Cascade entered into new supply agreements with each of the three Suppliers on the following dates:
(a) Orion Lifestyle Brands Corp.: Supply agreement executed on or about May 10, 2021;
(b) Hemsworth Consumer Products LLC: Supply agreement executed on or about June 1, 2021; and
(c) Tridale Manufacturing Inc.: Supply agreement executed on or about August 15, 2021.
At the time each of these new agreements was executed, each of the Suppliers was party to an exclusive supply agreement with Vantor. The relevant Vantor–Supplier agreements are as follows:
(a) Hemsworth–Vantor Supply Agreement: Executed on March 15, 2019, with a three-year term expiring on March 14, 2022, containing a minimum annual purchase commitment by Vantor of $12,500,000 and an exclusivity provision requiring Hemsworth to supply products exclusively to Vantor within specified product categories and geographic territories during the term of the agreement;
(b) Tridale–Vantor Supply Agreement: Executed on January 10, 2020, with a two-year term expiring on January 9, 2022, containing a minimum annual purchase commitment by Vantor of $8,300,000 and an exclusivity provision of similar scope to the Hemsworth agreement; and
(c) Orion–Vantor Supply Agreement: Executed on July 1, 2018, with a four-year term expiring on June 30, 2022, containing a minimum annual purchase commitment by Vantor of $14,600,000 and an exclusivity provision requiring Orion to supply products exclusively to Vantor within defined product categories and sales channels.
Vantor alleges that the combined minimum annual purchase commitments across the three supplier agreements totaled approximately $35,400,000, and that the loss of these supplier relationships has caused Vantor to suffer damages of approximately $87,400,000 in lost profits, calculated over the remaining terms of the agreements and the reasonably anticipated renewal periods, as well as additional consequential damages arising from disruption to Vantor's supply chain, loss of customer goodwill, and increased procurement costs from replacement suppliers.
B. Defendant's Defenses
Cascade Retail Holdings Inc. denies the material allegations of Vantor's Complaint and denies that it is liable to Vantor on any of the three causes of action asserted. In its Answer and Affirmative Defenses, Cascade asserts, among other affirmative defenses, the following:
(1) Lack of Knowledge. Cascade did not have actual knowledge of the specific exclusivity provisions contained in Vantor's supply agreements with the Suppliers at the time Cascade entered into its own supply arrangements with those entities. Cascade contends that the supply agreements between Vantor and the Suppliers were confidential, bilateral contracts that were not disclosed to Cascade, and that Cascade had no duty to investigate the existence or terms of such agreements before engaging in ordinary competitive business conduct.
(2) Independent Supplier Conduct. The Suppliers independently chose to enter into supply agreements with Cascade without inducement, coercion, or the use of any improper means by Cascade. Cascade contends that each of the Suppliers made its own independent business judgment to diversify its distribution channels and that Cascade's conduct was nothing more than ordinary, lawful competition in the consumer-goods marketplace.
(3) Termination-for-Convenience Clauses. Each of the Vantor–Supplier agreements contained termination-for-convenience provisions that permitted the Suppliers to terminate the agreements upon specified notice, typically ranging from sixty to ninety days. Cascade contends that the Suppliers properly exercised those contractual rights and that, accordingly, no breach of the Vantor–Supplier agreements occurred.
(4) Failure to Mitigate. Vantor failed to take reasonable steps to mitigate its alleged damages by, among other things, failing to enforce the exclusivity provisions of the supply agreements through timely legal action against the Suppliers, failing to secure replacement suppliers in a timely manner, and failing to renegotiate its supply arrangements.
(5) Duplicative § 17200 Claim. Vantor's third cause of action under California Business and Professions Code Section 17200 is duplicative of Vantor's tortious interference claims and does not allege any conduct that is independently unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent within the meaning of the statute.
Cascade further denies that Vantor's alleged damages are recoverable, that Vantor's damages calculation is reasonable or adequately supported, and that Vantor has standing to assert its Section 17200 claim.
III. PARTIES' AGREEMENT ON SCOPE OF DISCOVERY
A. Core discovery Scope
The Parties have met and conferred regarding the appropriate scope of discovery in this action. The Parties agree that discovery shall initially focus on the following core areas, which are directly relevant to the claims and defenses at issue:
1. The Three Supplier Relationships. discovery shall encompass all documents, communications, and information relating to the three supplier relationships at issue — i.e., the relationships between Vantor and each of Hemsworth Consumer Products LLC, Tridale Manufacturing Inc., and Orion Lifestyle Brands Corp. — including the negotiation, execution, performance, modification, and termination of the exclusive supply agreements between Vantor and each of those Suppliers.
2. Project Atlas. discovery shall encompass all documents, communications, and information relating to Cascade's "Project Atlas" initiative, including the formation, planning, approval, implementation, and execution of the initiative, the internal deliberations and communications at Cascade regarding Project Atlas, and the supplier onboarding activities conducted pursuant to Project Atlas.
3. Cascade–Supplier Communications. discovery shall include all communications between Cascade (including its officers, employees, agents, and representatives) and each of the three Suppliers regarding potential supply arrangements, the terms and conditions of any proposed or executed supply agreements, and any discussions regarding the Suppliers' existing contractual obligations to Vantor or any other distributor.
4. Damages and Financial Information. discovery shall include financial records, projections, and analyses necessary to evaluate Vantor's claimed damages, including records relating to the financial performance of the Vantor–Supplier relationships, Vantor's lost profits calculations, and any mitigation efforts undertaken by Vantor.
5. Vantor–Supplier Agreements. discovery shall include all exclusive supply agreements between Vantor and each of the three Suppliers, together with all amendments, modifications, side letters, purchase orders, and correspondence relating to the performance and termination of those agreements.
B. Reservation of Rights Regarding Expanded discovery
The Parties have been unable to reach agreement on whether discovery should extend beyond the three supplier relationships specifically at issue in the Complaint. The Parties' respective positions are as follows:
Vantor's Position. Vantor reserves the right to seek discovery into additional Cascade supplier relationships beyond the three at issue — including, but not limited to, any additional suppliers that were targeted or approached as part of Project Atlas or any related Cascade initiative — to establish pattern-and-practice evidence relevant to Vantor's claims. Vantor contends that evidence of a broader pattern of targeting competitors' exclusive suppliers would be highly relevant to establishing the intentional and systematic nature of Cascade's conduct and to rebutting Cascade's defense that it lacked knowledge of the exclusivity provisions in Vantor's supplier agreements.
Cascade's Position. Cascade objects to any such expanded discovery as disproportionate to the needs of the case, unduly burdensome, and overbroad. Cascade contends that discovery should be limited to the three specific supplier relationships alleged in the Complaint and that pattern-and-practice evidence regarding other supplier relationships is irrelevant, prejudicial, and would impose significant costs and burdens on Cascade without corresponding probative value. Cascade reserves the right to oppose any motion to compel such expanded discovery.
Agreement on Process. Notwithstanding the foregoing disagreement, the Parties agree that any dispute regarding the scope of additional supplier discovery shall be raised by noticed motion pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Sections 2016.040 and 2017.010 et seq., after the Parties have met and conferred in good faith. The Parties further agree that any such motion should be deferred until after initial document discovery has been substantially completed, so that the Court may evaluate the request in light of the evidence already produced.
IV. DOCUMENT DISCOVERY
A. Requests for Production of Documents
The Parties agree to the following schedule and procedures for requests for production of documents:
1. Service of Requests. Each Party shall serve its first set of requests for production of documents no later than March 15, 2022. Either Party may serve supplemental or additional sets of requests for production thereafter, subject to the requirements of California Code of Civil Procedure Section 2031.010 et seq. and the discovery cut-off dates set forth herein.
2. Responses and Objections. The responding Party shall serve its written responses and objections to the requests for production within thirty (30) days of service, plus any applicable extensions for method of service as provided by California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1013.
3. Substantial Completion of Production. Production of responsive documents shall be substantially completed within forty-five (45) days of service of responses. The Parties acknowledge that certain categories of documents may require additional time for collection, review, and processing, and the Parties agree to work cooperatively regarding any reasonable extensions of time needed for production. Any disputes regarding the timeliness or completeness of document production shall be raised first through the meet-and-confer process before any motion to compel is filed.
B. Document Collection and Processing
The Parties have each taken steps to preserve potentially relevant documents and electronically stored information ("ESI") in anticipation of and in connection with this litigation.
Cascade's Preservation and Collection Efforts. Cascade represents that, as of the date of this filing, it has issued written litigation hold notices, dated December 10, 2021, to all relevant custodians identified to date. The recipients of Cascade's litigation hold notices include, but are not limited to, the following individuals:
(a) Annika Bergström, Vice President, Strategic Sourcing;
(b) Lena Torvik, Senior Vice President, Supply Chain & Procurement;
(c) David Pruitt, General Counsel & Corporate Secretary;
(d) Margaret Prumvane, Chief Executive Officer & President; and
(e) Raj Subramanian, Chief Financial Officer.
Cascade has retained Krane Investigations LLC ("Krane") as its e-discovery vendor to manage the collection, processing, hosting, and production of documents in this litigation. Krane's designated project manager for this matter is Samuel Byrd, and Krane's offices are located at 333 South Hope Street, Suite 1600, Los Angeles, California 90071. Krane will host the document review platform and manage all aspects of ESI processing, including de-duplication, extraction of text and metadata, and application of search terms and other culling methodologies as agreed upon by the Parties or ordered by the Court.
Vantor's Preservation Efforts. Vantor represents that it has likewise implemented appropriate litigation hold procedures, including the issuance of written litigation hold notices to relevant custodians and the preservation of potentially relevant documents and ESI. Vantor will supplement this disclosure with additional details regarding its preservation and collection efforts as discovery progresses.
The Parties agree to meet and confer in good faith regarding the identification of custodians, search terms, date ranges, and other parameters for document collection and processing, with the goal of reducing unnecessary burden and expense while ensuring that all responsive documents are identified and produced.
C. Format of Productions
The Parties agree to the following protocols for the format of document productions:
1. TIFF Format. Documents shall be produced in single-page TIFF image format (Group IV, 300 dpi resolution) with extracted text files (in .txt format) and metadata load files (in .dat or .csv format). Each TIFF image shall be endorsed with a unique Bates number.
2. Native Format. Documents for which TIFF production would not accurately represent the content, functionality, or relevant characteristics of the document — including, but not limited to, spreadsheets (e.g., Microsoft Excel files), databases, and presentations with embedded formulas, macros, or dynamic content — shall be produced in their native file format with associated metadata.
3. Load Files. Each production shall be accompanied by a load file containing, at a minimum, the following metadata fields: Bates Begin, Bates End, Custodian, Date Sent, Date Received, Author, From, To, CC, BCC, Subject, File Name, File Path, File Extension, File Size, Date Created, Date Modified, and MD5 Hash Value.
4. Privilege Logs. Each Party shall produce a privilege log concurrent with, or within thirty (30) days of, each document production. Privilege logs shall comply with the requirements of California Code of Civil Procedure Section 2031.240(c) and shall include, at a minimum, the following information for each document withheld: document date, author(s), recipient(s), a general description of the document sufficient to allow the opposing Party to evaluate the privilege claim, and the specific privilege or protection asserted.
D. Estimated Document Volume
Cascade estimates that document collection from identified custodians and data sources will involve a substantial volume of electronically stored information, potentially exceeding several hundred thousand documents. The Parties acknowledge that the volume of documents may necessitate phased review and production, and the Parties agree to cooperate in establishing a reasonable production schedule that accounts for the volume and complexity of the ESI at issue. The Parties further agree to discuss and, where possible, agree upon search terms, technology-assisted review methodologies, and other culling mechanisms designed to reduce unnecessary costs while ensuring the completeness and integrity of document productions.
V. INTERROGATORIES
A. Timing. The Parties agree to the following schedule for the service and response to interrogatories:
1. Service of First Set. Each Party shall serve its first set of interrogatories no later than March 15, 2022. The Parties have agreed to serve their first sets of interrogatories concurrently with their first sets of requests for production of documents, in order to facilitate efficient coordination of written discovery.
2. Responses. Responses to interrogatories shall be served within thirty (30) days of service, plus any applicable extensions for method of service as provided by California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1013.
B. Limitations.
1. Initial Limitation. The Parties agree to limit initial interrogatories to twenty-five (25) interrogatories per side, including all discrete subparts, consistent with the limitations set forth in California Code of Civil Procedure Section 2030.030. Each subpart of an interrogatory that calls for a separate response shall be counted as a separate interrogatory for purposes of this limitation.
2. Supplemental Interrogatories. Either Party may serve supplemental interrogatories following the substantial completion of document discovery, subject to the statutory limitations set forth in California Code of Civil Procedure Section 2030.040 et seq. and subject to the discovery cut-off dates established herein. The Parties agree that supplemental interrogatories should be served promptly after the information giving rise to the need for supplementation becomes available, and in no event later than the applicable discovery cut-off date.
VI. REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION
The Parties agree to the following schedule and procedures for requests for admission:
1. Service of Requests. Each Party may serve requests for admission no later than June 1, 2022. The Parties have agreed that requests for admission should be served after the initial exchange of document productions, so that the requests may be informed by the documents produced.
2. Responses. Responses to requests for admission shall be due within thirty (30) days of service, plus any applicable extensions for method of service as provided by California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1013.
3. Scope. Requests for admission may address the genuineness of documents, the truth of specified matters of fact, and the application of law to fact, in accordance with California Code of Civil Procedure Section 2033.010 et seq. The Parties agree that requests for admission should be narrowly tailored to matters that are genuinely in dispute and should not be used as a substitute for interrogatories or as a tool to impose undue burden.
VII. DEPOSITIONS
A. Fact Depositions
1. Number and Duration. Each side shall be entitled to take up to ten (10) fact depositions of individual witnesses, each limited to seven (7) hours on the record, consistent with the limitations set forth in California Code of Civil Procedure Section 2025.290. The Parties agree that the seven-hour limitation refers to actual time on the record during which the deponent is being examined by counsel, exclusive of breaks, lunch, and off-the-record discussions.
The Parties reserve the right to seek leave of Court for additional depositions or extended deposition time if warranted by the scope and complexity of discovery. Any such request shall be made by noticed motion after the Parties have met and conferred regarding the need for additional depositions.
2. Priority Witnesses. The Parties have identified the following preliminary, non-exhaustive lists of priority witnesses whom they intend to depose during the fact discovery period:
Plaintiff Vantor Holdings Corp. intends to depose the following Cascade witnesses:
(a) Annika Bergström, Vice President, Strategic Sourcing — Ms. Bergström is believed to have had direct responsibility for identifying, evaluating, and negotiating supply arrangements with the Suppliers as part of Project Atlas;
(b) Lena Torvik, Senior Vice President, Supply Chain & Procurement — Ms. Torvik is believed to have been the senior executive with overall responsibility for Cascade's supply chain operations and for the strategic direction of Project Atlas;
(c) David Pruitt, General Counsel & Corporate Secretary — Mr. Pruitt is believed to have provided legal advice and oversight regarding Cascade's supplier onboarding efforts and the assessment of legal risks associated with Project Atlas;
(d) Margaret Prumvane, Chief Executive Officer & President — Ms. Prumvane is believed to have been the ultimate decision-maker regarding the approval and implementation of Project Atlas at the senior leadership level; and
(e) Other Cascade personnel involved in Project Atlas supplier negotiations, to be identified following the completion of document discovery.
Defendant Cascade Retail Holdings Inc. intends to depose the following Vantor witnesses:
(a) Thomas Brennecke, Vice President, Supplier Relations — Mr. Brennecke is believed to have had primary responsibility for managing Vantor's relationships with the three Suppliers at issue;
(b) Richard "Rick" Ellsworth, Founder & Chief Executive Officer — Mr. Ellsworth is believed to have been personally involved in the negotiation and execution of the exclusive supply agreements at issue and in the decision to initiate this litigation;
(c) Patricia Sung, Chief Operating Officer — Ms. Sung is believed to have been responsible for Vantor's day-to-day operations, including supply chain management and the response to the alleged supplier departures;
(d) Deborah Marcelino, Chief Financial Officer — Ms. Marcelino is believed to have relevant knowledge regarding Vantor's financial performance, damages calculations, and mitigation efforts; and
(e) Other Vantor personnel involved in supplier management and the events giving rise to this litigation, to be identified following the completion of document discovery.
The Parties acknowledge that the foregoing lists are preliminary and non-exhaustive, and that each Party reserves the right to identify additional deponents as discovery progresses. The Parties agree to cooperate in scheduling depositions and to provide reasonable notice of deposition dates.
3. Third-Party Witness Depositions. Either Party may notice depositions of witnesses employed by or affiliated with the three Suppliers at issue. The Parties have identified the following individuals as likely third-party deponents:
(a) Janet Kohler, Chief Executive Officer, Hemsworth Consumer Products LLC;
(b) Gregory Fontaine, President, Tridale Manufacturing Inc.; and
(c) Simone Alvarez, Chief Executive Officer, Orion Lifestyle Brands Corp.
In addition, either Party may seek to depose other employees or representatives of the Suppliers who have relevant knowledge of the events at issue, including individuals involved in the negotiation and execution of the supplier agreements with Vantor and Cascade, the decision to terminate or modify the exclusive supply arrangements with Vantor, and the circumstances surrounding the transition to supply arrangements with Cascade.
Third-party depositions shall count against the deposing Party's total deposition allotment of ten (10) fact depositions, unless otherwise stipulated by the Parties or ordered by the Court. The Parties agree to meet and confer regarding any requests to increase the deposition allotment to accommodate third-party depositions.
For depositions of witnesses located outside the State of California, the Parties agree to utilize the applicable provisions of the Uniform Interstate Depositions and discovery Act ("UIDDA") or equivalent state law procedures, and to cooperate in obtaining any necessary out-of-state subpoenas.
4. Scheduling of Fact Depositions. Fact depositions shall commence no earlier than September 1, 2022, following the substantial completion of document discovery. The Parties agree that conducting depositions after document discovery has been substantially completed will promote efficiency and reduce the need for reconvening depositions after the production of additional documents.
All fact depositions shall be completed by November 30, 2022, which is the fact discovery cut-off date established herein.
The Parties agree to cooperate in good faith regarding the scheduling of depositions and to provide at least twenty-one (21) days' written notice of deposition dates, unless a shorter notice period is agreed upon by the Parties. The Parties further agree to avoid, to the extent reasonably practicable, scheduling depositions on the same date or during the same week as depositions noticed by the opposing Party.
B. Expert Depositions
Expert depositions shall be taken following the exchange of expert reports, as set forth in Section IX below.
Each side shall be entitled to depose each opposing retained expert witness for up to seven (7) hours on the record. The Parties agree that expert depositions should be scheduled promptly after the service of expert reports, and that the Parties will cooperate in making their respective experts available for deposition within the expert discovery period.
All expert depositions shall be completed by February 15, 2023, which is the expert discovery cut-off date established herein.
VIII. THIRD-PARTY DISCOVERY
A. Subpoenas Duces Tecum
The Parties anticipate serving subpoenas duces tecum on the three Suppliers at issue to obtain documents and records relevant to the claims and defenses in this action. The Suppliers' principal places of business are as follows:
(a) Hemsworth Consumer Products LLC, 4720 NW Yeon Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97210;
(b) Tridale Manufacturing Inc., 6300 South Pecos Road, Suite 210, Las Vegas, Nevada 89120; and
(c) Orion Lifestyle Brands Corp., 1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1050, Los Angeles, California 90067.
For Orion Lifestyle Brands Corp., which is located in California, subpoenas duces tecum shall be issued and served in accordance with the provisions of California Code of Civil Procedure Section 2020.010 et seq.
For Hemsworth Consumer Products LLC (located in Oregon) and Tridale Manufacturing Inc. (located in Nevada), the Parties will utilize the applicable interstate subpoena procedures, including the Uniform Interstate Depositions and discovery Act ("UIDDA") as enacted in Oregon (ORS 44.640 et seq.) and Nevada (NRS 53.100 et seq.), or such other equivalent statutory procedures as may be applicable. The Parties agree to cooperate in the issuance and service of interstate subpoenas and to share the costs of such issuance where appropriate.
Third-party subpoenas duces tecum shall be served no later than April 30, 2022, with document production due within thirty (30) days of service, or as otherwise negotiated with the third parties or ordered by the issuing court. The Parties agree to provide courtesy copies of all third-party subpoenas to opposing counsel at or before the time of service.
B. Additional Third Parties
Either Party may seek discovery from additional third parties to the extent that such discovery is relevant to the claims and defenses in this action and proportional to the needs of the case. The Parties have identified the following additional potential third-party discovery source:
Granville & Associates, P.C., 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 5000, Seattle, Washington 98101 — Cascade's outside auditors. The Parties acknowledge that financial records prepared or maintained by Cascade's outside auditors may be relevant to the damages analysis in this case, including issues relating to Cascade's financial performance, revenue attributable to the supply arrangements at issue, and other financial metrics.
Any disputes regarding the scope, relevance, or burden of third-party discovery shall be resolved by noticed motion after the Parties have met and conferred in good faith. The Parties agree that third-party discovery requests should be narrowly tailored to avoid imposing undue burden on non-parties and that the Parties will cooperate in resolving any objections raised by third parties.
IX. EXPERT DISCOVERY
A. Designation of Experts
Each Party shall designate its retained expert witnesses, together with a brief description of the general substance of each expert's expected testimony, no later than October 15, 2022.
Rebuttal expert designations shall be made no later than November 1, 2022. Rebuttal expert designations shall identify any additional experts retained solely for the purpose of rebutting the opinions of the opposing Party's designated experts.
B. Expert Reports
1. Opening Expert Reports. Opening expert reports shall be served no later than December 9, 2022. Each opening expert report shall comply with the requirements of California Code of Civil Procedure Section 2034.260 and shall include, at a minimum, a complete statement of all opinions the expert will express, the basis and reasons for each opinion, the data and information considered by the expert in forming the opinions, any exhibits to be used as a summary or support for the opinions, the expert's qualifications and publications, a listing of all cases in which the expert has testified as an expert at trial or by deposition within the preceding four years, and a statement of the compensation to be paid for the expert's study and testimony.
2. Rebuttal Expert Reports. Rebuttal expert reports shall be served no later than December 22, 2022. Rebuttal reports shall be limited to opinions offered in response to the opinions set forth in the opening expert reports and shall not introduce new, affirmative opinions beyond the scope of rebuttal.
C. Expert Depositions
Depositions of all designated expert witnesses shall be completed by February 15, 2023. The Parties agree to cooperate in scheduling expert depositions promptly after the exchange of expert reports to ensure that all expert depositions can be completed within the expert discovery period.
D. Scope of Expert discovery
The Parties have discussed the anticipated scope of expert discovery and have indicated the following preliminary positions regarding expert retention:
Vantor's Position. Vantor has indicated that it intends to retain a damages expert to opine on the amount of lost profits arising from the alleged interference with the three supplier relationships. Vantor's damages expert is expected to provide opinions regarding the calculation of lost profits, the valuation of the disrupted supplier relationships, the reasonably anticipated duration of those relationships absent Cascade's alleged interference, and any other economic damages flowing from Cascade's conduct. Vantor reserves the right to retain additional experts in other disciplines as warranted by the evidence developed in discovery.
Cascade's Position. Cascade reserves the right to retain its own damages and economics expert to rebut Vantor's damages analysis and to provide independent economic analysis regarding, among other things, the proper methodology for calculating lost profits (if any), the effect of mitigation (or lack thereof) on Vantor's claimed damages, the terminability of the Vantor–Supplier agreements under their express terms, and the economic reasonableness of Vantor's damages claims. Cascade further reserves the right to retain experts in other disciplines, including industry experts on competitive practices in the consumer-goods distribution sector.
X. PRIVILEGE AND PROTECTIVE ORDER
A. Privilege Log
Each Party shall maintain and produce a privilege log identifying all documents and communications withheld from production on the basis of the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, or any other applicable privilege or protection. The privilege logs shall provide sufficient information to enable the opposing Party and the Court to evaluate the applicability of the asserted privilege or protection.
Privilege logs shall be produced concurrent with, or within thirty (30) days of, each document production. The Parties shall comply with California Code of Civil Procedure Section 2031.240(c) in logging privileged documents, and each privilege log entry shall include, at a minimum, the following information:
(a) The date of the document or communication;
(b) The author(s) or sender(s) of the document or communication;
(c) The recipient(s) and any individuals copied on the communication;
(d) A general description of the nature and subject matter of the document or communication, providing sufficient detail to allow the opposing Party to evaluate the privilege claim without revealing the privileged content;
(e) The specific privilege or protection asserted (e.g., attorney-client privilege, attorney work product — opinion, attorney work product — fact); and
(f) The basis for the privilege or protection asserted, including the identity of the attorney(s) involved and the nature of the legal advice or litigation-related activity at issue.
B. Stipulated Protective Order
The Parties agree to negotiate and submit a stipulated protective order governing the designation, handling, use, and disclosure of confidential, proprietary, and trade secret information produced in discovery. The Parties recognize that discovery in this action is likely to involve the production of highly sensitive business information, including financial records, supplier agreements, pricing information, strategic plans, customer lists, and other proprietary data that could cause competitive harm if disclosed beyond the confines of this litigation.
The stipulated protective order shall provide for at least two tiers of confidentiality designation:
(a) "CONFIDENTIAL" — for information that a producing Party in good faith believes constitutes confidential business information, the disclosure of which to persons other than those authorized under the protective order could cause competitive or other harm to the producing Party; and
(b) "HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL — ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY" — for information that a producing Party in good faith believes constitutes its most sensitive trade secrets, proprietary business strategies, pricing information, or other competitively sensitive information, the disclosure of which, even to the opposing Party's employees or officers, could cause significant competitive harm. Access to documents designated at this tier shall be limited to outside counsel, their support staff, retained experts, and the Court.
The Parties shall submit the proposed stipulated protective order to the Court for approval no later than February 15, 2022.
C. Clawback Agreement
The Parties agree that the inadvertent production of documents or information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, or any other applicable privilege or protection shall not constitute a waiver of the applicable privilege or protection. This agreement is intended to be consistent with the protections afforded by California Evidence Code Section 912 and, to the extent applicable in state court proceedings, Federal Rule of Evidence 502(d).
The Parties agree to the following clawback procedures:
(a) Notice of Inadvertent Production. A Party that discovers that it has inadvertently produced privileged or protected documents shall promptly notify the receiving Party in writing, identifying the documents at issue and the privilege or protection asserted.
(b) Obligations of Receiving Party. Upon receipt of such notice, the receiving Party shall promptly return, sequester, or destroy all copies of the inadvertently produced documents (including any copies, notes, or summaries of such documents) pending resolution of the privilege claim. The receiving Party shall not use the inadvertently produced documents for any purpose, including in any filing with the Court, until the privilege claim has been resolved.
(c) Resolution of Privilege Claims. If the receiving Party disputes the assertion of privilege over an inadvertently produced document, the Parties shall meet and confer in good faith to attempt to resolve the dispute. If the dispute cannot be resolved informally, the producing Party may seek a determination from the Court regarding the applicability of the asserted privilege.
(d) Preservation of Rights. Nothing in this clawback agreement shall be construed as an admission by any Party that any particular document is or is not privileged. The Parties expressly reserve all rights and objections regarding the applicability of any privilege or protection to any document produced in this litigation.
XI. DISCOVERY CUT-OFF
The Parties agree to the following discovery cut-off dates:
1. Fact discovery Cut-Off. All fact discovery, including all fact depositions, responses to written discovery, and productions of documents, shall be completed by November 30, 2022.
2. Expert discovery Cut-Off. All expert discovery, including the service of expert reports and the completion of expert depositions, shall be completed by February 15, 2023.
3. Modification. The discovery cut-off dates set forth herein are subject to modification by stipulation of the Parties approved by the Court or by order of the Court upon a showing of good cause. The Parties acknowledge that unforeseen circumstances — including, without limitation, the volume and complexity of document productions, the need for additional depositions, or the discovery of new evidence — may necessitate adjustments to the discovery schedule, and the Parties agree to cooperate in seeking appropriate modifications when warranted.
XII. MOTION PRACTICE AND DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS
A. Discovery Motions
The Parties agree to the following procedures for discovery-related motion practice:
1. Meet and Confer Requirement. Before filing any motion to compel or other discovery motion, the moving Party shall meet and confer in good faith with the opposing Party in a genuine attempt to resolve the discovery dispute informally, as required by California Code of Civil Procedure Section 2016.040. The meet-and-confer process shall include, at minimum, a telephonic or in-person conference between counsel with authority to resolve the dispute.
2. Filing Deadline. Any motions to compel or other discovery motions must be filed within forty-five (45) days of the service of the discovery response at issue, after the Parties have met and conferred in good faith. The Parties acknowledge that this forty-five-day deadline is intended to ensure the prompt resolution of discovery disputes and to avoid unnecessary delays in the progress of discovery.
3. Informal Resolution. The Parties agree to make good-faith efforts to resolve discovery disputes informally before resorting to motion practice. The Parties further agree to comply with any procedures established by the Court for informal discovery dispute resolution, including telephonic conferences with the Court or discovery referees, if applicable.
B. Dispositive Motions
The Parties agree to the following schedule for dispositive motions:
1. Filing Deadline. Motions for summary judgment or summary adjudication shall be filed no later than February 28, 2023. The Parties acknowledge that this deadline is designed to allow sufficient time for the completion of all fact and expert discovery before the filing of dispositive motions.
2. Opposition. Oppositions to motions for summary judgment or summary adjudication shall be filed within thirty (30) days of the filing and service of the motion.
3. Reply. Reply briefs in support of motions for summary judgment or summary adjudication shall be filed within fifteen (15) days of the filing and service of the opposition.
4. Hearing. Hearings on dispositive motions shall be set at the Court's convenience. The Parties respectfully request that the Court schedule hearing dates no later than April 30, 2023, in order to permit the resolution of dispositive motions in advance of the anticipated trial date.
XIII. SETTLEMENT AND ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION
The Parties acknowledge the Court's authority to order a mandatory settlement conference pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1380, and the Court's inherent authority to manage the progress of litigation toward resolution.
The Parties are amenable to participating in mediation or a mandatory settlement conference at an appropriate time in the course of this litigation. The Parties believe that alternative dispute resolution will be most productive after the completion of expert discovery, when both sides will have a full understanding of the facts, the documentary evidence, and the expert opinions relevant to the claims and defenses at issue.
Accordingly, the Parties propose that any mandatory settlement conference be scheduled for a date no earlier than March 2023 and no later than May 2023. The Parties are also willing to discuss the selection of a mutually agreeable mediator or settlement conference officer and to participate in private mediation in lieu of, or in addition to, a court-sponsored settlement conference, should the Parties agree that private mediation would be beneficial.
The Parties acknowledge that nothing in this Plan shall be construed as a limitation on either Party's right to initiate settlement discussions at any time, and the Parties reserve the right to propose alternative dispute resolution at an earlier stage of the litigation if circumstances warrant.
XIV. TRIAL
A. Trial Readiness
The Parties propose that the matter be deemed trial-ready no earlier than June 2023, following the anticipated resolution of any dispositive motions and the completion of all pretrial procedures. The Parties respectfully request a trial preference date in Summer or Fall 2023, subject to the Court's calendar and availability.
B. Estimated Length of Trial
Based on the nature and complexity of the claims and defenses at issue, the number of anticipated fact and expert witnesses, and the volume of documentary evidence, the Parties estimate that trial will require approximately ten (10) to fifteen (15) court days. The Parties will provide the Court with a more precise estimate of trial length as the matter progresses and the scope of the evidence to be presented at trial becomes clearer.
C. Jury / Non-Jury
Plaintiff Vantor Holdings Corp. has demanded a jury trial in its Complaint. Defendant Cascade Retail Holdings Inc. does not waive its right to a jury trial. Accordingly, this matter shall be tried before a jury.
XV. PROPOSED SCHEDULE SUMMARY
For the Court's convenience, the key deadlines established by this Joint discovery Plan and Proposed Scheduling Order are summarized in the following table:
The foregoing deadlines are subject to modification by stipulation of the Parties approved by the Court or by order of the Court upon a showing of good cause.
XVI. SIGNATURES AND CERTIFICATION
The undersigned counsel certify that they have read the foregoing Joint discovery Plan and Proposed Scheduling Order, that the contents hereof have been agreed upon by all Parties through their respective counsel, and that this document is submitted jointly for the Court's review and adoption as a scheduling order governing discovery and pretrial proceedings in this action.
FOR DEFENDANT CASCADE RETAIL HOLDINGS INC.:
CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP
By: ________
Douglas Carmichael, Partner 600 South Grand Avenue, Suite 3200 Los Angeles, California 90071 Telephone: (213) 555-4200
Email: dcarmichael@calderwoodharkness.com
By: ________
Francesca Morano, Partner
Dated: January 10, 2022
FOR PLAINTIFF VANTOR HOLDINGS CORP.:
KESSLER, BRANDT & WHITFIELD LLP
By: ________
Martin Kessler, Senior Partner 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2800 Los Angeles, California 90067 Telephone: (310) 555-8800
Email: mkessler@kbwlaw.com
By: ________
Natalie Whitfield, Partner
Dated: January 10, 2022
XVII. ORDER OF THE COURT
The Court, having reviewed the Joint discovery Plan and Proposed Scheduling Order submitted by the Parties, and good cause appearing therefor, hereby ORDERS as follows:
The foregoing Joint discovery Plan is hereby adopted as the Scheduling Order of this Court, effective as of January 14, 2022. All Parties and their counsel of record are bound by the deadlines and procedures set forth herein. The deadlines established by this Order shall be subject to modification only by written stipulation of the Parties approved by the Court or by further order of the Court upon a showing of good cause.
Failure to comply with the deadlines and procedures set forth in this Order may result in the imposition of sanctions, including monetary sanctions, issue sanctions, evidence sanctions, or terminating sanctions, as the Court deems appropriate under the circumstances.
The Parties are directed to appear for a status conference on May 13, 2022, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 47 of the Los Angeles County Superior Court, Stanley Mosk Courthouse, 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, California 90012, to report on the progress of discovery and the status of the stipulated protective order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 14, 2022
________________________________________
Hon. Robert M. Fujikawa Judge of the Superior Court Department 47
VANTOR HOLDINGS CORP., a California corporation, | Case No. 21STCV-34872
Plaintiff, | JOINT DISCOVERY PLAN AND
PROPOSED SCHEDULING ORDER
v.
Assigned for All Purposes to:
CASCADE RETAIL HOLDINGS INC., a Delaware corporation, | Department 47
Defendant. | Filed: January 10, 2022
Entered as Order: January 14, 2022
Event | Deadline
Stipulated protective order submitted to Court | February 15, 2022
First set of interrogatories and requests for production served | March 15, 2022
Third-party subpoenas duces tecum served | April 30, 2022
Requests for admission served | June 1, 2022
Fact depositions commence | September 1, 2022
Expert witness designations | October 15, 2022
Rebuttal expert designations | November 1, 2022
Fact discovery cut-off | November 30, 2022
Opening expert reports served | December 9, 2022
Rebuttal expert reports served | December 22, 2022
Expert depositions completed | February 15, 2023
Dispositive motions filing deadline | February 28, 2023
Mandatory settlement conference window | March – May 2023
Trial readiness | June 2023
Estimated trial date | Summer / Fall 2023