Robin G. THORNTON, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, and Wendy Irby, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. The KROGER COMPANY; Albertsons and Pay and Save Inc., Defendants No. CIV 20-1040 JB/LF United States District Court, D. New Mexico Filed March 20, 2023 Counsel Ethan M. Preston, Preston Law Offices, Dallas, Texas -- and -- Marshall J. Ray, Law Offices of Marshall J. Ray, LLC, Albuquerque, New Mexico -- and -- A. Blair Dunn, Jared Robert Vander Dussen, Western Agriculture, Resource and Business Advocates, LLP, Albuquerque, New Mexico, Attorneys for the Plaintiffs. Monica R. Garcia, Butt Thornton & Baehr PC, Albuquerque, New Mexico -- and -- Nathaniel Lampley, Jr., Jessica K. Baverman, Jeffrey A. Miller, Victor Allen Walton, Jr., Wesley Reese Abrams, Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP, Cincinnati, Ohio, Attorneys for Defendants The Kroger Company and Albertsons. Hugh N. Lyle, Mullin, Hoard & Brown, LLP, Lubbock, Texas -- and -- Andrew G. Schultz, Melanie B. Stambaugh, Rodey, Dickason, Sloan, Akin & Robb, P.A., Albuquerque, New Mexico, Attorneys for Defendant Pay and Save Inc.. Browning, James O., United States District Judge ORDER[1] *1 THIS MATTER comes before the Court on: (i) the Opposed Plaintiff's Motion to Extend the Deadline for Plaintiffs to File Their Class Certification Motion, filed April 18, 2022 (Doc. 144)(“Extension Motion”); (ii) the Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Defendant Kroger to Answer Interrogatories and Produce Records, filed March 14, 2022 (Doc. 131)(“First Motion to Compel”); (iii) the Plaintiffs’ Second Motion to Compel Defendant Kroger to Answer Interrogatories and Produce Records, filed May 18, 2022 (Doc. 156)(“Second Motion to Compel”); and (iv) the Plaintiffs’ Motion to Sever and Amend Complaint, filed August 29, 2022 (Doc. 184)(“Motion to Sever and Amend”). The Court held a Scheduling Conference on May 19, 2022, during which the parties and the Court resolved the issues that the Extension Motion raises, specifically, what deadlines the Court should set for filing Plaintiffs Robin G. Thornton and Wendy Irby's class certification motions and Defendants the Kroger Company and Pay and Save, Inc.’s responses. See Clerk's Minutes at 1-2, filed May 19, 2022 (Doc. 159)(“May 19 Minutes”). The Court held a hearing on the First Motion to Compel and Second Motion to Compel on July 7, 2022 (“July 7 Hearing”).[2] See Clerk's Minutes at 1-2, filed July 7, 2022 (Doc. 178)(“July 7 Minutes”). The Court held a hearing on the Motion to Sever and Amend, among other motions, on October 11, 2022 (“October 11 Hearing”). Clerk's Minutes at 1, filed October 11, 2022 (Doc. 207)(“October 11 Minutes”). The issues presented are: (i) whether the Court should extend the Plaintiffs’ deadline for filing their motions for class certification; (ii) whether the Court should permit Kroger Company a longer time to file a response to the motion for class certification than the fourteen days that rule 7.4(a) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure provides, if the Court extends the deadline to file the motion for class certification, see D.N.M.LR-Civ. 7.4(a); (iii) whether Kroger Company must supplement its discovery responses because they are deficient; (iv) whether the Court should award the Plaintiffs fees and costs in connection with the First Motion to Compel and Second Motion to Compel; and (v) whether the Court should permit the Plaintiffs to: (a) sever Pay and Save -- and the claims against it -- from the Complaint, and (b) submit two separate amended complaints, one against Kroger Company and one against Pay and Save. For the reasons stated below and on the record at the Scheduling Conference, July 7 Hearing, and October 11 Hearing, the Court: (i) grants in part and denies in part the Extension Motion; (ii) grants in part and denies in part the First Motion to Compel; (iii) grants in part and denies in part the Second Motion to Compel; and (iv) denies the Motion to Sever and Amend. See Draft Transcript of May 19, 2022 Hearing at 14:10-23:3 (taken May 19, 2022)(“May 19 Tr.”)(Court, Dunn, Ray, Schultz, Walton)[3]; Draft Transcript of July 7, 2022 Hearing at 3:22-73:10 (taken July 7, 2022)(“July 7 Tr.”)(Court, Abrams, Dunn, Lampley, Ray, Schultz, Vander Dussen, Walton)[4]; Draft Transcript of October 11, 2022 Hearing at 46:17-47:13 (taken October 11, 2022)(“October 11 Tr.”)(Court)[5]; id. at 47:16-48:4 (Court). I. BECAUSE THE COURT RESOLVED THE SCHEDULING DISPUTES AT ISSUE IN THE EXTENSION MOTION AT THE SCHEDULING CONFERENCE, THE COURT GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART THE EXTENSION MOTION. *2 The Extension Motion requests that the Court “extend the deadline for the Plaintiffs to file their class certification motion, but also specifically requests that the Court not extend the time for Defendant Kroger to respond to the Motion.” Extension Motion at 1. At the Scheduling Conference, the Court addressed the issues that the Extension Motion raises, specifically, what deadlines the Court should set for filing the Plaintiffs’ class certification motions, and how much time the Defendants should have to respond. See May 19 Tr. at 14:10-23:3 (Court, Dunn, Ray, Schultz, Walton). As stated on the record at the Scheduling Conference, the parties agreed to the following deadlines: (i) October 17, 2022 for the Plaintiffs’ class certification motions; and (ii) November 18, 2022 for the Defendants’ responses to the Plaintiffs’ class certification motions. See May 19 Tr. at 14:10-23:3 (Court, Dunn, Ray, Schultz, Walton). After the Scheduling Conference, on May 19, 2022, the Court entered an order setting the agreed-upon deadlines. See Amended Scheduling Order at 1-2, filed May 19, 2022 (Doc. 160)(“Amended Scheduling Order”). The Amended Scheduling Order extends: (i) the Plaintiffs’ deadline to file motions for class certification to October 17, 2022; and (ii) the Defendants’ deadline to file responses to the Plaintiffs’ motions for class certification to November 18, 2022. See Amended Scheduling Order at 2. For the reasons stated on the record at the Scheduling Conference, and, as the Amended Scheduling Order reflects, the Court grants in part and denies in part the Extension Motion. See Amended Scheduling Order at 2; May 19 Tr. at 14:10-23:3 (Court, Dunn, Ray, Schultz, Walton). II. BECAUSE THE COURT RESOLVED THE DISCOVERY DISPUTES AT ISSUE IN THE FIRST MOTION TO COMPEL AND SECOND MOTION TO COMPEL AT THE JULY 7 HEARING, THE COURT GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART BOTH MOTIONS TO COMPEL. The First Motion to Compel moves the Court to compel Kroger Company to “respond fully” to the following discovery requests: (i) Interrogatory No. 3 (“Int. 3”); (ii) Interrogatory No. 4 (“Int. 4”); (iii) Request for Production No. 1 (“RFP 1”); (iv) Request for Production No. 4 (“RFP 4”); (v) Request for Production No. 6 (“RFP 6”); (vi) Request for Production No. 7 (“RFP 7”); (vii) Request for Production No. 8 (“RFP 8”); (viii) Request for Production No. 9 (“RFP 9”); (ix) Request for Production No. 10 (“RFP 10”); (x) Request for Production No. 11 (“RFP 11”); and (xi) Request for Production No. 15 (“RFP 15”). First Motion to Compel at 4-19. The Second Motion to Compel moves the Court to compel Kroger Company to “respond fully” to the following discovery requests: (i) Interrogatory No. 20 (“Int. 20”); Request for Production No. 27 (“RFP 27”); (ii) Request for Production No. 28 (“RFP 28”); (iii) Request for Production No. 31 (“RFP 31”); and (iv) Request for Production No. 32 (“RFP 32”). Second Motion to Compel at 2-7. For the reasons stated on the record at the July 7 Hearing, the Court: (i) denies in part and grants in part the First Motion to Compel; and (ii) denies in part and grants in part the Second Motion to Compel. See July 7 Tr. at 3:22-73:10 (Court, Abrams, Dunn, Lampley, Ray, Schultz, Vander Dussen, Walton)(resolving discovery disputes at issue in the First Motion to Compel and Second Motion to Compel). At the July 7 Hearing, the Court offered the parties the opportunity to “structure the hearing any way you want ... to try to help you with the disputes that are remaining,” stated its understanding that “some of them over the course of time look[ ] like they may have fallen out, or at least been focused,” and invited the parties to raise the discovery requests that were still at issue. July 7 Tr. at 3:23-4:6 (Court). In the July 7 Hearing, the Plaintiffs made arguments regarding the following discovery requests in the First Motion to Compel: Int. 13; Int. 14; RFP 7; RFP 8; RFP 9; RFP 10; and RFP 15. See July 7 Tr. at 4:20-35:18 (Court, Abrams, Dunn, Ray, Vander Dussen). In addition, the Plaintiffs made arguments regarding the following discovery requests in the Second Motion to Compel: Int. 20; RFP 27; RFP 28; RFP 31; and RFP 32. See July 7 Tr. at 36:7-73:10 (Court, Abrams, Dunn, Lampley, Walton). The Court takes the parties’ not raising RFP 1, RFP 4, RFP 6, RFP 11, and Int. 20 at the July 7 Hearing as an indication that they are no longer in dispute. See July 7 Tr. at 4:20-73:10 (Court, Abrams, Dunn, Lampley, Vander Dussen, Walton)(not raising RFP 1, RFP 4, RFP 6, RFP 11, or Int. 20). Accordingly, the Court: (i) denies the First Motion to Compel with respect to RFP 1, RFP 4, RFP 6, and RFP 11; and (ii) denies the Second Motion to Compel with respect to Int. 20. Regarding the discovery requests that remain in dispute, the Court recites below: (i) each of the Plaintiffs’ discovery requests at issue in the July 7 Hearing; (ii) Kroger Company's responses and answers to the discovery requests at issue; and (iii) the Court's order regarding each discovery request, as reflected on the record at the July 7 hearing. *3 Int. 3 states: “State with specificity the total gross sales of raw beef products from any and all of your stores and/or locations from 2015 to the present.” Defendant the Kroger Company's Responses to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories, Requests for Production, and Requests for Admission ¶ 3, at 4 (undated), filed March 14, 2022 (Doc. 131-1)(“First Discovery Responses”). Kroger Company answers: In addition to the foregoing general objections, Kroger objects to this Interrogatory as vague and ambiguous insofar as it is unclear what is meant by the phrase “specificity.” Kroger also objects to this Interrogatory because it is overly broad and seeks information that is not relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims, which concern only the purchase of certain advertised “raw beef products,” or Kroger's defenses and is not proportional to the needs of this case. Specifically, the Interrogatory is not limited to the “raw beef products” that are at issue. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Kroger states that it will revisit its response to this Interrogatory once Plaintiffs identify the raw beef products at issue in this case. First Discovery Responses ¶ 3, at 4. For the reasons stated on the record at the July 7 Hearing, with respect to Int. 3, the Court denies the First Motion to Compel. See July 7 Tr. at 4:20-10:17 (Court, Abrams, Dunn, Ray)(discussing Int. 3). Int. 4 states: “State the total number of points of sale in which beef products we [sic] sold for years 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, and 2021.” First Discovery Responses ¶ 4, at 5. Kroger Company answers: In addition to the foregoing general objections, Kroger objects to this Interrogatory as vague and ambiguous insofar as it is unclear what is meant by the phrase “points of sale.” Kroger also objects to this Interrogatory because it is overly broad and seeks information that is not relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims, which concern only the purchase of certain advertised “raw beef products,” or Kroger's defenses and is not proportional to the needs of this case. Specifically, the Interrogatory is not limited to the “raw beef products” that are at issue. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Kroger states that approximately 2,027 retail stores sold USDA Prime or USDA Choice beef products in fiscal year 2020. First Discovery Responses ¶ 4, at 5. For the reasons stated on the record at the July 7 Hearing, with respect to Int. 4, the Court denies the First Motion to Compel. See July 7 Tr. at 10:22-11:10 (Court, Ray)(discussing Int. 4). RFP 7 states: “Provide all policy handbooks, employee handbooks, butcher shop handbooks and all other company policies that relate to beef sales in effect from 2015 to the present.” First Discovery Responses ¶ 7, at 9. Kroger Company responds: In addition to the foregoing general objections, Kroger objects to this RFP because it is overly broad and seeks information that is not relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims or Kroger's defenses and is not proportional to the needs of this case. Specifically, the information sought is not relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims, which concern only the purchase of certain advertised “raw beef products,” or Kroger's defenses. First Discovery Responses ¶ 7, at 10. For the reasons stated on the record at the July 7 Hearing, with respect to RFP 7, the Court denies the First Motion to Compel. See July 7 Tr. at 11:12-14:17 (Court, Abrams, Ray)(discussing RFP 7). *4 RFP 8 states: “Produce all internal memorandum [sic], correspondence, reports or other documents regarding marketing beef of foreign origin as beef from the US from 2015 to the present.” First Discovery Responses ¶ 8, at 10. Kroger Company responds: In addition to the foregoing general objections, Kroger objects to this RFP because it is overly broad and not proportional to the needs of this case. Specifically, the use of the word “all” renders this RFP overly broad. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Kroger states that it does not market “beef of foreign origin as beef from the US” and thus no responsive documents exist. First Discovery Responses ¶ 8, at 10. For the reasons stated on the record at the July 7 Hearing, with respect to RFP 8, the Court grants in part and denies in part the First Motion to Compel, and, accordingly, directs Kroger Company to conduct another search for unproduced, responsive documents, using the interpretation that the marketing at issue implies that beef of foreign origin is beef from the United States. See July 7 Tr. at 14:18-18:23 (Court, Abrams, Ray)(discussing RFP 8). RFP 9 states: “Produce the data base of customers who have purchased beef from 2015 to the present that have any type of rewards or membership card with any of your stores, including all current contact information and purchase history from 2016 to the present.” First Discovery Responses ¶ 9, at 10. Kroger Company responds: In addition to the foregoing general objections, Kroger objects to this RFP because it is overly broad and seeks information that is not relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims or Kroger's defenses and is not proportional to the needs of this case. Specifically, the information sought is not relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims, which concern only the purchase of certain advertised “raw beef products,” or Kroger's defenses. Kroger also objects to this RFP as unduly burdensome and not proportional to the needs of the case insofar as it purports to require Kroger to produce a “data base” of all customers who have purchased beef from Kroger within the last six years. Kroger also objects to this RFP because it fails to “describe with reasonable particularity each time or category of items to be inspected” as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(1)(1). Kroger will respond to a more narrowly tailored request. First Discovery Responses ¶ 9, at 10-11. For the reasons stated on the record at the July 7 Hearing, with respect to RFP 9, the Court grants in part and denies in part the First Motion to Compel, and, accordingly, given that the Plaintiffs represent that they will not “go out and be directly contacting people in violation of our ethical responsibilities or court orders until it's appropriate from a notice standpoint,” July 7 Tr. at 28:8-12 (Ray), directs Kroger Company to produce a database identifying specific customers that is responsive to RFP 9. See July 7 Tr. at 18:25-29:14 (Court, Abrams, Ray, Vander Dussen)(discussing RFP 9). RFP 10 states: “Produce all reports, analysis, summarization of customer beef purchases from 2015 to the present. First Discovery Responses ¶ 10, at 11. Kroger Company responds: In addition to the foregoing general objections, Kroger objects to this RFP as vague and ambiguous insofar as it is unclear what is meant by the phrase “all reports, analysis, and summarization.” Kroger also objects to this RFP because it is overly broad and seeks information that is not relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims or Kroger's defenses and is not proportional to the needs of this case. Specifically, the information sought is not relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims, which concern only the purchase of certain advertised “raw beef products,” or Kroger's defenses. Kroger also objects to this RFP because it fails to “describe with reasonable particularity each item or category of items to be inspected” as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(1)(A). Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, Kroger states that it will revisit its response to this RFP once Plaintiffs identify the “raw beef products” at issue in this case. *5 First Discovery Responses ¶ 10, at 11. For the reasons stated on the record at the July 7 Hearing, with respect to RFP 10, the Court denies the First Motion to Compel. See July 7 Tr. at 29:20-33:18 (Court, Abrams, Ray)(discussing RFP 10). RFP 15 states: “Produce any documents evidencing any effort to verify the source of the beef sold in your stores.” First Discovery Responses ¶ 15, at 14. Kroger Company responds: In addition to the foregoing general objections, Kroger objects to this RFP as vague and ambiguous insofar as it is unclear what is meant by the term “source.” Kroger also objects to this RFP because it is overly broad and seeks information that is not relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims or Kroger's defenses and is not proportional to the needs of this case. Specifically, the use of the phrase “any documents” renders the RFP overly broad. Furthermore, the information sought is not relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims, which concern only the purchase of certain advertised raw beef products, or Kroger's defenses. Kroger also objects to this RFP because it fails to “describe with reasonable particularity each item or category of items to be inspected” as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(1)(A). Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Kroger states that, within 30 days after entry of a protective order and subject to a reasonable search, it will produce documents sufficient to show efforts to verify the source of USDA Choice and USDA Prime beef sold in its stores. First Discovery Responses ¶ 15, at 14. For the reasons stated on the record at the July 7 Hearing, with respect to RFP 15, the Court denies the First Motion to Compel. See July 7 Tr. at 34:1-35:18 (Court, Abrams, Ray)(discussing RFP 15). RFP 27 states: “Provide copies of any and all documents that relate to your response to Interrogatory No. 10, including examples of any labels or marketing materials that evince that beef sold in the has origins outside of the United States.” Defendant the Kroger Company's Responses to Plaintiff Thornton's Third Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production at 5 (undated), filed May 18, 2022 (Doc. 156-1)(“Third Discovery Responses”). Kroger Company responds: In addition to the foregoing general objections, Kroger objects to this RFP because it is overly broad; seeks documents that are not relevant to Plaintiff's claims, which concern only the purchase of certain advertised raw beef products or Kroger's defenses; and is not proportional to the needs of this case. Specifically, the RFP is not limited to the raw beef products at issue and purports to request documents regarding the displaying and labeling of products in store, neither of which are at issue. Kroger also objects to this RFP because the use of the phrase “any and all” makes it unduly burdensome. Third Discovery Responses at 5. For the reasons stated on the record at the July 7 Hearing, with respect to RFP 27, the Court grants in part and denies in part the Second Motion to Compel, and, accordingly, directs Kroger Company to provide the Plaintiffs the Bates numbers of the documents Kroger Company has produced that it believes are responsive to the Plaintiffs’ reformulated request for “the documentation about the beef that they knew was foreign and that they sold as foreign,” July 7 Tr. at 57:19-21 (Dunn), as the Plaintiffs’ counsel stated in the July hearing. See July 7 Tr. at 46:11-60:16 (Court, Abrams, Dunn, Lampley, Ray)(discussing RFP 27). *6 RFP 28 states: “Provide copies of any and all documents that relate to your response to Interrogatory No. 11.” Third Discovery Responses at 5. Kroger Company responds: In addition to the foregoing general objections, Kroger objects to this RFP because it is overly broad; seeks documents that are not relevant to Plaintiff's claims, which concern only the purchase of certain advertised raw beef products or Kroger's defenses; and is not proportional to the needs of this case. Specifically, the RFP is not limited to the raw beef products at issue. Kroger states that it has purchased imported beef to sell under the Simple Truth Organic, Kroger Corned Beef, and W Black Wagyu brands. Plaintiff makes no allegations about these products in her complaint. Kroger also objects to this RFP because the use of the phrase “any and all” makes it unduly burdensome. Third Discovery Responses at 5-6. For the reasons stated on the record at the July 7 Hearing, with respect to RFP 28, the Court grants in part and denies in part the Second Motion to Compel, and, accordingly, directs Kroger Company to provide the Plaintiffs the Bates numbers for documents Kroger Company has produced that it believes are responsive to RFP 28. See July 7 Tr. at 60:17-61:13 (Court, Abrams, Dunn)(discussing RFP 28). RFP 31 states: “Provide copies of any and all documents that relate to your response to Interrogatory No. 15, specifically provide copies of all audits for compliance with the statement from the ESG contained in No. 15 as it relates to beef sales since 2015.”[6] Third Discovery Responses at 7. Kroger Company responds: In addition to the foregoing general objections, Kroger objects to this RFP because it is overly broad; seeks documents that are not relevant to Plaintiff's claims, which concern only the purchase of certain advertised raw beef products or Kroger's defenses; and is not proportional to the needs of this case. Specifically, the RFP is not limited to the raw beef products at issue. The RFP also seeks documents beyond the time period relevant to Plaintiff's claims. Kroger did not advertise any raw beef products with a “Produced in the USA” logo until November 2018. Kroger also objects to this RFP because the use of the phrase “any and all” makes it unduly burdensome. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Kroger states that, within 30 days after service of these responses, it will produce documents in the relevant time period sufficient to show compliance with the statement in the ESG contained in Interrogatory No. 15 to the extent related to advertising of country of origin at issue in this case and to the extent located after a reasonable search. Third Discovery Responses at 7. For the reasons stated on the record at the July 7 Hearing, with respect to RFP 31, the Court grants in part and denies in part the Second Motion to Compel, and, accordingly, directs Kroger Company to: (i) provide a letter to the Plaintiffs indicating whether there are audit reports to the Kroger Company ESG Report; and (ii) if there are audit reports, provide them to the Plaintiffs with their captions, but with all content that does not relate to beef sales since 2015 redacted. See July 7 Tr. at 61:14-67:18 (Court, Abrams, Dunn, Walton)(discussing RFP 31). *7 RFP 32 states: “Provide copies of any and all documents that relate to your response to Interrogatory No. 15, specially provide documents utilized or relied upon that would support or detract from the statements made in Interrogatory No. 15.” Third Discovery Responses at 7. Kroger Company responds: In addition to the foregoing general objections, Kroger objects to this RFP because it is overly broad; seeks documents that are not relevant to Plaintiff's claims, which concern only the purchase of certain advertised raw beef products or Kroger's defenses; and is not proportional to the needs of this case. Specifically, the RFP is not limited to the raw beef products at issue. The RFP also seeks documents beyond the time period relevant to Plaintiff's claims. Kroger did not advertise any raw beef products with a “Produced in the USA” logo until November 2018. Kroger also objects to this RFP because the use of the phrase “any and all” makes it unduly burdensome. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Kroger states that, within 30 days after service of these responses, it will produce documents in the relevant time period sufficient to show compliance with the statement in the ESG contained in Interrogatory No. 15 to the extent related to advertising of country of origin at issue in this case and to the extent located after a reasonable search. Third Discovery Responses at 7-8. For the reasons stated on the record at the July 7 Hearing, with respect to RFP 32, the Court grants in part and denies in part the Second Motion to Compel, and, accordingly, directs Kroger Company to: (i) produce documents responsive to RFP 32 that are relevant to nutritional labeling related to geographic origin; and (ii) provide the Plaintiffs the Bates numbers for documents that Kroger Company has produced that it believes are responsive to RFP 32 and relevant to nutritional labeling related to geographic origin. See July 7 Tr. at 67:19-73:10 (Court, Abrams, Dunn)(discussing RFP 32). Additionally, the Plaintiffs request “attorney's fees and costs reasonably incurred in filing” their First Motion to Compel and Second Motion to Compel. See First Motion to Compel at 19; Second Motion to Compel at 8. Under rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, if a court grants in part and denies in part a motion to compel, “the court may[,] ... after giving an opportunity to be heard, apportion the reasonable expenses for the motion.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(C). As this is a reasonable discovery dispute between the parties, the Court denies the Plaintiffs’ requests for fees and costs in connection with the First Motion to Compel and Second Motion to Compel. See New Mexico ex rel. Balderas v. Real Estate Law Ctr., 405 F. Supp. 3d 1233, 1254 (D.N.M. 2019)(Browning, J.)(“Where the parties have taken legitimate positions, and the court grants in part and denies in part the motion, courts generally conclude that justice requires that each party be responsible for its own fees and costs.”)(citing Pulsecard, Inc. v. Discover Card Servs., 168 F.R.D. 295, 310-11 (D. Kan. 1996)(Rushfelt, M.J.) and Greater Rockford Energy & Tech. Corp. v. Shell Oil Co., 138 F.R.D. 530, 539 (C.D. Ill. 1991)(Mills, J.)). III. BECAUSE THE PLAINTIFFS’ PROPOSED SEVERING AND AMENDMENTS DO NOT FIND JUSTIFICATION IN RULES 15 AND 21 OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, THE COURT DENIES THE MOTION TO SEVER AND AMEND. *8 In the Motion to Sever and Amend, the Plaintiffs ask the Court to permit them to sever Pay and Save from the Complaint and submit two separate amended complaints, one against Kroger Company and the other against Pay and Save. See Motion to Sever and Amend at 1-4. At the October 11 Hearing, the Court heard arguments on the Motion to Sever and Amend from the Plaintiffs, see Oct. 11 Tr. at 2:2-12:17 (Court, Dunn); id. at 38:17-46:16 (Court, Dunn), Kroger Company, see October 11 Tr. at 12:23-23:11 (Court, Baverman), and Pay and Save, see October 11 Tr. at 32:16-38:16 (Court, Schultz). For the reasons stated on the record at the October 11 Hearing, the Court denies the Motion to Sever and Amend. See October 11 Tr. at 46:17-47:13 (Court); id. at 47:16-48:4 (Court). IT IS ORDERED that: (i) the Opposed Plaintiff's Motion to Extend the Deadline for Plaintiffs to File Their Class Certification Motion, filed April 18, 2022 (Doc. 144), is granted in part and denied in part; (ii) the Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Defendant Kroger to Answer Interrogatories and Produce Records, filed March 14, 2022 (Doc. 131), is granted in part and denied in part; (iii) the Plaintiffs’ Second Motion to Compel Defendant Kroger to Answer Interrogatories and Produce Records, filed May 18, 2022 (Doc. 156), is granted in part and denied in part; (iv) Defendant Kroger Company must conduct another search for unproduced documents that are responsive to Request for Production No. 8, using the interpretation that the marketing at issue implies that beef of foreign origin is beef from the United States; (v) Kroger Company must produce a database identifying specific customers that is responsive to Request for Production No. 9; (vi) Kroger Company must provide Plaintiffs Robin G. Thornton and Wendy Irby, in connection with Request for Production No. 27, the Bates numbers of the documents Kroger Company has produced that it believes are responsive to the Plaintiffs’ reformulated request for “the documentation about the beef that they knew was foreign and that they sold as foreign”; (vii) Kroger Company must provide the Plaintiffs the Bates numbers of documents Kroger Company has produced that it believes are responsive to Request for Production No. 28; (viii) Kroger Company must, in connection with Request for Production No. 31, (a) provide a letter to the Plaintiffs indicating whether there are audit reports to the Kroger Company ESG Report, and (b) if there are audit reports, provide them to the Plaintiffs with their captions, but with all content that does not relate to beef sales since 2015 redacted; (ix) Kroger Company must (a) produce documents responsive to Request for Production No. 32 that are relevant to nutritional labeling related to geographic origin, and (b) provide the Plaintiffs the Bates numbers for documents that Kroger Company has produced that it believes are responsive to RFP 32 and relevant to nutritional labeling related to geographic origin; and (x) the Plaintiffs’ Motion to Sever and Amend Complaint, filed August 29, 2022 (Doc. 184), is denied. Footnotes [1] This Order disposes of: (i) the Opposed Plaintiff's Motion to Extend the Deadline for Plaintiffs to File Their Class Certification Motion, filed April 18, 2022 (Doc. 144); (ii) the Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Defendant Kroger to Answer Interrogatories and Produce Records, filed March 14, 2022 (Doc. 131); (iii) the Plaintiffs’ Second Motion to Compel Defendant Kroger to Answer Interrogatories and Produce Records, filed May 18, 2022 (Doc. 156); and (iv) the Plaintiffs’ Motion to Sever and Amend Complaint, filed August 29, 2022 (Doc. 184). The Court will issue at a later date, however, a Memorandum Opinion more fully detailing its rationale for this decision. [2] In addition, the Court heard arguments on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Default Judgment, or, in the Alternative, Other Sanctions for Discovery Violations and Memorandum in Support, filed April 21, 2022 (Doc. 145)(“Motion for Default Judgment”), which the Plaintiffs agreed to withdraw during the hearing. See July 7 Tr. at 78:17-18 (Ray). The Plaintiffs withdrew the Motion for Default Judgment on March 17, 2023. See Notice of Withdrawal of Motion, filed March 17, 2023 (Doc. 269). [3] The Court's citations to the transcript of the hearing refer to the court reporter's original, unedited version. Any final transcript may contain slightly different page and/or line numbers. [4] The Court's citations to the transcript of the hearing refer to the court reporter's original, unedited version. Any final transcript may contain slightly different page and/or line numbers. [5] The Court's citations to the transcript of the hearing refer to the court reporter's original, unedited version. Any final transcript may contain slightly different page and/or line numbers. [6] “ESG” refers to Environmental, Social, and Governance Report. July 7 Tr. at 61:24-62:3 (Court, Abrams).