RIVERSIDE, Calif. (Legal Newsline) – The testing of leggings in class action litigation against LuLaRoe should be denied, the company is telling a federal judge.
In response to plaintiffs lawyers at Levi & Korinsky requesting that California judge Shashi Kewalramani order the testing of up to 50 pairs of allegedly defective leggings. Lawyers also want to be able to remove 5x5-inch portions of fabric that they say wear out too quickly.
But the initial request made in May to LuLaRoe doesn’t make any request for testing, the company says.
“First, there is no request that seeks testing and thus, there is nothing to compel,” a letter to Judge Kewalramani on Oct. 23 says.
“Second, even if a request for destructive testing existed (it does not), Plaintiffs have not explained the testing they seek and procedures thereto. When prosecuting a motion to compel destructive testing, a moving party should (a) describe in detail the planned testing procedures; (b) explain why that testing is expected to lead to evidence crucial to a claim or defense; (c) make clear why there are no other adequate means of obtaining evidence; and (d) specify the safeguards that will be used to prevent or minimize prejudice to other parties. Here, Plaintiffs have not provided any of this information.”
LLR says there were two misrepresentations in the plaintiffs lawyers’ request. It says there weren’t 8,000 leggings that were returned as defective.
“Defendants’ programs permitted consumers to return products, including leggings, regardless of whether they were defective,” lawyers for the company say.
The second misrepresentation is that the defendants have already tested the leggings outside of the presence of the plaintiffs lawyers.
“Rather, the ‘testing’ performed on the leggings consisted of quality assurance testing that was performed during the manufacturing process and before the leggings were delivered to Defendants (and later sold to distributors and ultimately consumers),” the letter says.
“The results of this quality assurance testing were recorded in reports that the manufacturer sent to Defendants from time to time.”