Plaintiff Says Docs Required in Chipotle Non-GMO Class Action

Top Class Actions’s website and social media posts use affiliate links. If you make a purchase using such links, we may receive a commission, but it will not result in any additional charges to you. Please review our Affiliate Link Disclosure for more information.

In a class action lawsuit alleging Chipotle misleads consumers about the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), the plaintiffs tried to convince a judge to require Chipotle to submit internal documents for review.

Lead plaintiff Leslie Reilly alleged in her class action lawsuit that Chipotle lied when it said its food does not contain GMOs, defined as ingredients derived from crops that have been genetically modified.

The plaintiff alleged that she interpreted “non-GMO” to mean that even the animals Chipotle uses do not consume genetically modified food.

According to the plaintiff, this was not the case; the meat and dairy products in her food came from animals that had been fed GMO corn, soy and other products.

Reilly claims that she, and other consumers, paid a premium for Chipotle’s Tex-Mex inspired fare based on the belief that the animals used were fed GMO-free feed.

Chipotle tried to convince a judge to dismiss the class action lawsuit in June of this year. The “fast casual” dining chain argued that the plaintiff and other consumers where not deceived by their “non-GMO” marketing and did not pay extra money based on this belief for their meals.

The lead plaintiff claims that Chipotle has been dodging requests for internal documents during the discovery phase of the class action lawsuit.

Reilly alleges that Chipotle tells her the documents they provide should be limited to what the public sees.

“Of course, it is often a company’s internal documents that are the most relevant because they reveal frank discussions that in many instances support the opposing party’s position and undercut the company’s own litigation position,” argues the plaintiff in her motion to compel discovery. “Further, Chipotle presents no evidence (or even argument) that these documents would be burdensome or that they do not exist.”

The plaintiff also contends that Chipotle has made numerous “unfounded” objections to her requests for internal documents.

“Plaintiff’s requests are strictly confined to her claims and to the statute of limitations period, are proportional to what is at stake in the case, clearly state what documents are being requested, and seek documents that are protected under the confidentiality order in the case,” argues the plaintiff in her motion.

U.S. District Court Judge Marcia G. Cooke has dismissed Chipotle’s motion to toss the class action lawsuit.

However, the judge has trimmed the plaintiff’s claims, including the allegation that Chipotle violated Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.

The judge found that the plaintiff had not established the existence of a threat of immediate or real injury as a result of purchasing the food that the plaintiff claims contains GMOs.

Reilly is represented by Lance A. Harde, Sarah Clasby Engel and Howard M. Bushman of Harke Clasby & Bushman LLP.

The Chipotle Non-GMO Class Action Lawsuit is Reilly v. Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-23425, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.