Starbucks Granted Discovery Pause in Iced Drink 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.

Starbucks has won a bid to halt discovery in a class action lawsuit alleging the coffee giant over-ices it drinks, resulting in beverages that contain significantly less product than advertised.

U.S. District Court Judge Thomas M. Durkin granted Starbucks motion to pause discovery proceeding, stating that plaintiff Steven Galanis disregarded the Court’s instruction to limit evidence requests until a pending motion to dismiss is decided.

Judge Durkin expressed his disapproval of Galanis’ actions in failing to limit discovery to “something reasonable” until the court is scheduled to rule on Starbucks bid to dismiss in October.

“I had contemplated plaintiffs would ask for a limited amount of information. You asked for the sun and the moon. And that was not what I had indicated was allowed,” Judge Durkin told Galanis.

According to court documents, Galanis’ discovery requests comprised of emails, research and development documents, customer complaints, and store data for Starbucks’ iced drinks, including the hardware the coffee chain uses to make the iced drinks, going back 10 years.

The request was filed one day after Starbucks filed a motion to dismiss the case.

Galanis claims that by over-icing its drinks, Starbucks is in violation of Illinois consumer protection laws. His lawsuit comes among a slew of class action lawsuits similarly alleging the coffee giant purposely underfills it hot and cold beverages.

In August, a California federal judge tossed a similar underfilled iced drink class action lawsuit, stating the plaintiff had “not alleged any viable claims” against the company and that a “reasonable consumer” would know that the stated ounces for an iced drink, well, contain ice.

Just a few days after the California case was dismiss, Starbucks submitted its motion to pause discovery proceedings in the Galanis case until Judge Durkin issued his ruling on a dismissal bid slated for October.

Court transcripts note that Starbucks argued Galanis ignored Judge Durkin’s decision to limit discovery until October.

But Galanis contends that Starbucks was only trying to delay the discovery process and refused his request to turn over any information until the motion to dismiss was decided.

“Starbucks’ strategy to avoid reasonably responding to written discovery in this case was not born upon analyzing plaintiff’s particular discovery requests in this case; rather, it has always been Starbucks’ strategy to delay answering discovery in all cases, at all cost,” Galanis argued.

Judge Durkin told both sides that under the circumstances and inability of the parties to reasonable conduct discover, that both parties were at fault.

“I’ll blame both of you instead,” Judge Durkin said. “It’s clear reading back the emails back and forth between the two of you — I had to deal with this when I was in private practice, and I hated it. As a judge, I’m not going to put up with it.”

He concluded by staying all discovery proceedings until the he ruled on the dismissal bid on Oct. 28, ruling it was a reasonable solution.

“If I dismiss the case, then the case is over,” Judge Durkin said. “If I deny the motion to dismiss — Starbucks has already indicated … they have preserved any records that could reasonably be called for by the plaintiff.”

Galanis is represented by Steven A. Hart, Robert K. McLaughlin and Benjamin M. Shrader of Hart McLaughlin & Eldridge LLC.

The Starbucks Underfilled Iced Drinks Class Action Lawsuit is Galanis v. Starbucks Corp., Case No. 1:16-cv-04705, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.