Lashify Inc v. Pro Lash Inc, et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION
LASHIFY, Inc.,
Plaintiff
v.
PRO LASH, Inc., et al,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER REGARDING DISCOVERY
MOTIONS [ECF 93, 107, 108, 109, 110, and
111], AND SETTING SUPPLEMENTAL
HEARING ON ECF 125
Case No. 2:24-cv-00016-HCN-CMR
Judge Howard C. Nielson, Jr
Chief Magistrate Judge Cecilia M. Romero
This matter is referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) (ECF 12).
On April 15, 2026, the court heard oral argument on various pending motions (ECF 93, 107, 108,
109, 110, and 111) filed by Plaintiff Lashify, Inc. (Lashify or Plaintiff), and one pending motion
(ECF 125) filed by Defendants Bella Lash Extensions LLC and Pro Lash Inc. (collectively referred
to as Pro Lash or Defendant). After consideration of the relevant briefing and supplemental filings
after the hearing (ECF 139 and 141) and arguments raised during the hearing, the court enters the
following Order addressing the discovery motions at ECF 93, 107, 108, 109, 110 and 111.1
I. 	ECF 93, 107, 108, AND 110
A. Legal Standard
The following standard applies to the Motions at ECF 93, 107, 108, 109, and 110:
Under Rule 26(b)(1), “[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter
that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case[.]” Fed.
R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). “Relevancy is broadly construed at the discovery stage of the litigation and a
request for discovery should be considered relevant if there is any possibility the information
1 The court will address the Motion to Strike (ECF 125) in a separate order, as a supplemental hearing is required to
resolve the Motion to Strike.
Case 2:24-cv-00016-HCN-CMR Document 143 Filed 04/17/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 1 of 13

2
sought may be relevant to a party's claim or defense.” Dutcher v. Bold Films LP, No. 2:15-CV-
110-DB-PMW, 2017 WL 1901418, at *1 (D. Utah May 8, 2017) (citation and internal quotation
marks omitted). However, if the discovery requested is “unreasonably cumulative or duplicative,
or can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less
expensive,” the court must limit the frequency or extent of discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(b)(2)(C)(i). “Relevant considerations include ‘the importance of the issues at stake in the action,
the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’
resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or
expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.’” Mod. Font Applications v. Alaska
Airlines, No. 2:19-CV-00561-DBB-CMR, 2020 WL 3065157, at *3 (D. Utah June 9, 2020) (citing
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1)).
B. ECF 93: Lashify’s Short Form Discovery Motion to Compel Regarding Requests for
Manufacturing Information
The court GRANTS IN PART ECF 93, Lashify’s Short Form Discovery Motion to Compel
Pro Lash to supplement its discovery responses regarding Pro Lash’s manufacturing process for
its Accused Products (ECF 93). Specifically, Lashify requests that Pro Lash be ordered to: “(1)
supplement its response to Interrogatory No. 2 to sufficiently describe how its manufacturers make
each Accused Product, including any step that uses heat, how the lashes are attached to the base
of the extension, what the base is made of, and whether any adhesives or matrix materials are used
and the chemical composition of any adhesives; (2) produce three samples of any adhesive or
matrix material used to form the base in its raw form to allow testing (RFP No. 73); (3) produce
all documents describing or documenting the manufacturing methods used to make the Accused
Products, sufficient to identify how the lashes are attached to the base of the extension, the identity
of any adhesives or matrix materials used, and any step that involves applying heat (RFP Nos. 6,
Case 2:24-cv-00016-HCN-CMR Document 143 Filed 04/17/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 2 of 13

3
9, 10); and (4) electronically produce the manufacturing documents it has withheld and only made
available for in-person inspection” (ECF 93 at 1-2).
The court notes that ECF 93 does not name any specific manufacturers by name, but after
the hearing, the court interprets ECF 93 to be requesting the information from Interwork, located
in the Republic of Korea (see ECF 107); Ningbo Showwell (Showwell), located in China (see ECF
108); and Royal Korindah, located in the Republic of Indonesia (see ECF 109). The court finds
the requested information in ECF 93 is relevant and proportional for all three of the above-listed
manufacturers.
In regard to relevance, which Pro Lash did not contest in its response (ECF 100), the court
finds that, given the allegations at issue, the information requested in ECF 93 seeks Pro Lash’s
manufacturer information and is relevant to this matter. The court also finds that ECF 93 is
proportional. Pro Lash asserts various arguments why the requested information is not relevant,
but the court does not find any of them persuasive.
Pro Lash argues there is a de minimis amount in controversy to support its proportionality
argument, but there is no explanation or substantiation of what that means, and Pro Lash’s
arguments during the hearing were not sufficient for the court to find that the amount in
controversy in this case weighs against the proportionality of the requested evidence. For example,
no dollar figure is proposed for production costs, nor is any other substantiation provided. Pro Lash
only proffers that there has been a settlement with a non-party manufacturer, which is uncontested,
but that does not justify a ruling that the requested information is not proportional, given that there
was no evidence regarding the current amount in controversy.
Next, at the hearing Pro Lash expanded its proportionality argument asserting that the
requested information is not proportional because it produced its technology recipe on the curling
Case 2:24-cv-00016-HCN-CMR Document 143 Filed 04/17/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 3 of 13

4
process where it alleges no heat is used, has already produced certain manufacturing agreements
and processes indicating that heat is not being used, and has allowed Lashify an in-person
inspection of the products (see ECF 100 at 2–3). In addition, they have served Interrogatory No. 1
asking Lashify to explain if it disagreed with any of Pro Lash’s contentions, but no response had
been received at the time of filing the Opposition (id.). During the hearing, it was made clear that
Pro Lash was referencing its manufacturing agreement with Showwell, which provides that
Showwell shall not use any form of heat, whether direct or indirect, deliberate or incidental, at any
stage of manufacturing (see ECF 96 at 8). At the hearing, Pro Lash vehemently argued that Lashify
had not shown why Showwell’s manufacturing information was proportional, given all the above-
referenced information that had already been produced.
During the hearing, Lashify argued that the discovery into Showwell, as well as the two
other manufacturers, was proportional because the manufacturing agreements do not support their
experts’ findings regarding the use of heat, and they should be permitted to verify this information.
Lashify also argues that the responses from the 30(b)(6) representative made during the February
5, 2026, deposition left lingering and unanswered questions regarding the process Showwell is
using to make the lashes. Specifically, at the deposition of Hayden Finlinson, he testified that the
manufacturing facilities have not been viewed and that he therefore did not “know the exact
process” used, except that the manufacturers must produce the lashes in accordance with the
manufacturing agreements. Hayden Finlinson Dep. (Finlinson Dep.), Feb. 5, 2025, 268:9–20.
Lashify also argued that when it inspected the products in person, it did not know at the time which
samples were produced by which manufacturer. The court finds Lashify’s arguments persuasive
and determines that discovery regarding all three manufacturers, as requested in ECF 93, is
relevant and proportional. The court concludes that Pro Lash’s stance is unfounded because it
Case 2:24-cv-00016-HCN-CMR Document 143 Filed 04/17/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 4 of 13

5
appears that its aim is to produce information supporting its position and instructions, without
giving Lashify the opportunity to test that information. This is especially concerning given the
30(b)(6) testimony. While Pro Lash has produced information, in these circumstances, it is not
sufficient to argue that what was produced is “enough.” There are still outstanding questions about
the manufacturing processes that Lashify is entitled to request and seek to obtain answers to.
Finally, Pro Lash also argues that it does not possess, control, or have access to the
requested information because it is in the possession of foreign manufacturers that it does not
control. Lashify disputes this and in support, Lashify cites Braun v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek,
Inc., No. 2:10-CV-1283, 2013 WL30155 (D. Utah Jan. 2, 2013), in which this court determined
that documents are “within a party’s control if the party has . . . control, or the legal right to obtain
the documents on demand.” Id. at *8 (internal citation and quotations omitted). Lashify argues
that, because the requested information is from Pro Lash’s manufacturers, Pro Lash, under its
manufacturing agreements, may require the manufacturers to confirm compliance with its
manufacturing specifications. Pro Lash also cites to a recent 30(b)(6) deposition wherein the
representative was asked if “Pro Lash reached out to [Showwell] to ask for documentation showing
the methods that they’re using to create the Pro Lash products?” to which the witnesses responded,
“not to his knowledge.” Finlinson Dep., 265:6–13. In court, counsel for Pro Lash indicated he
believed such information had been requested but admitted he did not make the inquiry himself.
When further asked about whether Pro Lash had such control over the documents, counsel for Pro
Lash asserted that it did not, given that the manufacturers are foreign third parties wholly
independent of Pro Lash.
While the court is cognizant that the manufacturers are not within the United States and
are wholly independent of Pro Lash, the standard is not whether they are foreign, independent, or
Case 2:24-cv-00016-HCN-CMR Document 143 Filed 04/17/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 5 of 13

6
separate entities. The determination, as explained in the Braun case, is whether Pro Lash has
“control” over or a “legal right” to the requested documents if demanded from its manufacturers.
2013 WL30155, at *8. Pro Lash has not made it clear that they lack legal control or a legal right
to the documents, especially given that the recent 30(b)(6) deponent was not aware that such a
request had been made. While the deposition testimony may support that a “video or photos of the
facility” may have been made, Finlinson Dep., 267:24–25; 268:1, that is not the same as Pro Lash
demanding the information requested in this motion.
Accordingly, the court ORDERS Pro Lash to make a written demand for the requested
documents from its manufacturers and to make every effort to obtain them. If Pro Lash is unable
to obtain the requested documents detailed in ECF 93 from its manufacturers, it must file a
certification with the court within 15 days of today’s ruling. The certification must detail their
demand and efforts to obtain the requested documents, including why Pro Lash does not have a
legal right to the documents.
This ruling addresses Pro Lash’s concerns regarding delay, as having Pro Lash demand the
documents directly would be the most efficient way to obtain them, rather than having Lashify
seek them from the manufacturers themselves, which could result in further delays and extensions
to the scheduling order.
C. ECF 107, 108, AND 109: Motions for Foreign Discovery2
In light of the court’s ruling on ECF 93 and not knowing the outcome of Pro Lash’s demand
for the documents from the manufacturers, the court GRANTS IN PART Lashify’s three motions
2 In response to two of the motions for foreign discovery, Pro Lash indicates it does “not oppose Lashify seeking
discovery in the Republic of Korea [, and in the Republic of Indonesia], but Defendants do oppose any attempt by
Lashify to use such discovery as a basis for delay (ECF 115 at 1 and 117 at 1). At the hearing, Lashify took a different
position, arguing such discovery should not be permitted at all, not only as to Showwell (which was argued at ECF
116), but also for the other two manufacturers in Korea and Indonesia. The court does not consider this change of
position well-founded. The court issues its ruling regarding Pro Lash’s delay arguments below as part of addressing
Case 2:24-cv-00016-HCN-CMR Document 143 Filed 04/17/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 6 of 13

7
requesting judicial assistance to engage in foreign discovery (ECF 107, 108, and 109).3 The court
finds that the requested information in each request is relevant and proportional, with some
modifications as discussed herein. The requests to the three manufacturers at present are not
narrowly tailored, as Lashify requests “all” documents relating to manufacturing, materials, sales,
and “any” communications with Defendants. The court agrees with Pro Lash that such requests
are not limited and must be narrowed to only include materials and communications that are
relevant to claims, defenses, and limited by time. When asked whether the requests could be
narrowed, counsel for Lashify agreed.
Accordingly, the court ORDERS Lashify to modify the requests so that they are narrowed
in time to only request information starting from the time Pro Lash entered into discussions with
the manufacturers to produce the products at issue, and to only include information and documents
regarding the manufacturing of the products produced for Pro Lash (i.e., all Defendants). If Lashify
does not receive the requested documents directly from Pro Lash within 15 days of today’s Order,
on day 16, Lashify may issue the requests directly to the three manufacturers identified in ECF
107, 108, 109 with the modifications ordered herein.4
D. ECF 110: Motion to Compel Purchase Orders
Lashify requests that Pro Lash produce its purchase orders and any accompanying
documents from its manufacturers from 2022 to the present. Pro Lash contends that the spreadsheet
the motion at ECF 111.
3 With respect to Showwell, Pro Lash argues lack of relevance (ECF 116) making the same arguments it made in its
Motion to Strike, which the court will address separately. Under the liberal discovery standard, the court finds the
information relevant.
4 To avoid any additional time delays, Lashify must update the requests consistent with this court’s ruling and present
them to Pro Lash for a meet and confer within 5 days of today’s ruling. If Pro Lash has any concerns with the updated
requests, it may request a hearing with the court, which will be heard on an expedited basis. It is the court’s expectation
that the updated documents be ready for issuance on the 16 th day if the documents requested in ECF 93 are not
produced directly by Pro Lash.
Case 2:24-cv-00016-HCN-CMR Document 143 Filed 04/17/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 7 of 13

8
it produced is a sufficient summary that lists “for each Accused Product, each purchase from each
manufacturer, by date, name of supplier, and quantity purchased.” Lashify contends that the
spreadsheet is insufficient, and when asked why the additional purchase orders and accompanying
documents could not be produced, Pro Lash stated that doing so would be burdensome. However,
there is no substantiating support. For example, there is no proposed cost of production, time delay,
or any other supporting evidence on burden or expense. Moreover, Lashify has explained that it
needs the underlying documents to verify the spreadsheet information and determine whether the
invoices themselves contain language that may have modified the manufacturing agreements or
include any other terms/information or processes. Additionally, if there is a finding of liability
against one of the manufacturers, it must be able to verify damages against that single
manufacturer. Hence, even assuming there is a cost burden to Pro Lash, it does not outweigh the
need for the information articulated by Lashify. Therefore, within 10 days of today’s ruling, Pro
Lash is to supplement their discovery responses to produce the purchase orders and any
accompanying documents from its manufacturers from 2022 to the present, as requested in ECF
110.5
II. 	ECF 111: MOTION TO AMEND SCHEDULING ORDER
Lashify seeks a 60-day extension of the remaining pre-claim construction deadlines as of
the date the motion was filed, arguing good cause exists because Pro Lash has not produced critical
discovery regarding its manufacturing processes, including how lashes are attached and related
materials. Lashify also requests an extension, arguing it needs additional time to review the recent
ESI production before taking any depositions.
A. Legal Standard
5 ECF 110 also requests representative samples, which have already been granted at ECF 137.
Case 2:24-cv-00016-HCN-CMR Document 143 Filed 04/17/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 8 of 13

9
Lashify filed its Motion to Amend Scheduling Order on January 30, 2026 (ECF 111), and
the deadline for the close of fact discovery is currently scheduled for April 22, 2026 (ECF 83 at
2). Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4), a scheduling order “may be modified only for
good cause and with the judge’s consent.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). “This requires the moving
party to show that it has been diligent in attempting to meet the deadlines, which means it must
provide an adequate explanation for any delay.” Minter v. Prime Equip. Co., 451 F.3d 1196, 1205
n.4 (10th Cir. 2006). The Tenth Circuit has explained that good cause “comes into play in situations
in which there is no fault—excusable or otherwise,” such as by a cause outside the movant’s
control and where a deadline cannot be met despite the movant’s diligent efforts. Utah Republican
Party v. Herbert, 678 F. App’x 697, 700–01 (10th Cir. 2017); Zemaitiene v. Salt Lake Cnty., Case
No. 2:17-cv-00007-DAK-JCB, 2021 WL 914063 at *3 (D. Utah March 10, 2021). “In exercising
its discretion, the court considers the relative diligence of the party seeking the change, whether
the need for more time was foreseeable or the fault of the moving party, whether refusing the
continuance creates a ‘substantial risk of unfairness’ to the party seeking modification, and
whether the party opposing modification might be prejudiced.” Keate v. Wright, No. 2:23-CV-
00305, 2024 WL 4279036, at *2 (D. Utah Sept. 24, 2024). For the following reasons, the court
finds that there is good cause to grant a 60-day extension of the remaining pre-claim construction
deadlines as of January 30, 2026.6
B. Discussion
1. 	Lashify has been diligent.
Pro Lash opposes the 60-day extension to the pre-claim construction deadlines as well as
6 When this motion was filed, the final contention deadline had not passed. Since that time, Lashify submitted its final
contentions by the February 11, 2026, Scheduling Order deadline (ECF 83) since the court had not issued a ruling.
The court understands the argument at the hearing to be that, regardless, Lashify is still requesting a 60-day extension.
Case 2:24-cv-00016-HCN-CMR Document 143 Filed 04/17/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 9 of 13

10
the three motions seeking the court’s assistance in procuring the foreign discovery from Pro Lash’s
manufacturers (ECF 107, 108, 109), arguing that Lashify has not been diligent in seeking such
discovery (ECF 118). Pro Lash argues Lashify has known about these manufacturers since it
produced the manufacturing agreements in mid-August 2025 (ECF 118 at 7) and has not shown
why it could not seek such discovery within the court-ordered deadlines (ECF 118 at 7).
Furthermore, Pro Lash argues that Lashify delayed ESI discovery, considering the complaint was
filed over two years ago.
While the court is cognizant of Pro Lash’s concerns regarding diligence, the record does
not show a lack of diligence on Lashify’s part. While the court notes this is 2024 case, the docket
reflects multiple preliminary motions were filed over the 2024 and 2025 time period, prior to the
scheduling order being issued (e.g., a preliminary injunction (ECF 22) was filed and then
withdrawn (ECF 56), amended complaint (ECF 59), motion to dismiss amended complaint (ECF
61), motion to dismiss counterclaims (ECF 75)). The current Pre-Claim Construction Scheduling
Order was not filed until September 25, 2025 (ECF 83). On August 19, 2025, Lashify served
Interrogatory Nos. 1 and 2, asking Defendants to “[i]dentify each Accused Product [defined as
‘any artificial lash extension product’] you have made, sold, offered for sale, used, or distributed
in the United States or imported into the United States,” and Interrogatory No. 2 asking Defendants
to identify, for each Accused Product, the “person or entity that manufactures the product.” ECF
126 at 6. Pro Lash submitted its interrogatory responses on September 25, 2025, which identified
the manufacturers, but, prior to that date, on August 15, 2025, produced the manufacturing
agreements (ECF 118 at 3-4). On September 17, 2025, Lashify served initial infringement
contentions, and on October 1, 2025, Pro Lash served its non-infringement contentions (id. at 4).
Meet-and-confer efforts took place in November 2025, and Pro Lash raised the possibility of
Case 2:24-cv-00016-HCN-CMR Document 143 Filed 04/17/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 10 of 13

11
Lashify’s counsel inspecting the foreign manufacturers’ facilities (ECF 121 at 7). On December 8,
2025, Pro Lash reiterated that it would reach out to the manufacturers to determine whether they
would permit an inspection of the facilities and provide additional documentation of their
manufacturing processes (id.). Four days later, Pro Lash stated that an inspection of Showwell
could not be conducted, and on December 18, 2025, Pro Lash confirmed no inspections with the
other manufacturers would be conducted (id.). By December 24, 2025, it was clear that the parties
were at an impasse, and Lashify filed its first motion to compel (ECF 93) on December 29, 2025.
Upon consideration of the referenced timeline, the court finds that Lashify was sufficiently
diligent in attempting to retrieve this discovery and working to move this matter along. For a time,
Pro Lash appeared to indicate that it could facilitate an inspection of the facilities and the
production of documents from these entities, but once it became clear that Pro Lash could not
facilitate discovery, Lashify acted quickly by filing its first motion to compel. At the hearing, Pro
Lash argued that Lashify should have simultaneously pursued the discovery and continued to meet
and confer, since Pro Lash had always taken the position that it lacked the control to produce the
manufacturer information. Such a ruling, however, in these circumstances, would defeat the
purpose of the meet-and-confer obligation.
As to the ESI, the ESI protocol was entered on January 26, 2026 (ECF 106), the parties
only recently agreed on search terms in February of 2026, the searches were conducted and then
despite Pro Lash’s warning that the search terms would yield a significant result, Lashify did not
narrow the request, which resulted in a significant production happening very recently. The parties
have identified the depositions to be taken and have worked on scheduling them. Lashify indicates
that the 60-day extension would give it more time to review the significant production before any
deposition takes place. The court finds that Lashify has been diligent in seeking discovery
Case 2:24-cv-00016-HCN-CMR Document 143 Filed 04/17/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 11 of 13

12
regarding Pro Lash’s manufacturing processes and the outstanding ESI discovery.7
2. 	Refusing an extension would create a substantial risk of unfairness to Lashify.
The court finds that denying the extension would create a substantial risk of unfairness to
Lashify, given the efforts it has made to obtain this discovery. Further, this discovery is highly
relevant to supporting its claims of infringement, and not allowing Lashify sufficient time to pursue
this discovery would result in a substantial risk of unfairness. This is especially true given the
outstanding questions on processes used by the manufacturers that were highlighted in the 30(b)(6)
deposition.
3. 	The prejudice to Pro Lash caused by a 60-day extension is not sufficient to deny the
Motion to Amend the Scheduling Order.
Lastly, Pro Lash argues that an extension would prejudice it by increasing litigation costs,
prolonging proceedings, and allowing shifting theories (ECF 118 at 8). Specifically, it asserts that
more time for discovery would lead to more litigation activity, higher expenses, and delays. While
there may be some prejudice to Pro Lash caused by the extension, the court does not find that such
prejudice outweighs denying the extension, given that this is the first extension, which is modest
in duration, and the court has found that Lashify was diligent, and that unfairness would result
from not granting the extension.
Accordingly, the court GRANTS Lashify’s Motion to Amend (ECF 111) and ORDERS
that the remaining pre-construction deadlines as of January 30, 2026, are extended by 60 days from
the date of this Order. Lashify is to submit an updated scheduling order consistent with this court’s
ruling within 3 days of this ruling.
CONCLUSION
7 At the hearing, Lashify indicated it is not seeking to expand the ESI discovery beyond that to which the parties have
already agreed as to the scope of search terms and depositions; rather, more time is needed to review the ESI prior to
the depositions.
Case 2:24-cv-00016-HCN-CMR Document 143 Filed 04/17/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 12 of 13

13
For these reasons, the court ORDERS that:
1. 	ECF 93 – Motion to Compel is GRANTED IN PART
2. 	ECF 107, 108, 109 for international discovery are GRANTED IN PART
3. 	ECF 110 – Motion to Compel is GRANTED
4. 	ECF 111 – Motion to Extend Deadlines is GRANTED
In addition, the court sets the following Supplemental Motion Hearing to address Pro
Lash’s Motion to Strike (ECF 125), which the court has taken under advisement. Accordingly, the
court sets a Motion Hearing for April 22, 2026, at 1:00 P.M., via Zoom Conference, before Judge
Romero.
DATED this 17 April 2026.
________________________________________
Chief Magistrate Judge Cecilia M. Romero
United States District Court for the District of Utah
Case 2:24-cv-00016-HCN-CMR Document 143 Filed 04/17/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 13 of 13