Boykin et al v. The Procter & Gamble Company

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
RAH-NITA BOYKIN, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
THE PROCTOR & GAMBLE
COMPANY,
Defendant.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Case No. 1:23-cv-427
Judge Jeffery P. Hopkins
ORDER
This putative class action lawsuit originated on July 12, 2023 when Named Plaintiffs,
Rah-Nita Boykin, Delaney Jones, Brenda Keegan, Rasheeda Alexander, Mackenzie
Gallagher, Fabjon Shehu, Toni Kellyghan, and Janna Jeansonne filed suit against Defendant
The Proctor & Gamble Company (“P&G” or “Defendant”), alleging that Febreze Clips, an
automotive air freshener product manufactured by P&G, contain a defect that causes the clips
to leak oil and/or other fragrance substances, thereby damaging the interior surfaces of the
vehicles to which they are clipped. In the matter now before the Court, P&G seeks an order
to bifurcate discovery on class certification from that which will be needed to address the
issues related to merits in dispute. Doc. 21. Named Plaintiffs oppose the motion. Doc. 22.
For the reasons stated in this Order, Defendant’s Motion to Bifurcate Discovery is
GRANTED.
I. LAW AND ANALYSIS
P&G seeks bifurcation for two primary reasons. First, P&G claims that expeditious
consideration of class certification would help define the scope of the case and would preserve
Case: 1:23-cv-00427-JPH Doc #: 24 Filed: 03/03/26 Page: 1 of 5 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
the parties’ and the Court’s resources. Doc. 21, PageID 296. Second, P&G argues that class
discovery is clearly defined and can be severed from discovery related to the merits of the
case. Id. at PageID 298. Plaintiffs oppose bifurcation because they believe that class
certification will not meaningfully alter the scope of discovery and that class discovery cannot
be easily severed from merits discovery. Doc. 22, PageID 305–07.
Matters of discovery, including whether to bifurcate class certification and merits
discovery, “are in the sound discretion of the trial court.” McCluskey v. Belford High Sch., No.
09-CV-14345, 2011 WL 13225278, at *3 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 10, 2011) (quoting Trepel v.
Roadway Exp., Inc., 194 F.3d 708, 716 (6th Cir. 1999)). While there is no clearly established
test for deciding whether bifurcation is appropriate, courts often consider three factors:
(1) expediency, meaning whether bifurcated discovery will aid the court in
making a timely determination on the class certification motion; (2) economy,
meaning the potential impact a grant or denial of certification would have upon
the pending litigation, and whether the definition of the class would help
determine the limits of discovery on the merits; and (3) severability, meaning
whether class certification and merits issues are closely enmeshed.
Chenault v. Beiersdorf, Inc., No. 1:20-cv-174, 2020 WL 5016795, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 24,
2020) (quoting Ballard v. Kenan Advantage Grp., Inc., No. 5:20-cv-1042, 2020 WL 4187815, at
*1 (N.D. Ohio July 20, 2020)) (quotations and other citations omitted).
The first two factors, expediency and economy, support bifurcation. The Court
acknowledges that this case has been pending for some time, having twice been reassigned
from two other judges on this Court before landing with the undersigned. See Docs. 5, 6. That
said, bifurcation would nonetheless allow a timely determination of class certification before
the parties engage in lengthy and expensive merits discovery that may result in further delay.
This is of particular importance here because the Court has previously expressed concerns
about Named Plaintiffs’ ability to certify the class and subclasses they propose. Doc. 17,
Case: 1:23-cv-00427-JPH Doc #: 24 Filed: 03/03/26 Page: 2 of 5 PAGEID #: <pageID>

3
PageID 253. And for sake of judicial economy, the outcome of class certification would
certainly help determine the limits of discovery on the merits. In Named Plaintiffs’ view,
bifurcation would not serve judicial economy because “this case would still proceed as to the
claims of the eight named plaintiffs” even if class certification is denied in full. Doc. 22,
PageID 306. But P&G persuasively counters that denial of class certification may
substantively transform the nature of the case and claims upon which Named Plaintiffs may
proceed, which in turn, will impact the size and scope of this case. Doc. 23, PageID 315–16.
Thus, when considered in the aggregate, the Court finds that the factors of expediency and
economy support bifurcation.
That brings the Court to the third factor, severability. Relying on Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 350–51 (2011), Named Plaintiffs attempt to persuade that bifurcation
would be improper because “courts are often required to consider the merits during class
certification.” Doc. 22, PageID 303. While some inquiry into the merits may be necessary for
class certification, the Supreme Court has “admonishe[d] district courts to consider at the
class certification stage only those matters relevant to deciding if the prerequisites of Rule 23
are satisfied.” In re Whirlpool Corp. Front-Loading Washer Products Liab. Litig., 722 F.3d 838,
851 (6th Cir. 2013) (citing Amgen Inc. v. Conn. Ret. Plans & Tr. Funds, 568 U.S. 455, 466 (2013));
Rikos v. P&G, 799 F.3d 497, 505 (6th Cir. 2015) (quoting Amgen Inc., 568 U.S. at 466) (“Since
Dukes, the Supreme Court has made clear that ‘Rule 23 grants courts no license to engage in
free-ranging merits inquiries at the certification stage. Merits questions may be considered to
the extent—but only to the extent—that they are relevant to determining whether the Rule 23
prerequisites for class certification are satisfied.’”); McGlone v. Centrus Energy Corp., No. 2:19-
cv-2196, 2021 WL 4204952, at *6 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 16, 2021) (“Consequently, to the extent
Case: 1:23-cv-00427-JPH Doc #: 24 Filed: 03/03/26 Page: 3 of 5 PAGEID #: <pageID>

4
that Plaintiffs contend that the Court is required to address the merits at the certification stage,
they greatly overread Dukes.”). Thus, the Court does not find Named Plaintiffs’ argument on
this point persuasive.
Instead, the pertinent inquiry here is whether there would be substantial overlap
between class and merits discovery. McCluskey, 2011 WL 13225278, at *3 (denying request to
bifurcate because bifurcation would “likely lead to disputes over what is ‘merit’ discovery as
opposed to ‘class’ discovery, resulting in needless motion practice” and noting that “the
discovery relative to class issues and merits discovery will significantly overlap, thereby
creating inefficiencies were the Court to bifurcate discovery”); Chenault, 2020 WL 5016795,
at *3 (granting request to bifurcate because “while class issues and merit-based discovery may
be somewhat enmeshed—there should not be considerable overlap”). Here, Named Plaintiffs
do not readily identify areas of overlap, and instead focus on the delay and inconvenience
that may result from bifurcation: that parties will be forced to re-depose certain witnesses
based on an inability to delve into issues pertaining to the merits in the initial phase. Though
this is a valid concern, it does not tip the scale in favor of Named Plaintiffs. Defendant has
laid out what appear to be reasonable categories of discovery relevant to class certification
and the merits. See Doc. 23, PageID 316. Additionally, to balance concern for merit issues
that may be intertwined with certification, Defendant has also proposed “some limited
discovery germane to the certification issue that might also impinge on merits issues, ‘e.g.,
the basic design and components of the Febreze product at issue, the reported incident rates
associated with the product, or the sales volume data regarding the product.’” Id. at PageID
314. Based on this record, the Court finds that severability can be accomplished here in a
manner that preserves the parties’ and the Court’s resources. Chenault, 2020 WL 5016795, at
Case: 1:23-cv-00427-JPH Doc #: 24 Filed: 03/03/26 Page: 4 of 5 PAGEID #: <pageID>

5
*3 (“[T]he fact that class and merits-based discovery will inevitably be intertwined to some
extent does not necessitate denying a motion to bifurcate.”). Thus, having considered the
relevant factors, the Court will grant Defendant’s request to bifurcate.
In so doing, however, the Court does not adopt, nor does it endorse P&G’s proposal
for how discovery on class certification should proceed. Instead, the Court directs the parties
to again meet and confer to develop a plan related to the categories of discoverable materials
and issues that would be appropriate consistent with the terms of this Order. And following
the lead of Chenault, this Court cautions Defendant that “[i]f discovery disputes arise over
whether a discovery issue is class or merit related, the Court anticipates permitting discovery
on the issue.” Id. To that end, the Court encourages the parties to identify and take advantage
of any efficiencies that may be gained in discovery notwithstanding the bifurcated nature of
the proceeding.
II. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, for the reasons above, Defendant’s Motion to Bifurcate Discovery (Doc.
21) is GRANTED. The parties are ORDERED to meet and confer and file an amended Rule
26(f) report within 21 days of the date of this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
March 3, 2026
Jeffery P. Hopkins
United States District Judge
Case: 1:23-cv-00427-JPH Doc #: 24 Filed: 03/03/26 Page: 5 of 5 PAGEID #: <pageID>