DECISION AND ORDERINTRODUCTION Plaintiffs Douglas J. Horn and Cindy Harp-Horn bring suit against Defendants Medical Marijuana, Inc. (“MMI”), Dixie Elixirs and Edibles (“Dixie LLC”), Red Dice Holdings, LLC (“RDH”), and Dixie Botanicals.1 ECF No. 1. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants engaged in fraud, negligence, and unlawful conduct with respect to the sale and marketing of their hemp-based consumable oil — “Dixie X Dew Drops.” Before the Court are six motions: (1) Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment (ECF No. 60); (2) Defendants MMI and RDH’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 61); (3) Defendant Dixie LLC’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 62); (4) Plaintiffs’ motion to amend (ECF No. 68); (5) Dixie LLC’s motion to strike (ECF No. 71); and (6) Defendants MMI and RDH’s motion to strike (ECF No. 74). The Court resolves all of these motions in this omnibus order.LEGAL STANDARDSummary judgment is appropriate when the record shows that there is “no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). Disputes concerning material facts are genuine where the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-moving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). In deciding whether genuine issues of material fact exist, the court construes all facts in a light most favorable to the non-moving party and draws all reasonable inferences in the non-moving party’s favor. See Jeffreys v. City of New York, 426 F.3d 549, 553 (2d Cir. 2005). However, the non-moving party “may not rely on conclusory allegations or unsubstantiated speculation.” F.D.I.C. v. Great Am. Ins. Co., 607 F.3d 288, 292 (2d Cir. 2010) (quotation omitted).BACKGROUND2This case concerns a product called CBD oil. CBD is short for “cannabidiol,” and it is one of the “unique molecules” found in the Cannabis sativa plant. ECF No. 61-8 at 18. The Cannabis sativa plant is better known as the plant from which marijuana is derived. But it is also the species of plant from which industrial hemp is derived. The Eighth Circuit provides a helpful description:Both industrial hemp and the drug commonly known as marijuana derive from the plant designated Cannabis sativa L. In general, drug-use cannabis is produced from the flowers and leaves of certain strains of the plant, while industrial-use cannabis is typically produced from the stalks and seeds of other strains of the plant. All cannabis plants contain tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the substance that gives marijuana its psychoactive properties, but strains of the plant grown for drug use contain a higher THC concentration than those typically grown for industrial use.Monson v. Drug Enforcement Admin., 589 F.3d 952, 955 (8th Cir. 2009) (emphasis added). In other words, the distinction is one of degree — while “the marijuana plant and industrial hemp plant come from the same botanical species,” the “hemp plant has been crossbred to have low concentrations of THC.” Shelly B. DeAdder, The Legal Status of Cannabidiol Oil and the Need for Congressional Action, 9 BIOPLR 68, 72 (2015). CBD can be extracted from both the marijuana and hemp varieties of Cannabis sativa. See id. at 72 & n.34.Products containing CBD have become hot commodities in recent years, and sales are “projected to grow tremendously.” W. Michael Schuster & Jack Wroldsen, Entrepreneurship and Legal Uncertainty: Unexpected Federal Trademark Registrations for Marijuana Derivatives, 55 AMBLJ 117, 135 (2018). Advocates claim that CBD provides numerous health benefits, particularly in the area of pain management. See id. at 128-29; see also ECF No. 61-8 at 19.The product at issue here is a hemp-derived CBD oil called “Dixie X Dew Drops” (hereinafter “Dixie X”). Cindy Orser, Defendants’ scientific expert, explains how these products are generally created. There is an initial “extraction step,” where hemp is combined with a solvent like ethanol, butane, pressurized CO2, or propane. ECF No. 61-8 at 79-80. This process yields a CBD extract, which is then distilled to remove plant compounds, solvents, THC, and other materials. Id. at 83. The intended end-product is a pure CBD concentrate that can then be infused into a consumable final product.Like other CBD oil products, Dixie X contains CBD that is “isolate[d] and extract[ed]” from hemp plants. ECF No. 60-8 at 1; see also ECF No. 69-4 at 12-13. The resulting CBD is then “ infuse[d]…into [a] line of hemp products.” ECF No. 60-8 at 1. The label on Dixie X indicates that it contains “[p]ure glycerin, hemp whole plant extract, CBD extract derived from medicinal hemp, [and] cinnamon extract.” ECF No. 60-15 at 1 (asterisk omitted). Importantly, despite the extraction and distillation process, Dixie X contains a detectible, albeit small, amount of THC. See, e.g., ECF No. 60-14.All three defendants played a role in the sale of Dixie X. MMI and Dixie LLC entered into a joint venture to produce, distribute, and sell Dixie X. See ECF No. 69-2 at 1. They formed RDH for that purpose in April 2012. Id. MMI would hold a 60 percent ownership stake in RDH, while Dixie LLC would hold a 40 percent stake. See ECF No. 68-2 at 106. Tripp Keber, who was also Dixie LLC’s managing member, would act as the manager of RDH.3 Id. at 2. In practice, it appears that MMI provided financial support for the venture, Dixie LLC manufactured Dixie X, and RDH was responsible for selling the product. See ECF No. 61-1
