Shenzhenshi Haitiecheng Science and Technology Co., Ltd. v. Rearden LLC et al

Filing 141

ORDER re 132 Joint Discovery Letter Brief Regarding Interrogatory Response Verification. Signed by Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim on 5/11/2016. (mklS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/12/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

VIRTUE GLOBAL HOLDINGS LIMITED,

Case No. 15-cv-00797-JST (SK)

Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
10

REARDEN LLC, et al.,

ORDER RE JOINT LETTER BRIEF
REGARDING INTERROGATORY
RESPONSE VERIFICATION

Defendants.
Regarding Docket Nos. 132

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Before this Court is a Joint Letter Brief regarding the failure of Shenzhenshi Haitiecheng

13

Science and Technology Co., Ltd. (“SHST”) to verify their interrogatory responses. (Dkt. 132.)

14

The matter was taken under submission without oral argument pursuant to Local Rule 7-1(b).

15

Having considered the parties’ arguments and the relevant law, the Court hereby orders that SHST

16

verify to its interrogatory responses to Defendants’ Interrogatories 1-16 by May 27, 2016. If

17

SHST fails to provide the verifications as ordered, the Court will revisit the Defendants’ request

18

for sanctions and order the appropriate relief. Counsel for Rearden LLC is directed to provide this

19

Court with a one-page letter brief by May 31, 2016 notifying this Court of SHST’s response, if

20

any, on May 27, 2016.
ANALYSIS

21
22

On July 7, 2015, Defendant served interrogatory numbers 1-16 upon SHST. (Dkt. 132, p.

23

1:13.) SHST provided responses on August 10, 2015, August 17, 2015, and April 14, 2016. (Dkt.

24

133, ¶¶ 5-7.) However, to date, none of the responses have been verified, despite requests from

25

defense counsel. (Dkt. 133, ¶ 2.)

26

SHST’s counsel responds that they are unable to locate anyone from SHST to verify the

27

responses, that SHST appears to have gone “dormant,” and that counsel will be withdrawing as

28

counsel of record for SHST. (Dkt. 132, p. 4:7-15.) SHST’s counsel further suggests that, given

1

that the cross-claim against SHST was bifurcated and stayed, Defendants’ request for sanctions is

2

premature. (Dkt. 132, p. 4, footnote 4.) Here, the discovery at issue was served and responses

3

provided before the substitution of Virtue Global Holdings, Inc. for SHST as plaintiff of record.

4

SHST provides no authority authorizing a court to excuse verification for discovery responses.

5

Under these circumstances, Defendant’s concern is justified, and this issue is not premature.

6

According to Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “each interrogatory must, to

7

the extent it is not objected to, be answered separately and fully in writing under oath.”

8

Fed.R.Civ.P. 33(b)(3). Further, each interrogatory “must be answered: (A) by the party to whom

9

they were directed; or (B) if the party is a public or private corporation…by any officer or agent
who must furnish information available to the party.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 33(b)(1). Therefore, not only

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

must SHST verify the responses under 33(b)(3), but also only SHST can verify the responses for

12

discovery directed to SHST.

13

Requiring a party to sign interrogatory responses under oath serves the critical purpose of

14

ensuring that the responding party attests to the truth of the responses. Villareal v. El Chile, Inc.,

15

266 F.R.D. 207, 211. Interrogatories are signed under oath for more than informational purposes;

16

interrogatory responses can also be used at trial pursuant to the Federal Rules of Evidence. (Id.)

17

Since interrogatory responses may be used at trial, they are “nothing short of testimony,” and

18

substituting an attorney’s communication for the party’s sworn statement would undermine the

19

important function of sworn interrogatory responses and effectively convert the attorney into a

20

witness in the matter. Id. (citations omitted.)

21

SHST cannot avail itself of this Court by filing suit and then disappear when complying

22

the Court’s rules is inconvenient. If SHST chooses to ignore the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

23

or otherwise fail to cooperate in discovery, Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

24

authorizes this Court to issue sanctions.

25

IT IS SO ORDERED.

26
27
28

Dated: May 11, 2016
______________________________________
SALLIE KIM
United States Magistrate Judge
2