Fitbit, Inc. v. Laguna 2, LLC et al
Filing
226
ORDER by Judge Kandis A. Westmore regarding 223 5/2/18 Joint Discovery Letter Brief. (kawlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/14/2018)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
FITBIT, INC.,
Plaintiff,
8
9
10
v.
ORDER REGARDING 5/2/18 JOINT
LETTER
Re: Dkt. No. 223
P-COVE ENTERPRISES, et al.,
Defendants.
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Case No. 3:17-cv-00079-EMC (KAW)
12
13
On May 2, 2018, the parties filed a joint letter concerning two issues. (Joint Letter, Dkt.
14
No. 223 at 1.) First, whether Fitbit may object and refuse to answer the first set of interrogatories
15
propounded by Defendant ELI and the first set of interrogatories propounded by Defendant
16
Manhan on the grounds that the interrogatories, in combination with the interrogatories
17
propounded by Defendants BCS and Baker, exceed the 25 interrogatory limit set by Federal Rule
18
of Civil Procedure 33. Id. Second, whether Defendants may properly object to and refuse to
19
answer Fitbit’s Requests for Admission and Fitbit’s Interrogatories (Set Two) on the grounds that
20
Fitbit propounded them as a single set directed at multiple defendants, rather than propounding
21
them as separate documents to each named defendant. Id.
22
A.
23
On February 8, 2018, Defendants BCS, ELI, Manhan, and Baker each served, separate and
Written Discovery to Fitbit
24
distinct sets of interrogatories on Fitbit. (Joint Letter at 1.) On March 14, 2018, Fitbit served its
25
responses and objections to the four sets of interrogatories. Id. Specifically, Fitbit responded to the
26
interrogatories propounded by Defendants BCS and Baker, but objected to the 25 interrogatories
27
propounded by Defendant ELI and the 14 interrogatories propounded by Defendant Manhan under
28
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33, because they exceeded the 25 interrogatory limit, and on that
1
ground, refused to respond. Id.
2
Defendants now seek to compel Fitbit’s responses to those 39 interrogatories on the
3
grounds that each party is entitled to propound 25 interrogatories under Rule 33 absent stipulation
4
or court order. (Joint Letter at 2.) In opposition, Fitbit argues that it properly objected to the
5
Manhan and ELI interrogatories as exceeding Rule 33’s numerical limit, because the four sets of
6
interrogatories propounded by the BCS Defendants seek discovery on behalf of only BCS. (Joint
7
Letter at 4.) For example, Fitbit represents that “the documents themselves plainly demonstrate
8
that they are nothing more than follow-on requests to the original 25 BCS Interrogatories,”
9
because they each seek facts, witnesses, and documents related to Fitbit’s responses to the
Requests for Admission propounded by Defendant BCS rather than the propounding party—Mr.
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
Manhan or ELI, respectively. Id. While the parties did not attach the propounded interrogatories
12
to the joint letter—which would have been ideal—the undersigned notes that Defendants do not
13
dispute this characterization. Moreover, Fitbit argues that Mr. Manhan owns and runs BCS and
14
ELI, neither of which has any employees, and Mr. Baker is Mr. Manhan’s head of business
15
development, thereby rendering the parties nominally separate. Id.
16
Given that the propounded interrogatories do not reference the propounding parties, and
17
instead reference discovery propounded by BCS, it is evident that Defendants are attempting to
18
circumvent Rule 33. While Defendants are correct that, generally, separate parties are entitled
19
propound 25 interrogatories each, the court can limit the number of interrogatories “to enforce the
20
spirit of the 25-interrogatory limit.” See Interrogatories, Rutter Group Prac. Guide Fed. Civ. Pro.
21
Before Trial Ch. 11(IV)-B ¶11.1687 (2018). Here, enforcing the spirit of Rule 33 requires that
22
Fitbit’s objections be sustained.
23
24
Accordingly, the undersigned denies Defendants’ request to compel responses to the 39
remaining interrogatories.
25
B.
26
On March 7, 2018, Fitbit propounded its first set of Requests for Admission, naming all
27
four defendants as responding parties. (Joint Letter at 2, Exs. F.) On April 6, 2018, Defendants
28
served objections to Fitbit’s Requests for Admission on the grounds that all 264 requests were
Written Discovery to Defendants
2
1
served as one set, on all four Defendants jointly, in contravention of Rule 36, which requires that
2
written requests for admission be served on an individual party. (Joint Letter at 2, Ex. G.)
3
Similarly, on March 8, 2018, Fitbit propounded nine interrogatories in one set and named
4
both BCS and ELI as responding parties. (Joint Letter at 2, Ex. H.) On April 9, 2018, Defendants
5
BCS and ELI served objections to Fitbit’s Interrogatories on the grounds that the interrogatories
6
similarly violated Rule 33, arguing that they were improperly directed to more than one party
7
simultaneously. (Joint Letter at 2, Ex. I.)
8
Defendants contend that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that written
9
discovery be propounded individually on each party rather than jointly. (Joint Letter at 2, 7.) In
opposition, Fitbit argues that it served the discovery requests on each of the respective BCS
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
Defendants, because they were named separately as a responding party. (Joint Letter at 8.) The
12
Court agrees, because what Fitbit did was the equivalent of propounding identical, separate sets of
13
requests and interrogatories.
14
Accordingly, the Court orders the four BCS Defendants to each separately respond to the
15
requests for admission and for BCS and ELI to respond to the nine interrogatories within 7 days of
16
this order.
17
Based on the volume and nature of the discovery disputes recently filed, the Court is
18
concerned that the parties are not sufficiently meeting and conferring prior to filing their joint
19
letters. The parties are reminded of their obligation to meet and confer in good faith, and are
20
directed to review the Northern District’s Guidelines for Professional Conduct, which should aid
21
them in their future interactions in an effort to avoid the expense of unnecessary motion practice
22
and to promote the interests of judicial economy. (Available at:
23
https://cand.uscourts.gov/professional_conduct_guidelines).
24
25
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 14, 2018
__________________________________
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
United States Magistrate Judge
26
27
28
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?