Liu et al v. Win Woo Trading, LLC et al
Filing
130
ORDER by Judge Kandis A. Westmore regarding 107 , 99 Discovery Letter Brief re: Requests for Admission. Safety Trucking is ordered to serve supplemental responses by 2/19/2016. (kawlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/16/2016)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
KUANG XUAN LIU, et al.,
Case No. 14-cv-02639-KAW
Plaintiffs,
8
ORDER REGARDING 1/22/16 JOINT
LETTER - REQUESTS FOR
ADMISSION
v.
9
10
WIN WOO TRADING, LLC, et al.,
Re: Dkt. Nos. 99, 107
Defendants.
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
On January 15, 2016, Plaintiffs and Defendants Safety Trucking, LLC and Jiatun Zheng
13
filed a joint letter regarding requests for admission propounded by Plaintiffs to Safety Trucking.
14
(Dkt. No. 99.) That same date, the parties filed two additional joint letters that addressed other
15
discovery devices.
16
At the January 19, 2016 case management conference, the Court ordered the parties to
17
meet and confer and submit amended joint letters with the requests and responses attached as
18
exhibits. (1/19/16 Am. Minute Entry, Dkt. No. 112.)
19
On January 22, 2016, the parties submitted an amended joint letter, in which Plaintiff seeks
20
an order compelling Safety Trucking’s supplemental responses to Requests for Admission Nos. 7,
21
8, and 11-14. (Joint Letter, Dkt. No. 107.)
22
There are three possible responses to requests for admission: admit, deny, or the
23
responding party lacks sufficient information to admit or deny. Additionally, Federal Rule of
24
Civil Procedure 36 requires that
If a matter is not admitted, the answer must specifically deny it or
state in detail why the answering party cannot truthfully admit or
deny it. A denial must fairly respond to the substance of the matter;
and when good faith requires that a party qualify an answer or deny
only a part of a matter, the answer must specify the part admitted
and qualify or deny the rest. The answering party may assert lack of
knowledge or information as a reason for failing to admit or deny
only if the party states that it has made reasonable inquiry and
25
26
27
28
1
that the information it knows or can readily obtain is
insufficient to enable it to admit or deny.
2
Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(4)(emphasis added). In answering, a party must conduct a reasonable
3
inquiry from persons and documents within the responding party’s relative control. Despite this
4
obligation, Safety Trucking failed to properly respond to any of the requests at issue.
Perhaps more troubling, Defendants appear to confuse Safety Trucking’s corporate
6
knowledge—which includes the collective knowledge of all of its employees, agents, and counsel,
7
including Jiatun Zheng, as well as information contained in its records— with Jiatun Zheng’s
8
individual knowledge. For example, Request No. 21 asks Safety Trucking to admit that a certain
9
document is genuine. (Joint Letter at 3.) In response, Safety Trucking denied the request because
10
Jiatun Zheng was unable to verify that the original of the copy produced was genuine. Id. In the
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
5
joint letter, Defendants elaborated that Jiatun Zheng could not verify the document, because he
12
does not speak, read, or write English. Id. This is wholly insufficient, as Safety Trucking had an
13
obligation to conduct a reasonable inquiry that was clearly not undertaken. Since corporate
14
knowledge is greater than that of an individual, Mr. Zheng’s willingness to undergo deposition
15
does not excuse Safety Trucking from fully responding to Plaintiffs’ written discovery.
16
In addition, it has been brought to the Court’s attention that Jia Jing Zheng, who is
17
affiliated with Win Woo, may have signed checks drawn on Safety Trucking’s corporate bank
18
account, and may be a signatory on that account. (See Decl. of X. Young Lai, Dkt. No. 109-1 ¶ 6.)
19
If true, facts known to Jia Jing Zheng, and possibly other Win Woo defendants, may constitute
20
Safety Trucking’s corporate knowledge necessary to respond to some of the requests for
21
admission at issue. The Court is concerned that the representations made by counsel that the two
22
corporate entities are completely separate may be false. If so, the Court may impose sanctions sua
23
sponte against any party that has made false representations to the court, including any made in the
24
filing of a dispositive motion. The sanctions may be monetary or terminating in nature.
25
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ request to compel supplemental responses to
26
Requests for Admission Nos. 7, 8, and 11-14. Safety Trucking shall serve amended responses on
27
or before February 19, 2016. The Court declines to impose sanctions on Defendants at this
28
juncture. Instead, the undersigned will consider whether sanctions are appropriate in connection
2
1
2
3
with Plaintiffs’ pending motion for sanctions. (See Dkt. No. 128.)
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 16, 2016
__________________________________
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
United States Magistrate Judge
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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?