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