Spectrum Scientifics, LLC et al v. Celestron Acquisition, LLC et al

Filing 569

ORDER re 545 December 13, 2023 Discovery Dispute re Defendants' Interrogatories to DPPs. Signed by Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi on 2/7/2024. (vkdlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/7/2024)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

SAN JOSE DIVISION

7
IN RE TELESCOPES ANTITRUST
LITIGATION

8
9

11

ORDER RE DECEMBER 13, 2023
DISCOVERY DISPUTE RE
DEFENDANTS' INTERROGATORIES
TO DPPS

12

Re: Dkt. No. 545

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 20-cv-03642-EJD (VKD)

13
The parties ask the Court to resolve a dispute about the number of interrogatories DPPs

14
15

should be required to answer. Dkt. No. 545. The Court finds this dispute suitable for resolution

16

without oral argument. Civil L.R. 7-1(b).

17

Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides: “Unless otherwise stipulated or

18

ordered by the court, a party may serve on any other party no more than 25 written interrogatories

19

including all discrete subparts.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a).1 A responding party must serve written

20

answers and objections, if any, within 30 days. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(2). Any objections must be

21

stated with specificity, and each interrogatory (to the extent not objected to) must be answered

22

separately and fully in writing under oath. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(3)-(4). Here, as permitted by

23

Rule 33, the number of interrogatories was set by a court order entered May 11, 2021, upon

24

stipulation of the parties. See Dkt. No. 169. The order states in relevant part:

25
26
27
28

Although the rule does not define “discrete subparts,” the prevailing view is that interrogatory
subparts should be counted as one interrogatory “‘if they are logically or factually subsumed
within and necessarily related to the primary question.’” Synopsys, Inc. v. ATopTech, Inc., 319
F.R.D. 293, 294 (N.D. Cal. 2016) (quoting Safeco of Am. v. Rawstron, 181 F.R.D. 441, 445 (C.D.
Cal. 1998)) (summarizing cases).
1

Defendants collectively may . . . serve up to 50 interrogatories on
DPPs. For the purposes of tracking how many interrogatories each
party has served, a single interrogatory that is served on a single
party (i.e., Celestron) will count as one interrogatory. A single
interrogatory that is served on two or more parties (i.e., Celestron
and SW Technology) will also count as one interrogatory.

1
2
3
4
5

Id., sec. C, paras. 3, 4. No stipulation or court order modifying this provision appears on the

6

docket.
At the time of the May 11, 2021 order, DPPs’ operative complaint identified two named

United States District Court
Northern District of California

7
8

plaintiffs, Radio City, Inc. and Spectrum Scientifics LLC. See Dkt. No. 54. Spectrum Scientifics

9

voluntarily dismissed its individual claims in June 2021 (Dkt. No. 172), and Radio City has since

10

been disqualified as a class representative (Dkt. No. 486 at 16, 21-22). Recently, DPPs named

11

three new plaintiffs in their fourth amended complaint: Aurora Astro Products LLC, Pioneer

12

Cycling & Fitness, LLP, and Jason Steele. Dkt. No. 495.

13

While the parties agree that defendants may take discovery of the three new named

14

plaintiffs, in August 2023, defendants served over 150 interrogatories on these plaintiffs without

15

seeking leave of court.2 DPPs objected to the number of interrogatories, and the parties conferred

16

in an effort to resolve DPPs’ objections. Dkt. No. 545 at 2. Defendants say that the parties agreed

17

on October 20, 2023 that DPPs would answer a total of 75 interrogatories directed to the new

18

named plaintiffs. Id. at 2. Thereafter, defendants identified the specific interrogatories to be

19

answered in an email dated October 31, 2023, quoted in the joint submission. Id. at 3. DPPs say

20

that defendants simply ignored their objections to the number of interrogatories, so they just

21

selected 50 from among the interrogatories defendants initially served on the new named plaintiffs

22

and answered those interrogatories. Id. at 5, 8. DPPs do not specifically address defendants’

23

claim that the parties agreed that DPPs would respond to 75 interrogatories and that defendants

24

would identify which interrogatories should be answered, as reflected in the October 31, 2023

25

email.

26
27
28

2

Defendants say they served 171 interrogatories; DPPs say defendants served 156 interrogatories.
See Dkt. No. 545 at 2, 5.
2

1
2

interrogatories defendants identified in their October 31, 2023 email, or whether DPPs need only

3

respond to 50 interrogatories of their own selection. The parties’ joint submission is not helpful in

4

resolving this dispute. Defendants do not explain what information they seek to discover or why

5

the interrogatory limit set in the May 11, 2021 order is insufficient. Instead, they complain about

6

DPPs’ delay in producing documents and about the general inadequacy of the interrogatory

7

answers DPPs have provided so far. Similarly, DPPs complain about defendants’ initial service of

8

too many interrogatories and about defendants’ questioning of witnesses in depositions.

9

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Now, the parties disagree about whether DPPs should have to answer the 75

According to a strict application of the May 11, 2021 order, defendants collectively are

10

permitted to serve only 50 unique interrogatories on DPPs. See Dkt. No. 169, sec. C, paras. 3, 4.

11

The Court would have enforced this order, absent defendants’ showing of good cause to expand

12

the number of permitted interrogatories, had the parties not reached an agreement extending the

13

interrogatory limit from 50 to 75 for the new named plaintiffs. The Court has repeatedly

14

encouraged the parties to resolve their discovery disputes without the Court’s intervention, and the

15

Court credits defendants’ representations that the parties in fact reached an agreement that DPPs

16

would answer 75 interrogatories selected by defendants. The Court will enforce that agreement.

17

Accordingly, the Court orders as follows: DPPs must respond to the 75 interrogatories

18

identified in defendants’ October 31, 2023 email, quoted at page 3 of Dkt. No. 545. DPPs’

19

responses must fully comply with Rule 33, including Rule 33(d). DPPs’ responses must be served

20

no later than February 23, 2024.

21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 7, 2024

23
24
VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI
United States Magistrate Judge

25
26
27
28
3