eDiscovery Assistant

Shijiazhuang Hongray Grp. v. World Trading 23, Inc.

2022 WL 17334065 (C.D. Cal. 2022)

September 6, 2022

Kato, Kenly K., United States Magistrate Judge

Download PDF

To Cite List

Summary

The court granted the plaintiff's motion to compel further response to requests for production of documents and requests for admission, as well as to interrogatories. The court also ordered the defendants to produce all responsive documents, including any ESI, in order to provide a comprehensive understanding of the dispute.

Additional Decisions

SHIJIAZHUANG HONGRAY GROUP
v.
WORLD TRADING 23 INC., et al

Case No. EDCV 21-972-FWS (KKx)

United States District Court, C.D. California

Filed September 06, 2022

Counsel

Victor De Gyarfas, Jianing G. Yu, Ashley M. Koley, Foley and Lardner LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Shijiazhuang Hongray Group.
Tony Jay-Lun Cheng, Aaron M. McKown, Newport Beach, CA, for World Trading 23 Inc., et al.

Kato, Kenly K., United States Magistrate Judge

Proceedings: Order GRANTING IN PART and DENYING IN PART Plaintiff's Motion to Compel [Dkt. 38]

*1 On August 9, 2022, plaintiff Shijiazhuang Hongray Group (“Plaintiff”) filed a motion seeking to compel defendants World Tech Toys, Inc. (“WTT”) and World Trading 23, Inc. (“WT23”) (collectively, “Defendants”) to produce further responses to (1) Interrogatories, Set One, Nos. 1-4, 7-10, and 14-16, (2) Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, Nos. 2, 3, 5, 17, 18, 26, 27, 33, 35, 36, 42-44, 47, and 48, and (3) Request for Admission, Set One, No. 15, 16, 18, 65-69, 71, and 81 (“Motion to Compel”). Dkt. 38. Plaintiff also seeks an award of its attorneys' fees incurred in meeting and conferring with Defendants and preparing and filing the Motion to Compel. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART and Plaintiff's request for attorneys' fees is DENIED.

BACKGROUND

On June 9, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Complaint asserting claims for unfair competition in violation of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051, et seq., and related state laws. Dkt. 1. On July 1, 2021, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) setting forth the same unfair competition claims. Dkt. 13. Plaintiff and its subsidiaries manufacture, import, and sell boxes of authentic nitrile gloves (“Nitrile Gloves”) that are frequently used in circumstances where personal protective equipment (“PPE”) is required. Id. Plaintiff alleges Defendants imported and sold counterfeit gloves in the United States marketed as being manufactured by Plaintiff and authorized under Plaintiff's FDA-registered 510(k) number, which registration is required for sale of medical-grade gloves in the United States. Id.

On August 4, 2021, Defendants filed an Answer to the FAC. Dkt. 15.

On October 4, 2021, the Court issued a Scheduling Order setting a fact discovery cut-off on September 12, 2022 and a Jury Trial for March 13, 2023. Dkt. 24.

On November 24, 2021, Plaintiff served a first set of Interrogatories, Requests for Production, and Requests for Admission on Defendants. Dkt. 39 at 8[1]; Dkt. 40-1, Declaration of Ashley M. Koley in support of supplemental brief (“Koley Suppl. Decl.”), ¶ 2, 3, Exs. H, I.

On January 14, 2022, after a mutually agreed upon extension of time, Defendants served responses to Plaintiff's Interrogatories, Requests for Production, and Requests for Admission. Dkt. 39 at 8.

On March 18, 2022, Plaintiff's counsel sent defense counsel a meet-and-confer letter via email regarding the alleged deficiencies in Defendants' responses to Plaintiff's discovery requests. Yu Decl., ¶ 5, Ex. B.

On March 30, 2022, defense counsel sent Plaintiff's counsel an email responding to the meet-and-confer letter. Id., ¶ 6, Ex. C.

On March 31, 2022, counsel for both parties met and conferred via telephone regarding Defendants' allegedly deficient discovery responses. Dkt. 39-16, Declaration of Tony J. Cheng (“Cheng Decl.”), ¶ 3.

*2 On April 16, 2022, Defendants served amended responses to Plaintiff's Interrogatories, Requests for Production, and Requests for Admission. Dkt. 39 at 8; Koley Suppl. Decl.”), ¶ 4, 5, Exs. J, K.

On May 6, 2022, the Court issued an Order approving the parties' Stipulated Protective Order in order to facilitate the exchange of documents during discovery. Dkt. 33.

On August 9, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Compel and Joint Stipulation pursuant to Local Civil Rule 37-2. Dkt. 38, Mot.; Dkt. 39, JS. On August 18, 2022, Plaintiff filed a supplemental brief. Dkt. 40. The matter thus stands submitted.

II.

LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b) provides that parties may obtain discovery regarding

any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties' relative access to relevant information, the parties' resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.

FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(1). Relevant information “need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.” Id. A court “must limit the frequency or extent of discovery otherwise allowed” if “(i) the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive; (ii) the party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity to obtain the information by discovery in the action; or (iii) the proposed discovery is outside the scope permitted by Rule 26(b)(1).” FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(2)(C).

“A party seeking discovery may move for an order compelling an answer, ... production, or inspection.” FED. R. CIV. P. 37(a)(3)(B)(iii), (iv). “[A]n evasive or incomplete disclosure, answer, or response must be treated as a failure to disclose, answer or respond.” FED. R. CIV. P. 37(a)(4). “In moving to compel the production of documents, the moving party bears the burden of demonstrating ‘actual and substantial prejudice’ from the denial of discovery.” Grossman v. Dirs.Guild of Am., Inc., No. EDCV 16-1840-GW (SPx), 2018 WL 5914242, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 22, 2018). In addition, “[r]elevancy alone is no longer sufficient to obtain discovery, the discovery requested must also be proportional to the needs of the case.” Centeno v. City of Fresno, No. 1:16-CV-653 DAD (SAB), 2016 WL 7491634, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 29, 2016) (citing In re Bard IVC Filters Prod. Liab. Litig., 317 F.R.D. 562, 564 (D. Ariz. 2016)).

III.

DISCUSSION

A. INTERROGATORIES

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33 (“Rule 33”) governs interrogatories. See FED. R. CIV. P. 33. “Unless otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court, a party may serve on any other party no more than 25 written interrogatories, including all discrete subparts.” FED. R. CIV. P. 33(a)(1). “Each interrogatory must, to the extent it is not objected to, be answered separately and fully in writing under oath.” FED. R. CIV. P. 33(b)(3). “The grounds for objecting to an interrogatory must be stated with specificity. Any ground not stated in a timely objection is waived unless the court, for good cause, excuses the failure.” FED. R. CIV. P. 33(b)(4).

1. Interrogatory No. 1

*3 Interrogatory No. 1 states: “Describe in detail the facts and circumstances concerning Defendants' acquisition of all At Issue Products, including the identification of all At Issue Products.” JS at 10. Plaintiff defines “At Issue Products” as “any and all products that Defendant has imported, marketed, distributed, and/or sold as having been manufactured or approved by [Plaintiff] or any of its Subsidiaries or as associated with FDA 510(k) numbers owned by [Plaintiff] and any of its Subsidiaries, including but not limited to K182600 and K051662.” Id.

In their amended response, Defendants objected to Interrogatory No. 1 on the ground it is “compound and contains subparts that exceeds the maximum allowable number of interrogatories as dictated by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33.”[2] Id. at 12. Defendants then responded as follows:

Plaintiff is a Chinese corporation with its principal place of business in Hebei, China. It, along with various subsidiaries, manufacture, import, and sell boxes of nitrile gloves as personal protective equipment (“PPE”). While claiming to have certain protected marks and trade names, Plaintiff admits to selling its gloves to U.S. customers “in packaging that bears the Plaintiff's customer brand.”

Responding Party, along with defendant World Tech Toys (“WTT”) (collectively as “WT Parties”), are importers of various goods to sell in the United States. At issue in this action are an estimated 1 million 100-count boxes of disposable gloves (the “Gloves”) that the WT Parties purchased between end of 2020 and March 2021 from Plaintiff and one of its subsidiaries, Hongze Plastic Technology, Co., Ltd. (“HPT”), through Elaine Dong of Feida Toy Company, Guang Wang of Hebei Kuangyang Medical Instrument Sales Co., Ltd. (“HKMI”),[3] a Chinese third-party medical supply sales company, and an independent broker named JinJun Zhu.

More specifically, the WT Parties negotiated the purchase of the Glove[s] in good faith with Plaintiff/HPT through HKMI and transferred to HPT, approximately RMB 36.4 million as payment for the goods between December 2020 and March 2021.

Plaintiff acknowledges that HPT did and still does business with HKMI.

As a part of their dealings with Plaintiff/HPT and HKMI, WT Parties received approval from Plaintiff/HPT for the use of certain packaging with the name PPE-AID on it.

Additionally, SHG/HPT also provided to Defendants signed and stamped certifications dated December 28, 2020, January 27, 2021, and February 21, 2021 attesting to 1) the approval of the selling of approximately 1.6 million boxes of gloves from SHG/HPT to WT Parties through HKMI, 2) authenticity of the Gloves, 3) use of the PPEAid packaging approved by SHG, and 4) the shipping terms for the goods.

Between end of 2020 and March 2021, WT Parties received shipments of the Gloves from SHG/HPT. WT Parties then sold the Gloves to its clients and other distributors of PPE products in the United States without making any alterations to the products or their packaging. WT Parties made no representations to those distributors regarding the source of, the type of materials used to manufacture, or the quality of the product being sold other than what was represented on the packaging. At no point did WT Parties make any representations to third parties regarding any governmental review and/or certifications relating the Gloves other than those stated on the packaging designed and provided by SHG/HPT.

Nor did the WT Parties receive any warnings, limitation, and/or other restrictions from Plaintiff, HPT, or HKMI regarding the distribution and/or sales of the Gloves prior to April 1, 2021.

*4 Between late 2021 and April 2022, Responding Party's representatives were notified by Guang Wang, JinJun Zhu, and Sheng Feng, a broker with connections to Plaintiff, that Plaintiff was desirous of additional sales of gloves to Responding Party despite the pending litigation and was willing to take Responding Party [off] of its “black list” as a part of those transactions. Responding Party was advised that such an offer came from high-level executives within Plaintiff including Guixi Liu and JianPing Wang. Responding Party also received videos in which an employee of Plaintiff, Hui Hang, stating Plaintiff's intentions to sell additional glove to Responding Party and to remove it off of Plaintiff's “black list”.

Responding Party believes that the products at issue were genuine, were manufactured by Plaintiff and/or its subsidiary in China, and were acquired from Plaintiff and/or Plaintiff's subsidiaries through proper and legal channels. Responding Party further contend that not only did Plaintiff and/or its agents with legal authority approve the WT Parties to purchase of the products, but that they further authorized the WT Parties' repackaging of the products in advance of the WT Parties' purchase.

Id. at 12-14.

Plaintiff generally complains that Defendants' response to Interrogatory No. 1 is not specific enough. Plaintiff identifies a few areas where it believes further information is called for by the interrogatory. However, Defendants' amended response appears to answer all of the specific questions identified by Plaintiff in the March 18, 2022 meet and confer correspondence from Plaintiff's counsel. Accordingly, Defendants appear to have made a good faith effort in their amended response to respond and address the issues raised by Plaintiff. To the extent Plaintiff seeks additional information, Plaintiff should have met and conferred after receiving the amended response before pursuing the instant Motion.

Moreover, while Plaintiff argues this is not a “contention interrogatory,” the information sought is similarly broad in scope. Therefore, the response Plaintiff appears to seek would improperly require Defendants to “provide the equivalent of a narrative account of [their] case, including every evidentiary fact, details of testimony of supporting witnesses, and the contents of supporting documents.” Valcor Eng'g Corp. v. Parker Hannifin Corp., No. 8:16-CV-00909-JVS (KESx), 2017 WL 10440700, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2017) (citing Aldapa v. Fowler Packing Co., 310 F.R.D. 583, 591 (E.D. Cal. 2015)); see also Bashkin v. San Diego Cty., No. 08-CV-1450, 2011 WL 109229, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2011) (“In the written discovery process, parties are not entitled to each and every detail that could possibly exist in the universe of facts .... Nor is Plaintiff entitled to a narrative account of Defendants' case.”). Therefore, the additional information Plaintiff seeks is more appropriately sought through the exchange of documents, depositions, or through stand-alone interrogatories crafted to seek specific information.

*5 Hence, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel further response to Interrogatory No. 1 is DENIED.

2. Interrogatory No. 2

Interrogatory No. 2 states: “Identify all persons and individuals who were or are, responsible for, or participating in, the manufacture, import, distribution, marketing and/or sale of the At Issue Products.” JS at 19.

1. Kevork Kouyoumjian, person most knowledgeable for the WT Parties, who can be contacted through WT Parties' counsel of record in this lawsuit.
2. Guixi Liu, President/CEO of Plaintiff and can be reached through its counsel of record.
3. JianPing Wang, agent/representative of Plaintiff and can be reached through its counsel of record.
4. Kang Zhang, Secretary and/or personal assistant of Guixi Liu, an employee of Plaintiff, and can be reached Plaintiff's counsel of record.
5. Jing Zhang, employee of HPT, a wholly owned subsidiary of Plaintiff, and can be contacted through Plaintiff's counsel of record in this lawsuit.
6. Hui Hang, employee of Plaintiff and can be reached Plaintiff's counsel of record.
7. Sheng Feng, current contact information unknown.
8. Guang Wang, employee of HKMI, which is located at 185 Xiyuan Street, Shenze County, Shijiazhuang City, Hebei Province, China 052560, Tel: 19 +8615383236789.

9. Elaine Dong, employee of Feida Toys and can be contacted through WT Parties' counsel of record in this lawsuit.
10. Unknown employees and/or agents of Plaintiff and/or its subsidiaries who were involved with, responsible for, and/or participating in, the manufacture, import, distribution, marketing and/or sale of the product at issue in this action.

Id. at 20-21.

Plaintiff argues Defendants' amended response is incomplete because it “(1) fail[s] to provide the full contact information for Sheng Feng; (2) fail[s] to identify individuals and entities that transported At Issue Products to and from [Defendants]; (3) fail[s] to identify individuals or entities involved in purchasing At Issue Products from [Defendants]; and (4) fail[s] to include the names of Defendants' employees who were involved in selling the At Issue Products to purchasers.” Id. at 21. Plaintiff identifies documents produced in discovery that Plaintiff believes mention persons or parties who should have been identified by Defendants in response to Interrogatory No. 2. Id. at 22-24.

Once again, Plaintiff fails to explain its failure to meet and confer after receiving Defendants' amended response. Defendants have explained why certain documents Plaintiff believes mention persons or parties who would be responsive to Interrogatory No. 2 are, in fact, not responsive. Specifically, parties referenced in a packing slip for goods dated before the time frame alleged in the FAC are not responsive. While Plaintiff argues the term “At Issue Products” is not limited in time, to the extent Plaintiff seeks information concerning products that are not referred to in the operative complaint, the interrogatory is disproportionate to the needs of the case. See FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b); see also Herbert v. Lando, 441 U.S. 153 (1979) (“[T]he requirement of Rule 26(b)(1) that the material sought in discovery be ‘relevant’ should be firmly applied, and the district courts should not neglect their power to restrict discovery where ‘justice requires [protection for] a party ... from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense ....”). In addition, a party who only entered into a contract with Defendants, but where no sale of goods was completed is not responsive. Moreover, goods that Defendants maintain they have no ownership interest in do not fall within the definition of “At Issue Products” and persons connected with those goods are not responsive to the instant interrogatory. Finally, Defendants have, nevertheless, agreed to provide supplemental response regarding any contact information it has for all other parties identified by Plaintiff.

*6 Hence, to the extent Defendants have not yet provided such responsive, supplemental information, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel further response to Interrogatory No. 2 is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as set forth herein.

3. Interrogatory No. 3

Interrogatory No. 3 states: “Describe in detail the facts and circumstances concerning Defendants' relationship with KMI, including identifying the names of any individuals that Defendant communicates with at KMI concerning the acquisition, manufacture, distribution, and/or sale of At Issue Products.” JS at 27.

In their amended response, Defendants objected to Interrogatory No. 3 on the ground it is “compound and contains subparts that exceeds the maximum allowable number of interrogatories as dictated by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33.” Id. at 28. Defendants then responded as follows:

Plaintiff is a Chinese corporation with its principal place of business in Hebei, China. It, along with various subsidiaries, manufacture, import, and sell boxes of nitrile gloves as personal protective equipment (“PPE”). While claiming to have certain protected marks and trade names, Plaintiff admits to selling its gloves to U.S. customers “in packaging that bears the Plaintiff's customer brand.”

Responding Party, along with defendant World Tech Toys (“WTT”) (collectively as “WT Parties”), are importers of various goods to sell in the United States. At issue in this action are an estimated 1 million 100-count boxes of disposable gloves (the “Gloves”) that the WT Parties purchased between end of 2020 and March 2021 from Plaintiff and one of its subsidiaries, Hongze Plastic Technology, Co., Ltd. (“HPT”), through Elaine Dong of Feida Toy Company, Guang Wang of Hebei Kuangyang Medical Instrument Sales Co., Ltd. (“HKMI”), a Chinese third-party medical supply sales company.
More specifically, the WT Parties negotiated the purchase of the Glove[s] in good faith with Plaintiff/HPT through HKMI and transferred to HPT, approximately RMB 36.4 million as payment for the goods between December 2020 and March 2021.

Plaintiff acknowledges that HPT did and still does business with HKMI.

As a part of their dealings with Plaintiff/HPT and HKMI, WT Parties received approval from Plaintiff/HPT for the use of certain packaging with the name PPE-AID on it.
Additionally, SHG/HPT also provided to Defendants signed and stamped certifications dated December 28, 2020, January 27, 2021, and February 21, 2021 attesting to 1) the approval of the selling of approximately 1.6 million boxes of gloves from SHG/HPT to WT Parties through HKMI, 2) authenticity of the Gloves, 3) use of the PPEAid packaging approved by SHG, and 4) the shipping terms for the goods.

Between end of 2020 and March 2021, WT Parties received shipments of the Gloves from SHG/HPT. WT Parties then sold the Gloves to its clients and other distributors of PPE products in the United States without making any alterations to the products or their packaging. WT Parties made no representations to those distributors regarding the source of, the type of materials used to manufacture, or the quality of the product being sold other than what was represented on the packaging. At no point did WT Parties make any representations to third parties regarding any governmental review and/or certifications relating the Gloves other than those stated on the packaging designed and provided by SHG/HPT.

*7 Nor did the WT Parties receive any warnings, limitation, and/or other restrictions from Plaintiff, HPT, or HKMI regarding the distribution and/or sales of the Gloves prior to April 1, 2021.
Responding Party believes that the products at issue were genuine, were manufactured by Plaintiff and/or its subsidiary in China, and were acquired from Plaintiff and/or Plaintiff's subsidiaries through proper and legal channels. Responding Party further contend that not only did Plaintiff and/or its agents with legal authority approve the WT Parties to purchase of the products, but that they further authorized the WT Parties' repackaging of the products in advance of the WT Parties' purchase.

Id. at 28-30.

Plaintiff argues Defendants fail to describe any facts or circumstances surrounding their relationship with KMI, including how Defendants' relationship with KMI began or the transactions mentioned in documents produced though discovery that appear to involve KMI and Defendants. Defendants only argue they have provided a sufficiently detailed response and requiring any further response would improperly call for a narrative. However, the amended response only cursorily mentions that Defendants negotiated the purchase of the At Issue Products “through HKMI.” The interrogatory clearly seeks information regarding the formation and extent of the relationship between Defendants and KMI.

Hence, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel further response to Interrogatory No. 3 is GRANTED.

4. Interrogatory No. 4

Interrogatory No. 4 states: “Describe in detail the facts and circumstances concerning Defendants' relationship with Feida Toys, including identifying the names of any individuals that Defendant communicates with at Feida Toys concerning the acquisition, manufacture, distribution, and/or sale of At Issue Products.” JS at 33.

In their amended response, Defendants objected to Interrogatory No. 4 on the ground it is “compound and contains subparts that exceeds the maximum allowable number of interrogatories as dictated by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33.” Id. at 35. Defendants then responded as follows:

Plaintiff is a Chinese corporation with its principal place of business in Hebei, China. It, along with various subsidiaries, manufacture, import, and sell boxes of nitrile gloves as personal protective equipment (“PPE”). While claiming to have certain protected marks and trade names, Plaintiff admits to selling its gloves to U.S. customers “in packaging that bears the Plaintiff's customer brand.”
Responding Party, along with defendant World Tech Toys (“WTT”) (collectively as “WT Parties”), are importers of various goods to sell in the United States. At issue in this action are an estimated 1 million 100-count boxes of disposable gloves (the “Gloves”) that the WT Parties purchased between end of 2020 and March 2021 from Plaintiff and one of its subsidiaries, Hongze Plastic Technology, Co., Ltd. (“HPT”), through Elaine Dong of Feida Toy Company, Guang Wang of Hebei Kuangyang Medical Instrument Sales Co., Ltd. (“HKMI”), a Chinese third-party medical supply sales company.
More specifically, the WT Parties negotiated the purchase of the Glove[s] in good faith with Plaintiff/HPT through HKMI and transferred to HPT, approximately RMB 36.4 million as payment for the goods between December 2020 and March 2021.

*8 Plaintiff acknowledges that HPT did and still does business with HKMI.

As a part of their dealings with Plaintiff/HPT and HKMI, WT Parties received approval from Plaintiff/HPT for the use of certain packaging with the name PPE-AID on it.
Additionally, SHG/HPT also provided to Defendants signed and stamped certifications dated December 28, 2020, January 27, 2021, and February 21, 2021 attesting to 1) the approval of the selling of approximately 1.6 million boxes of gloves from SHG/HPT to WT Parties through HKMI, 2) authenticity of the Gloves, 3) use of the PPEAid packaging approved by SHG, and 4) the shipping terms for the goods.
Between end of 2020 and March 2021, WT Parties received shipments of the Gloves from SHG/HPT. WT Parties then sold the Gloves to its clients and other distributors of PPE products in the United States without making any alterations to the products or their packaging. WT Parties made no representations to those distributors regarding the source of, the type of materials used to manufacture, or the quality of the product being sold other than what was represented on the packaging.

At no point did WT Parties make any representations to third parties regarding any governmental review and/or certifications relating the Gloves other than those stated on the packaging designed and provided by SHG/HPT.
Nor did the WT Parties receive any warnings, limitation, and/or other restrictions from Plaintiff, HPT, or HKMI regarding the distribution and/or sales of the Gloves prior to April 1, 2021.
Between late 2021 and April 2022, Responding Party's representatives were notified by Guang Wang, JinJun Zhu, and Sheng Feng, a broker with connections to Plaintiff, that Plaintiff was desirous of additional sales of gloves to Responding Party despite the pending litigation and was willing to take Responding Party [off] of its “black list” as a part of those transactions. Responding Party was advised that such an offer came from high-level executives within Plaintiff including Guixi Liu and JianPing Wang. Responding Party also received videos in which an employee of Plaintiff, Hui Hang, stating Plaintiff's intentions to sell additional glove to Responding Party and to remove it off of Plaintiff's “black list”.

Responding Party believes that the products at issue were genuine, were manufactured by Plaintiff and/or its subsidiary in China, and were acquired from Plaintiff and/or Plaintiff's subsidiaries through proper and legal channels. Responding Party further contend that not only did Plaintiff and/or its agents with legal authority approve the WT Parties to purchase of the products, but that they further authorized the WT Parties' repackaging of the products in advance of the WT Parties' purchase.

Id. at 35-37.

Plaintiff argues Defendants fail to describe any facts or circumstances surrounding their relationship with Feida Toys. Defendants only argue they have provided a sufficiently detailed response and requiring any further response would improperly call for a narrative. However, the amended response only cursorily mentions that Defendants purchased some of the At Issue Products “through” Feida Toys. Defendants' response does not mention Feida Toys further, but merely provides a general description of their theory of defense. The interrogatory clearly seeks information regarding the formation and extent of the relationship between Defendants and Feida Toys.

*9 Hence, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel further response to Interrogatory No. 4 is GRANTED.

5. Interrogatory No. 7

Interrogatory No. 7 states: “Identify all goods and services offered for sale, sold, provided or intended to be offered for sale, sold, or provided by or for Defendant in the United States under or in connection with any At Issue Product and/or any of Plaintiff's 510(k) Numbers.” JS at 40.

In their amended response, Defendants objected to Interrogatory No. 7 on the ground it is “compound and contains subparts that exceeds the maximum allowable number of interrogatories as dictated by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33.” Id. at 40. Defendants then responded that they are “not aware of any of the products/goods at issue in this litigation that is connected to any 510(k) Numbers.” Id.

Plaintiff argues Defendants' response is “deceptive, evasive, and contradicted by [Defendants'] own marketing materials.” Id. at 41. Defendants, however, deny that the marketing materials Plaintiff obtained from third parties were created or used by Defendants. Id. at 42. Defendants properly verified their interrogatory response, and the Court cannot compel production of information that does not exist.

Hence, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel further response to Interrogatory No. 7 is DENIED.

6. Interrogatory No. 8

Interrogatory No. 8 states: “State the quantity of all At Issue Products imported and/or sold by Defendant, including At Issue Products acquired from both Feida Toys and/or KMI, organizing your response by quantity of: (a) nine inch nitrile; (b) twelve inch nitrile; (c) nine inch nitrile-vinyl blend; and (d) twelve inch nitrile-vinyl blend.” JS at 43.

Defendants responded that “this interrogatory seeks an examination, audit, compilation, and/or summarization of Responding Party's records and the burden of deriving or ascertaining the answer are substantially the same for either party and thus Responding Party will provide relevant non-privilege documents and/or records in lieu of providing a response to the interrogatory.” Id. at 44.

“If the answer to an interrogatory may be determined by examining, auditing, compiling, abstracting, or summarizing a party's business records ..., the responding party may answer by [ ] specifying the records that must be reviewed, in sufficient detail to enable the interrogating party to locate and identify them as readily as the responding party could[.]” FED. R. CIV. P. 33(d). While Defendants have agreed to provide a supplemental response to identify the specific documents as required by Rule 33(d), which have already been produced, Defendants have not yet done so. JS at 46.

Hence, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel further response to Interrogatory No. 8 is GRANTED.

7. Interrogatory No. 9

Interrogatory No. 9 states: “Describe the date and circumstances of Defendant first becoming aware of Hongray's Products and Hongray's 510(k) Numbers.” JS at 46.

Defendants responded as follows:

The WT Parties are importers of various goods to sell in the United States. At issue in this action are approximately a million 100-count boxes of disposable gloves (the “Gloves”) that WT Parties purchased between end of 2020 and March 2021 from Plaintiff and HPT and through Feida and HKMI.

*10 More specifically, WT Parties negotiated the purchase of the Glove[s] in good faith with Plaintiff/HPT through HKMI and transferred to HPT, approximately RMB 36.4 million as payment for the goods between December 2020 and March 2021.

Responding Party became aware of Plaintiff's claims as to 510(k) number in connection with Plaintiff's April 1, 2021, correspondence and this litigation.

Id.

Plaintiff argues Defendants' response is “evasive and insufficient” because Defendants produced (a) documents showing some of the gloves they sold were held out as medical grade, which requires FDA clearance under a 510(k) number and (b) and email from Kev Kouyoumjian, CEO of defendant WT23, attaching Plaintiff's 501(k) clearance letter. Id. at 47. Defendants appear to argue they were not aware selling products in the United States as “medical grade” required FDA clearance and there is no evidence the email from Mr. Kouyoumjian attached the clearance letter that followed in the production. Id. at 48. Defendants' production of documents as pdfs or hard copies, rather than native files, appears to have created some of the confusion. However, it is unclear why Plaintiff was not able to address the confusion though meeting and conferring with Defendants. Nevertheless, the response does not answer the question regarding when Defendants became aware of Plaintiff's 510(k) numbers.[4]

Hence, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel further response to Interrogatory No. 9 is GRANTED.

8. Interrogatory No. 10

Interrogatory No. 10 states: “State your contention for why you believe you may use Plaintiff's 510(k) Numbers to promote, advertise, and sell At Issue Products and identify any authority supporting your contention.” JS at 49.

Defendants responded that they are “not aware of any instances in which [they] used Plaintiff's 510(k) Numbers to promote, advertise, and sell any of the products at issue in this action.” Id.

Plaintiff argues Defendants' response is “evasive and patently false.” Id. However, Defendants properly verified their interrogatory response, and the Court cannot compel production of information that does not exist.

Hence, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel further response to Interrogatory No. 10 is DENIED.

9. Interrogatory Nos. 14 and 15

Interrogatory No. 14 states: “Identify the custodian to the email account wt98721@sohu.com in WTT00026/27.” JS at 51.

In their amended response, Defendants objected on the ground the term “custodian” is vague and ambiguous, but responded that they believe the custodian “is Sohu, Inc., a Chinese internet company based in Beijing, China. The account was created by Kevork Kouyoumjian who can be contacted through WT Parties' counsel of record in this lawsuit.” Id. at 52.

Interrogatory No. 15 states: “Explain why there is no text in the emails shown in WTT00004 and WTT00027 from wt98721@sohu.com to sales@hongray.com.cn except for ‘7-19-21’.” JS at 52.

Defendants responded that they “cannot provide a response to this interrogatory as [they were] not the drafter/author of the email shown in WTT00004 and WTT00027.” Id. at 53.

*11 Plaintiff argues Defendants' responses to Interrogatory Nos. 14 and 15 contradict each other because Interrogatory No. 14 asks for the custodian, i.e. the person who authored the relevant emails. Id. at 54-55. Defendants do not oppose the Motion to Compel further responses to Interrogatories Nos. 14 and 15 and agree to provide supplemental responses. Id. at 55. Hence, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel further responses to Interrogatories Nos. 14 and 15 is GRANTED.

10. Interrogatory No. 16

Interrogatory No. 16 states: “State the purpose of the communications shown in WTT00004 and WTT00027 from wt98721@sohu.com to sales@hongray.com.cn and how that purpose was to be accomplished without any text in the email.” JS at 55.

In their amended response, Defendants objected to Interrogatory No. 16 on the ground it is “compound and contains subparts that exceeds the maximum allowable number of interrogatories as dictated by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33.” Id. at 57. Defendants then responded as follows:

On or about April 1, 2021, the WT Parties received a letter from counsel representing Plaintiff demanding that the WT Parties stop selling the Gloves on the grounds that neither Plaintiff nor any of its subsidiaries have authorized sales to and/or redistribution of those goods by the WT Parties. Plaintiff further demanded that Defendants stop all promotion and/or marketing of the Gloves, remove/destroy all promotional materials relating to the Gloves, to inform all dealers that have purchased the Gloves from WT Parties as to the issue, and providing an accounting of any and all revenues and profit Defendants have obtained as a result of the sale of the Gloves.

Confused by the April 1st correspondence, the WT Parties reached out to KMI and SHG/HPT through their Chinese representatives as well as directly contacting Plaintiff via email through its official sales email address of sales@hongray.com.cn (the “Hongray Email Address”) in April 2021.
The WT Parties also received assurances from its Chinese agents that the Gloves were authentic Hongray products and that the transactions between Defendants, SHG/HPT, and KMI were proper.
After receipt of initial pleadings for this action in June 2021, the WT Parties made inquiries to the Hongray Email Address to obtain further evidence of the authenticity of the Gloves and the properness of their transaction with SHG/HPT.
On July 19, 2021, the WT Parties received a response email from the Hongray Email Address that contained attachments that purportedly reaffirmed the legitimacy of the transactions, approval of the PPE-Aid packaging, and a July 5, 2021 statement signed by SHG's president and CEO GuiXi Liu confirming that 1) the transactions relating to Defendants were genuine and proper, 2) that Defendants were improperly placed on SHG's black list of vendors/distributors of counterfeit Hongray goods, and 3) Defendants should be removed from said black list.

As further confirmation, in late July 2021, the WT Parties request SHG, through the Hongray Email Address, to provide evidence of the authenticity of the July 5, 2021 statement from President Liu. In response, SHG, through the Hongray Email Address, purportedly provided on August 26, 2021:
1) A signed statement from President Liu attesting to the properness Defendants' December 2020 to January 2021 transactions with SHG for 2 million boxes of gloves that were placed within the approved PPE-Aid packaging to be sold and/or distributed in the United States;
*12 2) An August 25, 2021 declaration signed by Kang Zhang, a SHG employee and President Liu's personal assistant, under penalty of perjury that personally witnessed President Liu execute the statement identified above on August 25, 2021 and that the document does in fact contain the authentic signature of President Liu; and

3) Photographs of Mr. Zhang executing and holding up his August 25, 2021 declaration as further proof of the document's authenticity.

Id. at 57-58.

Plaintiff argues Defendants' response is non-responsive. Id. at 58-59. Defendants do not oppose the Motion to Compel further responses to Interrogatory No. 16 and agree to provide a supplemental response. Id. at 59. Hence, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel further response to Interrogatory No. 16 is GRANTED.

B. REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34 (“Rule 34”) governs requests for production of documents. FED. R. CIV. P. 34. A party may request documents “in the responding party's possession, custody, or control.” FED. R. CIV. P. 34(a)(1). The responding party must respond in writing and is obligated to produce all specified relevant and nonprivileged documents, tangible things, or electronically stored information in its “possession, custody, or control” on the date specified. FED. R. CIV. P. 34(a). Alternatively, a party may state an objection to a request, including the reasons. FED. R. CIV. P. 34(b)(2)(A)-(B).

1. Privilege Log

As an initial matter, Plaintiff seeks to compel Defendants to provide a privilege log for all documents withheld on the basis of the attorney-client privilege. JS at 59-60. In response to Requests for Production Nos. 3, 5, 33, 35, 36, 43, 44, 47, Defendants state, “[c]ertain documents have been have being withheld on the grounds that they are protected by attorney-client and/or work product privilege.” Id. at 63, 66-67, 76-77, 79, 81, 84, 86, 88. In opposition to the Motion, however, Defendants state, “[o]ther than documents and information protected by attorney-client privilege and/or work product that arose post-litigation, [Defendants] have not withheld any documents and information from Plaintiff.” Id. at 61. Therefore, Defendants shall serve supplemental responses to Plaintiff's Requests for Production of Documents clarifying that no documents other than those created after they were served with the Complaint in this action have been withheld on the basis of attorney-client privilege or attorney work product. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel a privilege log is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

2. Native Format

Plaintiff seeks documents in native format with accompanying metadata. JS at 60-61. Defendants do not oppose this request and have agreed to produce native versions of the remaining documents in its possession. Id. at 61. Defendants note, however, that they do not have documents from third parties in native format, and have produced them as they were produced to Defendants. Id.

Hence, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel documents in native formats is GRANTED. Defendants shall produce all responsive documents in their possession, custody, or control in their native formats to the extent the documents are available in native format. Where the documents were provided to Defendants by third parties, Defendants shall provide the documents in the format in which they were provided to Defendants by the third parties.

3. Requests for Production Nos. 2, 3, 5, 17, 26, 27, 33, 35, 36, 43, 44, and 47

*13 In response to Requests for Production Nos. 2, 3, 5, 17, 26, 27, 33, 35, 36, 43, 44, and 47, Defendants stated without objection that they have “produced and/or will produce all non-privileged documents within [their] possession, custody, and control that are responsive to this Request.” JS at 61, 63, 66, 70, 72, 75, 76, 79, 81, 84, 86, 88.

Defendants do not oppose production of documents, but note they are continuing their efforts to obtain additional information and documents and will provide such information and documents if and when they are received per Defendants' discovery obligations. Id. at 63, 66, 69, 71, 74, 81, 85, 86, 89. To the extent Defendants claim they have conducted a diligent search for all responsive documents, there is no such representation in their responses to the Requests for Production. “The fact that discovery is ongoing, is not a proper objection.” Lawrence v. Schlumberger Tech. Corp., No. 1:14-CV-00524 JLT, 2015 WL 3756194, at *5 (E.D. Cal. June 16, 2015). Defendants have an obligation to provide responses at the time they are made or to seek an extension of time to do so. The fact that additional responses may become known is anticipated by the Rules, and parties are obligated to supplement their responses to discovery. FED. R. CIV. P. 26(a)(1)(A)(ii). “The duty to supplement is not a license to unduly delay production or get around discovery obligations when convenient.” Lawrence, 2015 WL 3756194, at *5 (quoting Goethe v. California D.M.V., 2009 WL 3568624, *1 (E.D. Cal. Oct.27, 2009)).

Hence, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel further responses to Requests for Production Nos. 2, 3, 5, 17, 26, 27, 33, 35, 36, 43, 44, and 47 is GRANTED. Accordingly, Defendants shall serve supplemental responses clearly stating they have conducted a diligent search and have produced all non-privileged documents in their possession, custody, or control.[5]

4. Request for Production No. 18

Request for Production No. 18 seeks: “Representative samples of all At Issue Products.” JS at 71.

Defendants amended response states: “Per agreement with [Plaintiff], [Defendants] will produce one representative box of the At Issue Products.” Id.

Defendants do not oppose producing the representative box of the At Issue Products, but state they “will send Plaintiff a representative box of the gloves within 14 days.” Id.

Hence, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel production of a representative box of the At Issue Products in compliance with Defendants' agreement regarding Request for Production No. 18 is GRANTED.

5. Request for Production No. 42

Request for Production No. 42 seeks: “All Documents relating to any payments, including electronic wire transfer Documents and receipts, made by Defendant to all suppliers of At Issue Products, including Feida Toys and KMI.” JS at 82.

Defendants responded without objection that they have “produced and/or will produce all non-privileged documents within [their] possession, custody, and control that are responsive to this Request.” Id. at 83.

Plaintiff argues Defendants' production is insufficient because “the only documents Defendants produced that are responsive to this Request are thirteen Chase bank records between World Tech Toys, Inc. and Nanjing Maohd Technology Co. Limited. Id. at 83. Defendants argue they made payments to Nanjing Maohd Technology Co. Limited per instructions they received from Jin Jun Zhu. Id. at 84. The “[f]unds necessary to pay HKMI and Hongze were not made directly by [Defendants] and thus there would be no documents responsive to what Plaintiff seeks.” Id. The Court cannot compel production of documents that do not exist. However, Plaintiff's also note that of the thirteen documents, nine are only pictures of “page 1” and four documents are illegible. Id. at 83. Defendants therefore state, “In the spirit of cooperation, [Defendants] will cure the production issues identified by Plaintiff within 14 days.” Id. at 84. In addition, Defendants' response that they have “produced and/or will produce” makes it unclear whether they have completed a diligent search and produced all responsive documents.

*14 Hence, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel further response to Request for Production No. 42 is GRANTED. Accordingly, Defendants shall serve a supplemental response clearly stating they have conducted a diligent search and have produced all non-privileged documents in their possession, custody, or control.

6. Request for Production No. 48

Request for Production No. 48 seeks “native electronic versions of the files produced at WTT00004-45.” JS at 89.

In opposition to Plaintiff's Motion, Defendants state:

Native form of WTT00004 has been produced.
WT Parties are not in possession of the native forms of WTT00005-00020 as they were documents that were provided via the July 19, 2021 email from sales@hongray.com.cn.
WT Parties will provide the native forms of WTT00021-00025 within 14 days.
WT Parties have produced the native form of WTT00026-00027.
WT Parties are not in possession of the native forms of WTT00028-00044 as they were documents that were provided to it by HKMI in single format.
WTT00045 is a listing of videos provided by Zhang Jing, who WT Parties contends is an employee/representative of Hongze. The videos referenced have been provided to Plaintiff.

Id. at 91.

Defendants' response that they have “produced and/or will produce” makes it unclear whether they have completed a diligent search and produced all responsive documents.

Hence, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel further response to Request for Production No. 48 is GRANTED. Accordingly, Defendants shall serve a supplemental response clearly stating they have conducted a diligent search and have produced all non-privileged documents in their possession, custody, or control.

C. REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION

“A party may serve on any other party a written request to admit, for purposes of the pending action only, the truth of any matters within the scope of Rule 26(b)(1) relating to: (A) facts, the application of law to fact, or opinions about either; and (B) the genuineness of any described documents.” FED. R. CIV. P. 36(a)(1). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36 provides:

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 that the information it knows or can readily obtain is insufficient to enable it to admit or deny.

FED. R. CIV. P. 36(a)(4).

1. Request for Admission No. 15

Request for Admission No. 15 seeks an admission that “Defendant has sold patient examination gloves that were provided to Defendant by KMI.” JS at 91.

Defendants' amended response states: “Admit to the extent that Responding Party has sold patient examination gloves that came from Plaintiff and/or its authorized subsidiaries for which KMI served as an intermediary distributor.” Id. at 92.

*15 Plaintiff argues Defendants' response is “evasive and unclear” and Plaintiff also appears to seek an admission that “At Issue Products were provided to Defendants by KMI.” Id. Defendants argue they properly qualified their answer. Id. at 93-94. While Rule 36 permits a party to qualify an answer, the answer must specify the part admitted and qualify or deny the rest. FED. R. CIV. P. 36(a)(4). Here, Defendants' response confuses and complicates the request. While the request does not mention the “At Issue Products” as argued by Plaintiff, it also does not mention gloves “from Plaintiff” as Defendants' response seeks to add. Accordingly, without additional explanation, Defendants' response fails to comply with Rule 36.

Hence, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel a supplemental response to Request for Admission No. 15 is GRANTED.

2. Request for Admission No. 16

Request for Admission No. 16 seeks an admission that “Defendant has sold patient examination gloves that were provided to Defendant by Feida Toys.” JS at 94.

Defendants' amended response states: “Admit to the extent that Responding Party has sold patient examination gloves that came from Plaintiff and/or its authorized subsidiaries for which Feida served as an intermediary distributor.” Id. at 94-95.

Plaintiff argues Defendants' response is evasive. Id. at 95. Defendants argue the fact that its response is “too responsive” and contains “too much information” is insufficient to justify an order to compel further responses. Id. However, Defendants' response confuses and complicates the request. The request does not mention gloves “from Plaintiff” as Defendants' response seeks to add. Accordingly, without more explanation, Defendants' response fails to comply with Rule 36.

Hence, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel a supplemental response to Request for Admission No. 16 is GRANTED.

3. Request for Admission No. 18

Request for Admission No. 18 seeks an admission that Defendants' “marketing materials for the At Issue Products contain statements that the At Issue Products are ‘nitrile’ gloves.” JS at 95.

Defendants' response states: “Admit to the extent that the labeling approved by Plaintiff and/or its authorized subsidiaries indicated the gloves at issue as ‘nitrile’.” Id.

Plaintiff argues Defendants' response is “evasive, non-responsive, and does not comply with Federal Rule 36(a)(4).” Id. at 96. Defendants argue their “response is proper and responsive in that they previously indicated that they made no efforts to market the gloves to be sold beyond providing pictures/videos of and allowing potential buyers to inspect the goods to be sold before purchasing.” Id. at 97. Plaintiff notes it is unclear whether Defendants' response is an admission or denial. Id. at 96. The Court agrees that Defendants' qualification that the labeling was approved by Plaintiff, or its subsidiaries, renders the response unclear. The question is simply a matter of content: whether the pictures and videos Defendants appear to admit they used to market the At Issue Products contained statements that the At Issue Products were “nitrile” gloves.

Hence, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel a supplemental response to Request for Admission No. 18 is GRANTED.

4. Requests for Admission Nos. 65-69

Requests for Admission Nos. 65-69 seek admissions that certain documents produced by Defendants in a foreign language “concern[ ] the sale of 12 inch pure nitrile gloves.” JS at 99-105.

Defendants' amended response to each request states, “Admit to the extent that the referenced document contains an entry for the purpose/memo section stating [tabular or graphical material not displayable at this time]. As for the remainder of the request, after making a reasonable inquiry, Responding Party states that that the information it knows or can readily obtain is insufficient to enable it to admit or deny.” Id.

*16 Plaintiff argues Defendants' responses are evasive. JS at 99. Defendants, however, argue the memo section of the documents, as translated by Plaintiff, states “12-inch goods payment” and it is not reasonable for Defendants to assume that “goods” refers to “gloves” in a document they did not create. Id. at 101. Defendants further argue, “[t]he document at issue was not generated by, maintained by, directly related to, or even references [Defendants] and/or its agents/representatives. Defendants certain[ly] cannot attest to what the transaction the document purportedly relates to, whether the text and/or notation found on that document is accurate, and/or factual circumstances of the underlying transaction referenced in the documents.” Id. Defendants' response admits the portion of the request they can and adequately explains why they cannot admit or deny the remainder of the request. Therefore, Defendants' response complies with Rule 36.

Hence, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel further responses to Requests for Admission Nos. 65-69 is DENIED.

5. Requests for Admission Nos. 71 and 81

Request for Admission No. 71 seeks an admission that “there is no text in the email in WTT00004 from wt98721@sohu.com to sales@hongray.com.cn except for ‘7-19-21.’ ” JS at 105.

Defendants responded: “Admit to the extent that the email as depicted in WTT004 has been produced and speaks for itself.” Id. at 106.

Request for Admission No. 81 seeks an admission that “there is no text in the email in WTT00027 from wt98721@sohu.com to sales@hongray.com.cn except for ‘7-19-21’.” Id. at 107.

Defendants responded: “Admit to the extent that the email as depicted in WTT0027 has been produced and speaks for itself.” Id. at 106.

Plaintiff argues the qualification that the document speaks for itself is improper. Id. at 106. The Court agrees. Defendants provide no reason why they cannot admit or deny these requests based on the documents or other information in their possession. Accordingly, Defendants should (1) admit the requests if it has no reason to dispute their truthfulness and accuracy, (2) deny the requests, in whole or in part, if it has a reasonable basis to dispute the requested matter, or (3) state that it cannot admit or deny the requests and provide reasonable explanations, in adequate detail, as to why it cannot respond. See F.D.I.C. v. Halpern, 271 F.R.D. 191, 196 (D. Nev. 2010) (holding the statement “the document speaks for itself” in response to a request for admission characterizing the content or meaning of a contract document was evasive).

Hence, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel further responses to Requests for Admission Nos. 71 and 81 is GRANTED.

D. REQUEST ATTORNEY'S FEES

Plaintiff further requests an award of the attorneys' fees incurred in connection with the instant discovery dispute. JS at 31-32.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5)(C), “[i]f the motion is granted in part and denied in part, the court ... may, after giving an opportunity to be heard, apportion the reasonable expenses for the motion.” FED. R. CIV. P. 37(a)(5)(C).

Here, if Plaintiff had further engaged Defendants in an attempt to meet and confer in good faith regarding the amended responses before sending to Defendants' counsel a draft of the joint stipulation in support of this Motion to Compel, the parties may have avoided this Motion to Compel by narrowing the discovery requests. The possibility that the parties might have agreed to narrow Plaintiff's discovery requests is apparent from the fact that Defendants have agreed to supplement the majority of the requests that the Court has granted. Under these circumstances, Plaintiff is not entitled to sanctions in the form of attorneys' fees incurred by bringing this Motion to Compel. BYLT, LLC v. B.Y.L.T. Performance, LLC, No. 8:18-cv-02194-JVS (KESx), 2019 WL 6330695 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2019) (denying moving party's request for sanctions related to bringing motion to compel, in part, because many of responding party's responses were substantially justified and moving party brought motion to compel before exhausting meet and confer process). Hence, Plaintiff's request for attorneys' fees is DENIED.

IV.

CONCLUSION

*17 It is therefore ORDERED:

1) For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as set forth above.
2) No later than September 12, 2022, Defendants shall serve:

(a) supplemental responses to Interrogatory Nos. 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 14, 15, and 16, as set forth above;
(b) supplemental responses to Requests for Production Nos. 2, 3, 5, 17, 18, 26, 27, 33, 35, 36, 42, 43, 44, 47, and 48, as set forth above and produce all responsive documents.
(c) supplemental responses to Requests for Admission Nos. 15, 16, 18, 71, and 81, as set forth above.

Footnotes

[1]

While none of the declarations provided by the parties states when the Requests for Production of Documents, Requests for Admission, or responses to written discovery were served, the dates set forth in the Joint Stipulation are not disputed.

[2]

Defendants object to each interrogatory on the ground they are compound and exceed the maximum allowable number of interrogatories. Subparts count collectively as one interrogatory if “they are logically or factually subsumed within and necessarily related to the primary question.” Prolo v. Blackmon, No. CV 21-5118-JFW (PVCx), 2022 WL 2189643, at *10 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 25, 2022) (citing Safeco of Am. v. Rawstron, 181 F.R.D. 441, 445 (C.D. Cal. 1998)); see also Better Care Plastic Tech. Co. v. Gredale, LLC, No. 5:21-CV-216-JWH (SP), 2022 WL 2046206, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 4, 2022) (finding subparts are counted as a single interrogatory because they are “logically or factually subsumed within and necessarily related to the primary question”). Here, while some of the interrogatories may be split into numerous subparts, each subpart is factually subsumed within the primary question. Hence, Defendants' objection is DENIED.

[3]

Hebei Kuangyang Medical Instrument Sales Co., Ltd. is referred to by the parties as HKMI and/or KMI.

[4]

As Plaintiff points out, the interrogatory does not ask when Defendants became aware of Plaintiff's claims that Defendants were allegedly using Plaintiff's 510(k) Numbers without authorization.

[5]

In connection with Requests for Production Nos. 27, 33, 35, 36, and 44 Defendants have also agreed to produce “financial documents demonstrating the lack of actual sales of the good and the losses incurred by [Defendants].” JS at 76, 78-79, 81, 82, 87.