Martifer-Silverado Fund I, LLC v. Zhongli Science and Technology Group Co., Ltd

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: October 28, 2022
• Docket: 4:19-cv-04243
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 MARTIFER-SILVERADO FUND I, LLC, Case No. 19-cv-04243-YGR (SK)

8 Plaintiff, ORDER ON REQUEST REGARDING 9 v. SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

10 ZHONGLI SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY GROUP CO., LTD., et al., Regarding Docket No. 148 11 Defendants. 12 On October 18, 2022, Parties filed a Joint Discovery Letter Brief on Defendants’ Special 13 Interrogatories. (Dkt. No. 148.) In the letter, the parties dispute the First Sets of Special 14 Interrogatories of Defendants Zhongli Science and Technology Group Co., Ltd. (“Zhongli”), and 15 Suzhou Talesun Solar Technology Co., Ltd. (“Suzhou”) and Plaintiff’s objections to these 16 interrogatories. (Id. at 1, 11-89.) Plaintiff argues that the interrogatories are impermissibly 17 compound and are premature given that Defendants have not responded to any fact discovery. (Id. 18 at 6-9.) Defendants Zhongli Science and Technology Group Co., Ltd., and Suzhou Talesun Solar 19 Technology Co., Ltd (collectively, “Defendants”) argue that the interrogatories are not 20 impermissibly compound and Plaintiffs must respond due to the limited amount of time remaining 21 in fact discovery. (Id. at 2-5.) The close of fact discovery is scheduled for December 1, 2022. 22 (Id. at 3.) The parties also dispute the possession, custody, and control of information related to 23 FTP Solar LLC. (Id. at 5,9.) Defendants request the court to overrule Plaintiff’s objections and 24 compel further responses to Zhongli’ Special Interrogatories, Nos. 1-18, and 21-22, and Suzhou’s 25 Special Interrogatories, Nos. 4-7, 10-15, and 17- 20. (Id. at 5.) 26 The Court hereby GRANTS the request to compel responses to Zhongli’s and Suzhou’s 27 Special Interrogatories. First, the Special Interrogatories are not impermissibly compound, as they 1 seek information about facts, documents, and people to support discrete topics. Synopsis, Inc. v. 2 || ATopTech, Inc., 319 F.R.D. 293, 297-298 (N.D. Cal. 2016). 3 Second, even though Defendants have not responded to any discovery, Plaintiff is required 4 || to provide its responses within 30 days and later supplement them if they receive information from 5 Defendants. 6 Finally, Plaintiff is not required to provide information from third party FTP Solar. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 Dated: October 27, 2022 { ( Ie ¢ 9 SALLIE KIM 10 United States Magistrate Judge 11 12

© 15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28