Wang v. Zymergen Inc.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 BIAO WANG, et al., Case No. 21-cv-06028-PCP (SVK)

8 Plaintiffs, ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTES 9 v. BETWEEN LEAD PLAINTIFF AND DCVC DEFENDANTS 10 ZYMERGEN INC., et al., Re: Dkt. No. 495 11 Defendants.

12 Before the Court is the Joint Discovery Statement submitted by Lead Plaintiff (“Plaintiff”) 13 and the DCVC Defendants (“DCVC”), which include Defendants Data Collective II, L.P., DCVC 14 Opportunity Fund, L.P., and DCVC Management Co., LLC. Dkt. 495. In particular, this dispute 15 arises out of written discovery served by DCVC and Plaintiff on each other regarding the 16 “relation back” doctrine addressed in the Order on Motions to Dismiss (“MTD Order”), issued by 17 the Honorable P. Casey Pitts on August 14, 2024. Dkt. 395. 18 The MTD Order clearly identifies the relevant factual issues to be decided to determine 19 whether Plaintiffs’ claims as against DCVC Management Co., LLC (“DCVC Management”) 20 asserted in the Second Amended Complaint relate back to a prior complaint under Federal Rule of 21 Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 15(c)(1)(C): [R]elation back under Rule 15(c)(1)(C) depends not just on the pleadings but on questions 22 of fact focused on the defendant, including whether the defendant had actual notice of the 23 action and whether the defendant knew (or should have known) that it would have been 24 named except for a mistake. 25 MTD Order at 12. 26 Accordingly, relevant inquiries for discovery must be directed to notice of the prior 27 1 that it would have been named in the prior complaint but for a mistake. Krupski v. Costa Crociere 2 S.p.A., 560 U.S. 538, 548 (2010). Under these parameters helpfully provided by the Supreme 3 Court and appropriately adopted by Judge Pitts, the Court ORDERS as follows: 4 The only relevant interrogatories and requests for production are DCVC’s contention 5 Interrogatory no. 5 and Request for Production no. 4 and Plaintiff’s Request for Production 6 no. 19. All other interrogatories or requests for production are either not relevant on their 7 face or, even if arguably relevant, not proportional to the needs of the litigation as required 8 by Rule 26.1 9 Having narrowed the number of disputed discovery requests, the Court turns to the Parties’ squabble over whether or not they have provided the answers and documents that are available to 10 them. Since both sides appear to be in the mode of “nothing the other side says or does will be 11 sufficient,” the Court ORDERS that no later than February 20, 2025: 12 • For DCVC Interrogatory no. 5, Plaintiff will identify, by paragraph number and complaint, 13 the specific allegations in any complaint filed in this ACTION prior to the SECOND 14 AMENDED COMPLAINT that YOU contend put DCVC Management Co, LLC on notice 15 of the Action or on notice that it would have been named but for a mistake. Regardless of 16 what Plaintiff has previously provided, it will provide a verified, supplemental response to 17 Interrogatory no. 5 that conforms to this order. 18 • For DCVC Request for Production no. 4, Plaintiff will provide any document upon which 19 Plaintiff intends to rely to demonstrate notice to DCVC Management regarding the Action 20 prior to the Second Amended Complaint. Plaintiff will provide a supplemental response 21 that identifies the document(s) and either produce the document(s) or provide the bates 22 number if the document(s) has been previously produced. 23 24 1 DCVC’s argument that it cannot possibly proceed without knowing “what the mistake is” along 25 with several requests directed to the who, what, where, why & how the mistake was made is both disingenuous and contrary to the authority cited in the MTD and this Order. DCVC knows 26 perfectly well that the “mistake” was the omission of DCVC Management from the prior complaint. As Judge Pitts noted, “the pleadings and judicially noticeable materials at least suggest 27 that the management companies knew or should have known that the action would have been 1 e For Plaintiff's Request for Production no. 19, DCVC will provide any document or 2 communication upon which it intends to rely in support of its affirmative defense of statute 3 of limitations. DCVC will provide a supplemental response that identifies the document(s) 4 and either produce the document(s) or provide the bates number if the document(s) has 5 been previously produced. If DCVC does not intend to rely on any documents in support 6 of its affirmative defense, it must so state in its supplemental response. 7 8 Finally, the Court received a letter brief from the Softbank Defendants and the True 9 Ventures Defendants objecting to any effort by Plaintiffs to have an order in this dispute with 10 || DCVC be binding on them. Dkt. 497. The objection is well taken, and this Order expressly 11 applies only to the dispute as between Plaintiff and DCVC. However, to the extent there are = 12 || similar discovery disputes at issue between Plaintiff and these other Defendants, the Court expects E 13 the Parties to utilize this Order in their robust meet and confer efforts and not to burden the Court 14 || with redundant disputes on which the Court’s position is clear. 3 5 SO ORDERED. 16 || Dated: February 10, 2025

Seam yet SUSAN VAN KEULEN 19 United States Magistrate Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28