Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-06370/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-06370-33/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 15:1 Antitrust Litigation

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

OPTRONIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC,

Plaintiff,

v.

NINGBO SUNNY ELECTRONIC CO., 

LTD., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-06370-EJD (VKD)

ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTE

RE PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORY 

NO. 4

Re: Dkt. No. 585

The parties dispute whether defendant Ningbo Sunny Electronic Co. (“Ningbo Sunny”) 

should be required to provide more information in response to plaintiff Optronic Technologies, 

Inc.’s (“Orion”) post-judgment Interrogatory No. 4. Dkt. No. 585. The Court has reviewed the 

parties’ joint submission and concludes this matter is suitable for resolution without a hearing. 

Civ. L.R. 7-1(b).

Interrogatory No. 4 asks Ningbo Sunny in relevant part: “Have you or your agents had any 

non-written communications with the Synta Entities, or their agents, related to this litigation 

within the last six (6) months? If so, please describe who the participants were and what was 

discussed.” Dkt. No. 585-2 at 4. Subject to objections not at issue in this dispute, Ningbo Sunny 

responded to this interrogatory as follows: “Ningbo Sunny employees and management have not 

had any non-written communications with the Synta Entities regarding this litigation in the past 

six months. Ningbo Sunny’s attorneys have occasionally communicated with attorneys for Synta 

Entities to provide information or a status update regarding proceedings in this case.” Id.

Orion argues that Ningbo Sunny should be required to identify the date, participants, and 

substance of each responsive communication. Dkt. No. 585 at 2. Ningbo Sunny argues that it has 

Case 5:16-cv-06370-EJD Document 593 Filed 03/04/20 Page 1 of 2
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

made a reasonable effort to respond, and that requiring it to provide further detail would be unduly 

burdensome. Id. at 3.

While the additional information Orion seeks is likely to be of marginal relevance, in view 

of Ningbo Sunny’s current response to Interrogatory No. 4, the Court concludes that providing 

additional responsive information would not be unduly burdensome for Ningbo Sunny or its 

counsel. The interrogatory covers a limited period of time during which responsive 

communications occurred only “occasionally.” The Court anticipates that the approximate dates, 

participants, and subject matter of those occasional communications are likely reflected in 

counsel’s billing records, notes, or calendar entries, and that these materials are reasonably 

available to counsel. 

Ningbo Sunny must serve an amended response to Interrogatory No. 4 no later than March 

11, 2020.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 4, 2020

VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:16-cv-06370-EJD Document 593 Filed 03/04/20 Page 2 of 2