Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-01370/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-01370-19/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Contract Dispute

---

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

BLADEROOM GROUP LIMITED, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

FACEBOOK, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.5:15-cv-01370-EJD (HRL)

ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTE 

JOINT REPORT NO. 11

Re: Dkt. No. 267

In Discovery Dispute Joint Report (“DDJR”) #11, Facebook argues that it should not have 

to respond to BladeRoom’s Interrogatory 14 because BladeRoom has already maxed out its 25 

interrogatory limit (Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 33(a)(1)). In fact, says Facebook, it has as a 

courtesy already answered more than 25, but enough is enough and it’s time to stop.

Here is Interrogatory 14:

Describe in detail your efforts to preserve and produce documents and other 

information in this action, including your efforts to produce documents and 

other information responsive to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests. Your 

response should include the efforts you undertook to preserve evidence in 

connection with this litigation, including the dates on which any such 

efforts were undertaken and the dates of any litigation hold notice you 

issued; the nature, existence and location of all documents relating to this 

litigation and/or responsive to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests and the that 

steps you took to collect and produce those documents; the identification of 

your document retention policies during the time-frames relevant to this 

litigation and to the present day; and, to the extent that you have destroyed 

Case 5:15-cv-01370-EJD Document 289 Filed 05/22/17 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

or no longer have available information relevant to this litigation and/or 

responsive to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests, the circumstances under which 

such information or documents were destroyed or otherwise made 

unavailable.

(Dkt. 267 at 3).

Facebook makes two arguments. First, it says it answered Interrogatory 12 (from an 

earlier set) even though, under even a charitably narrow definition of “subparts,” that “single” 

question was bristling with dozens of discrete subparts, and, under a more aggressive 

interpretation of that word, upwards of 432 subparts.

Second, it argues that Interrogatory 14 is itself really at least five interrogatories 

masquerading as a single one.

The court declines to go back to Interrogatory 12 and wrestle with whether it is one 

question, two dozen questions, or something like 432. Facebook did answer it, and it’s only 

significance now is to test whether BladeRoom is over its limit. But, even if it were over the 25 

limit, the court would use its discretion to give it an additional interrogatory. Indeed, the subject 

matter of Interrogatory 14 is precisely something that Facebook explored through interrogatories 

to BladeRoom, and an answer is due to it.

Is Interrogatory 14 one question or five? If it had a bunch of discrete subparts, it would be 

more than a single interrogatory. If it asks a single question (i.e., “detail your efforts to preserve 

and produce documents . . .”) and then follows with secondary, explanatory descriptors of the 

“detail” being sought, then it is not compound. The court is satisfied that Interrogatory 14 is not 

compound.

Facebook will respond to Interrogatory 14 within 10 days from the filing of this order.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 22, 2017

HOWARD R. LLOYD

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:15-cv-01370-EJD Document 289 Filed 05/22/17 Page 2 of 2