Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-06370/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-06370-34/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 

DEFENDANT'S RULE 33(D) 

INTERROGATORY RESPONSES

Re: Dkt. No. 586

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

may respond to plaintiff Optronic Technologies, Inc.’s (“Orion”) post-judgment interrogatories by 

referring to records, pursuant to Rule 33(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and if so, 

whether Ningbo Sunny has complied with the requirements of that Rule. Dkt. No. 586. 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).

In its responses to Orion’s Interrogatories Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10, 12, 16, and 17, Ningbo 

Sunny relies almost entirely on documents it has produced in response to Orion’s post-judgment 

document requests.1 For each such response, Ningbo Sunny “directs Orion to the documents 

produced concurrently herewith in response to Orion’s post-judgment request for production 

number [X].” Dkt No. 586-2. Orion argues that Ningbo Sunny may not respond to interrogatories 

by referring to documents here because the cited documents are “largely in Mandarin Chinese,” 

and therefore the burden of ascertaining the answers to the interrogatories is greater for Orion than 

1 Ningbo Sunny’s response to Interrogatory No. 12 also includes a narrative response. Dkt. No. 

586-2 at 7.

Case 5:16-cv-06370-EJD Document 594 Filed 03/04/20 Page 1 of 3
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

for Ningbo Sunny. Dkt. No. 586 at 2-3. Ningbo Sunny responds that only a “limited” number of 

the referenced documents are in Chinese. Specifically, it says that “all” or “almost all” of the 

referenced documents responsive to Interrogatories Nos. 2, 5, 9, and 10 are in English, and that 

“most” of the referenced documents responsive to Interrogatory No. 6 are in English. Id. at 4. 

Ningbo Sunny does not say whether the 13 documents cited in response to Interrogatories Nos. 1, 

12, 16, and 17 are in English or Chinese. See id. Ningbo Sunny argues that it is as burdensome 

for it to extract answers from the Chinese language documents as it is for Orion. Id. at 5.

Rule 33(d) provides in relevant part:

If the answer to an interrogatory may be determined by examining, 

auditing, compiling, abstracting, or summarizing a party’s business 

records . . . and if the burden of deriving or ascertaining the answer 

will be substantially the same for either party, the responding party 

may answer by specifying the records that must 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)(1). Few courts have addressed the question of whether a party may respond 

to interrogatories by citing documents that are in a language other than English. However, the 

courts that have considered this issue uniformly agree that, even if referring to records would 

otherwise be an appropriate response to an interrogatory, such a response is not permitted unless 

the party provides a translation of the documents. See, e.g., Gamevice, Inc. v. Nintendo Co., No. 

18-cv-01942-RS (TSH), 2019 WL 2763008, at *2 (N.D. Cal. July 2, 2019); Shinedling v. Sunbeam 

Prod. Inc., No. ED CV 12-438-CJC (SPx), 2013 WL 12171959, at *7 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 2013); 

Invensas Corp. v. Renesas Elecs. Corp., No. 11-448-GMS-CJB, 2013 WL 12146531, at *6 (D. 

Del. May 8, 2013); Nature’s Plus Nordic A/S v. Natural Organics, Inc., 274 F.R.D. 437, 440-41 

(E.D.N.Y. 2011).

The parties disagree regarding the extent to which Ningbo Sunny has relied on documents 

in English as opposed to Chinese for its responses to Orion’s interrogatories. The record does not 

permit the Court to resolve this disagreement. Where Ningbo Sunny relies on documents in 

English, Orion has offered no reason for the Court to conclude that Ningbo Sunny’s responses fail 

to comply with the requirements of Rule 33(d). However, Ningbo Sunny may not rely on 

documents in Chinese for its response to Orion’s interrogatories. Where Ningbo Sunny has done 

Case 5:16-cv-06370-EJD Document 594 Filed 03/04/20 Page 2 of 3
3

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

so, it has two options: It may amend its responses to provide narrative answers that do not rely on 

Chinese language documents, or it may provide English translations of the “limited” number of 

Chinese language documents on which it relies. 

Ningbo Sunny must serve amended responses to Interrogatories Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10, 12, 

16, and 17, consistent with the requirements of this order, 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 594 Filed 03/04/20 Page 3 of 3