Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-02639/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-02639-16/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 15:2(a) Fair Labor Standards Act

---

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

KUANG XUAN LIU, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

WIN WOO TRADING, LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-02639-KAW 

ORDER REGARDING 1/22/16 JOINT 

DISCOVERY LETTER - SPECIAL 

INTERROGATORIES

Re: Dkt. Nos. 100 & 108

On January 15, 2016, Plaintiffs and Defendants Safety Trucking, LLC and Jiatun Zheng 

filed a joint letter regarding special interrogatories propounded by Plaintiffs to Safety Trucking. 

(Dkt. No. 100.) That same date, the parties filed two additional joint letters that addressed other 

discovery devices.

At the January 19, 2016 case management conference, the Court ordered the parties to 

meet and confer and submit amended joint letters with the discovery devices and responses 

attached as exhibits. (1/19/16 Am. Minute Entry, Dkt. No. 112.)

On January 22, 2016, the parties submitted an amended joint letter, in which Plaintiffs seek

an order compelling Safety Trucking’s supplemental responses to Special Interrogatory Nos. 2, 3, 

7, 8, 12, and 18-20. (Joint Letter, Dkt. No. 108.)

I. DISCUSSION

As an initial matter, Defendants again confuse Safety Trucking’s corporate knowledge—

which includes the collective knowledge of all of its employees, agents, and counsel, including 

Jiatun Zheng, as well as information contained in its records— with Jiatun Zheng’s individual 

knowledge. Since corporate knowledge is greater than that of an individual, Mr. Zheng’s 

willingness to undergo deposition does not excuse Safety Trucking from fully responding to 

Case 4:14-cv-02639-KAW Document 131 Filed 02/17/16 Page 1 of 5
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

Plaintiffs’ written discovery. Furthermore, it appears that at least one defendant affiliated with 

Win Woo, namely Jia Jing Zheng, signed checks drawn on one of Safety Trucking’s corporate 

bank accounts. Therefore, information known to him constitutes Safety Trucking’s corporate 

knowledge, and must be included in any supplemental response.

A. Special Interrogatory No. 2

Special Interrogatory No. 2 seeks the name and contact information for all current and 

former Safety Trucking employees from 2008 to 2014, as well as the position and dates of 

employment. (Joint Letter at 1.) Safety Trucking produced a list of names and phone numbers, as 

well as the W-2s, which included the last known address of each employee. Id. Plaintiff contends 

that this is not sufficient, because they received only nine phone numbers. Id. Safety Trucking 

claims that it responded fully, as Jiatun Zheng did not keep a record of former employees’ phone 

numbers. Id.

Safety Trucking must provide a supplemental response in which it responds based on its 

corporate knowledge rather than Jiatun Zheng’s individual knowledge. This requires Safety 

Trucking to conduct a reasonable inquiry from persons and documents within its relative control, 

and produce all information obtained from those souces. 

B. Special Interrogatory No. 3

Special Interrogatory No. 3 seeks, for each employee identified in response to 

Interrogatory No. 2, “the pay rate, payroll periods (such as weekly, biweekly, or semimonthly), 

and whether the wages was made in cash or by check, in calendar years 2008 through 2014.” 

(Joint Letter at 1.) In response, Safety Trucking stated that “[e]ach employee’s pay rate was 

changed from time to time. Safety Trucking has provided each employees’ W-2 on 11/02/2015 

(Pages 1339 -1402).” Id. This is insufficient, as W-2s do not necessarily provide all of the 

information sought. For example, a W-2 does not include an employee’s pay rate.

Accordingly, Safety Trucking must provide a supplemental response, which answers the 

interrogatory propounded, and does so based on its corporate, rather than Jiatun Zheng’s

individual, knowledge.

///

Case 4:14-cv-02639-KAW Document 131 Filed 02/17/16 Page 2 of 5
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

C. Special Interrogatory No. 7

Special Interrogatory No. 7 asks Defendant to “[s]tate the dollar volume received, directly or 

indirectly, by SAFETY TRUCKING, LLC for its trucking services provided to other companies or 

individuals each year of calendar years 2008 through 2014.” (Joint Letter at 2.) In response, Safety 

Trucking stated that “Win Wood (sic) was Safety Trucking’s major customer. Safety Trucking did 

occasionally provided (sic) services to other customers such as North American Dairy Corp.” Id. This 

is wholly nonresponsive. Since it appears that Jia Jing Zheng’s knowledge is imputed to that of Safety 

Trucking, this interrogatory should provide the information requested as it relates to Win Woo. 

Information regarding North American Dairy, and others, should be provided to the extent that the

information is available after a reasonable inquiry is undertaken.

D. Special Interrogatory No. 8

Special Interrogatory No. 8 seeks the names and addresses of all companies that used 

Safety Trucking’s trucking services between 2008 and 2014. (Joint Letter at 3.) In response, Safety 

Trucking again stated that “Win Wood (sic) was Safety Trucking’s major customer. Safety Trucking 

did occasionally provided (sic) services to other customers such as North American Dairy Corp.” Id. 

This is also insufficient. Safety Trucking is required to supplement its response to identify all 

companies that used its services during the relevant time period, and must do so based on its corporate 

knowledge after a reasonable inquiry is undertaken.

E. Special Interrogatory No. 12

Special Interrogatory No. 12 asks Safety Trucking to explain “the procedure and method 

used for determining the hourly rate of truckers employed by SAFETY TRUCKING, LLC in 

calendar years 2008 through 2014 (if different procedures or methods were used during different 

time periods, please also specify the time periods in which each procedure or method was used), 

and IDENTIFY all PERSONS involved in these procedures and their specific responsibility.” 

(Joint Letter at 3.) In response, Safety Trucking states that Jiatun Zheng is the manager and the 

person responsible for determining the hourly rate, which was adjusted from time to time based on

three non-exhaustive factors, but that none of the employees were paid lower than minimum wage. 

(Joint Letter at 3-4.) Plaintiff argues that this is nonresponsive, particularly in light of Win Woo’s 

Case 4:14-cv-02639-KAW Document 131 Filed 02/17/16 Page 3 of 5
4

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

argument that the truckers were paid based on a fluctuating hourly rate. Id. at 4. The Court agrees. 

Safety Trucking is ordered to supplement its response and to do so based on its corporate 

knowledge, rather than that of Jiatun Zheng individually.

F. Special Interrogatory No. 18

Special Interrogatory No. 18 seeks “the check number of all checks issued to PLAINTIFFS 

and other trucker employed by SAFETY TRUCKING, LLC in calendar years 2008 through 2014 

that bears the signature of JIA JING ZHENG.” (Joint Letter at 4.) In response, Safety Trucking 

states that Plaintiff produced a check with a signature that they alleged was Jia Jing Zheng’s, but

that it could not find any checks that bore a similar signature. Id. This response is impertinent at 

best. Since Jia Jing Zheng’s knowledge appears to be part of Safety Trucking’s corporate

knowledge, Safety Trucking must supplement and conduct a reasonable inquiry and find copies all 

checks that are available to it. Jia Jing Zheng can then review those checks and identify his own 

signature without regard for the exemplar provided by Plaintiffs. Safety Trucking must identify 

the person(s) who recorded the payments collected by Plaintiffs, not someone who did not.

G. Special Interrogatory No. 19

Special Interrogatory No. 19 asks Defendant to “[s]tate the name, home address, and phone 

number of all PERSONS who recorded the payments (of commodities sold by WIN WOO 

TRADING, LLC) that were collected by PLAINTIFFS and other truckers employed by SAFETY 

TRUCKING, LLC.” (Joint Letter at 5.) In response, Safety Trucking only identified Jiatun Zheng, 

and stated that “he did not pay the alleged commission and he has no record of the alleged 

commission.” Id. As the information sought is likely imputed on Safety Trucking, Safety 

Trucking must supplement and answer according to its corporate knowledge.

H. Special Interrogatory No. 20

Special Interrogatory No. 20 asks Defendant to “[s]tate the time period(s) in which the 

truckers employed by SAFETY TRUCKING, LLC. were compensated with a commission when 

they collected payments on behalf of WIN WOO TRADING, LLC, and state with particularity 

how the commissions were calculated (i.e. based on percentage, number of stops, et al.).” (Joint 

Letter at 5.) In response, Safety Trucking again only identified Jiatun Zheng, and stated that “he 

Case 4:14-cv-02639-KAW Document 131 Filed 02/17/16 Page 4 of 5
5

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

did not pay the alleged commission and he has no record of the alleged commission.” Id. 

Plaintiffs argue that Safety Trucking’s voluminous document production included a record 

of cash payments collected by Plaintiffs on behalf of Win Woo, which showed that the 

commissions paid was 0.06% of the cash collected. (Joint Letter at 6.) In opposition, Safety 

Trucking contends that it “replied properly,” because it provided trucking services and instructed 

its drivers to follow customer instructions. Id. This is again insufficient and impertinent, 

particularly in light of the production of a record concerning the cash payments collected. Safety 

Trucking must supplement its response and answer based on its corporate knowledge, rather than 

Jiatun Zheng’s individual knowledge or lack thereof.

II. CONCLUSION

In light of the foregoing, Safety Trucking is ordered to furnish supplemental responses to 

Special Interrogatory Nos. 2, 3, 7, 8, 12, and 18-20 on or before March 4, 2016. 

The Court again declines to impose sanctions on Safety Trucking and Jiatun Zheng at this 

juncture. (See Dkt. No. 130.) Instead, the undersigned will consider whether sanctions are 

appropriate in connection with Plaintiffs’ pending motion for sanctions. (See Dkt. No. 128.)

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 17, 2016

__________________________________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:14-cv-02639-KAW Document 131 Filed 02/17/16 Page 5 of 5