Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-md-02420/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-md-02420-54/pdf.json

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

IN RE:

LITHIUM ION BATTERIES ANTITRUST 

LITIGATION

Case No. 13-md-02420-YGR (DMR)

ORDER ON JOINT DISCOVERY 

LETTER 

Re: Dkt. No. 650

Plaintiffs and Defendant Toshiba Corporation (“Toshiba”) filed a joint letter brief on 

February 13, 2015 regarding a dispute in which Toshiba claims that Plaintiffs’ interrogatories 

contain subparts and therefore comprise more than the existing numerical limit on allowable

interrogatories. [Docket No. 650 (Joint Letter).] On a related issue, all parties ask the court to

modify the number of interrogatories each side may serve under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

33(a). The court finds that this matter is appropriate for resolution without oral argument pursuant 

to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b). Having considered the parties’ arguments and for the reasons set forth 

below, the court enters the following order.

A. Modification of Discovery Limitations

As a threshold matter, the parties ask the court to modify the number of interrogatories 

each side may serve under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(a). Plaintiffs propose that the court 

raise Rule 33(a)’s presumptive limit of 25 interrogatories to allow Plaintiffs collectively to serve 

60 interrogatories on Defendants, and Defendants collectively to serve 60 interrogatories on

Plaintiffs. [Docket No. 518 (Oct. 21, 2014 Case Management Statement).] In a supplemental

filing, Plaintiffs clarified that under their proposal, any interrogatory that they propound would 

count as a single interrogatory, even if it is directed at multiple defendants or defendant families.

Case 4:13-md-02420-YGR Document 690 Filed 03/17/15 Page 1 of 6
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

Defendants agree that Plaintiffs should be permitted to serve a total of 60 interrogatories on 

Defendants collectively, in the manner described by Plaintiffs. [Docket No. 674.] However, 

Defendants propose that as a group, they should be permitted to serve a total of 120 interrogatories 

on Plaintiffs. According to Defendants, permitting them to serve double the number of 

interrogatories allotted to Plaintiffs makes sense in light of Plaintiffs’ disparate circumstances, as 

Plaintiffs include retailers of finished products, finished product wholesalers, and consumers. 

Additionally, certain Plaintiffs face unique circumstances such as bankruptcy (e.g., Circuit City). 

Defendants argue that these varied circumstances necessitate individualized interrogatories.

In response, Plaintiffs argue that there is no justification for granting Defendants a greater 

number of interrogatories. They assert that all litigants in this case are faced with gathering 

discovery regarding complex factual and legal issues. For example, Plaintiffs describe the 

disparate circumstances of the nine defendant families, and assert that fairness dictates that the 

parties be permitted an equal number of interrogatories.

The court finds that it is appropriate to adjust the number of interrogatories either side may 

propound. Plaintiffs collectively may serve 60 interrogatories on Defendants, and Defendants 

collectively may serve 60 interrogatories on Plaintiffs. The court will consider raising these limits 

if either side demonstrates good cause pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(2).

B. Dispute Regarding Toshiba’s Responses to Interrogatories

Also at issue in the joint letter are Toshiba’s responses to Plaintiffs’ interrogatories. 

Plaintiffs propounded three sets of interrogatories on Toshiba for a total of sixteen interrogatories. 

Toshiba argues that the interrogatories include discrete subparts and that the three sets actually 

contain a total of 69 interrogatories, thus exceeding both the presumptive limit of 25 

interrogatories under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(a)(1), as well as the 60 interrogatories 

contemplated by the parties and now ordered by the court, as described above. Toshiba refused to 

provide substantive responses to the bulk of the interrogatories on that ground. 

1. Legal Standard

Case 4:13-md-02420-YGR Document 690 Filed 03/17/15 Page 2 of 6
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

“Unless otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court, a party may serve on any other party 

no more than 25 written interrogatories, including all discrete subparts. Leave to serve additional 

interrogatories may be granted to the extent consistent with Rule 26(b)(2).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

33(a)(1). Although the rule does not define the term “discrete subparts,” a number of courts have 

construed the term to mean that “interrogatory subparts are to be counted as one interrogatory . . . 

if they are logically or factually subsumed within and necessarily related to the primary question.” 

Safeco of Am. v. Rawstrom, 181 F.R.D. 441, 445 (C.D. Cal. 1998) (citation omitted); Trevino v. 

ACB Am., Inc., 232 F.R.D. 612, 614 (N.D. Cal. 2006); see also 8A Charles A. Wright, Arthur R. 

Miller & Richard L. Marcus, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2168.1, at 39-40 (3d ed. 2010) (“it 

would appear that an interrogatory containing subparts directed at eliciting details concerning a 

common theme should be considered a single question, although the breadth of the area inquired 

about may be disputable. On the other hand, an interrogatory with subparts inquiring into discrete 

areas is likely to be counted as more than one for purposes of the limitation.”).

When served with interrogatories, the responding party must serve its answers and any 

objections within 30 days. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(2). “Each interrogatory must, to the extent it is 

not objected to, be answered separately and fully in writing under oath.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(3). 

2. Analysis

i. Set One (Interrogatory Nos. 2-6)

In Plaintiffs’ set one, Toshiba challenges interrogatory nos. 2-6 as containing discrete 

subparts. Plaintiffs’ interrogatory no. 2 asks Toshiba to describe its relationships with affiliates, 

joint ventures, or subsidiaries related to or involved in the manufacture, sale, marketing, or 

distribution of lithium ion rechargeable battery cells packs incorporating lithium ion rechargeable 

battery cells, or finished products incorporating such cells. The subparts seek information about 

the identification of those entities, as well as their functions, personnel, and mechanisms of 

oversight and control by Toshiba. Nos. 3 and 4 ask Toshiba for information about its own cell 

fabrication (no. 3) and battery packing facilities (no. 4) and those of its affiliates/joint 

ventures/subsidiaries. The subparts to those interrogatories seek information about the facilities, 

Case 4:13-md-02420-YGR Document 690 Filed 03/17/15 Page 3 of 6
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

including names and addresses, ownership, employees, dates of operation, description and amount 

of batteries produced, destination of products produced, production capacity, and monthly 

capacity-utilization rates. No. 5 asks about Toshiba’s relationship with contract manufacturers of 

battery packs, and the subparts seek information about Toshiba’s ownership or control of those 

packers, as well as time periods, products, and customers involved. No. 6 asks about customers to 

which Toshiba and its affiliates/joint ventures/subsidiaries sold battery cells, packs, or finished 

products, and seeks information about the identification of such customers, as well as their 

locations, purchases, and Toshiba’s methods of negotiations. 

The court finds that the subparts to interrogatory no. 2 are “subsumed within and 

necessarily related to the primary question[s]” because the subparts ask for details concerning a 

common theme, and accordingly, overrules Toshiba’s compound objections to this interrogatory.

2

See Safeco, 181 F.R.D. at 445. 

Interrogatory nos. 3 and 4 pose a closer question because the scope of the area of inquiry 

covered by the subparts is fairly broad. For example, in addition to basic information about cell 

fabrication and battery packing facilities, these interrogatories ask for the identification of “the 

amount and nature of each product produced at each facility” and the “methods used to track 

production capacity, capacity utilization, and inventory levels at each facility.” Such information 

arguably goes beyond the scope of the main question, which focuses more on descriptions of the 

facilities and how they operate. Nos. 5 and 6 also arguably contain discrete subparts. No. 5 asks 

about Toshiba’s relationship with any contract manufacturers and asks for general details about 

any such relationships, but goes on to inquire about specific contract terms (see 5(f)). No. 6 asks 

for general identifying information about customers to which Toshiba, its affiliates, joint ventures, 

or subsidiaries sold cells, packs, or finished products, but also seeks information about the exact 

products sold to each customer (see 6(f)). 

 

2

The court acknowledges Toshiba’s point that Rule 33(a)(1) was only one of its objections to the 

interrogatories. (See Joint Letter 9.) The remaining objections are not before the court and the 

court expresses no opinion on them.

Case 4:13-md-02420-YGR Document 690 Filed 03/17/15 Page 4 of 6
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

The court notes that Plaintiffs propounded the interrogatories in this set before discovery 

fully commenced. Plaintiffs did so in order to obtain information about Defendants’ corporate 

structures, location of relevant facilities, and identification of customers. Plaintiffs originally 

proposed taking Rule 30(b)(6) depositions to obtain this information, but Defendants, including 

Toshiba, argued that such depositions would be burdensome and that interrogatories would be the 

appropriate means for discovery of such information. [Docket No. 459 (June 13, 2014 Joint 

Letter) 9-10.] At the July 2014 hearing, the court agreed with Defendants and ordered Plaintiffs to 

proceed via interrogatories pending the official opening of discovery by Judge Gonzales Rogers, 

once the pleadings were sufficiently settled. Here, Plaintiffs argue that the interrogatories in this 

set necessarily specified subparts so that they could obtain information at the level of detail they 

would have sought in the depositions that Defendants opposed. Given that the court ordered 

Plaintiffs to obtain this information by way of interrogatories instead of depositions, and in the 

interest of justice and fairness, the court will treat nos. 3, 4, 5, and 6 as individual interrogatories. 

Therefore, the court overrules the objections raised by Toshiba in this joint letter.1 Plaintiffs’ set 

one thus contains six interrogatories. 

ii. Set Two (Interrogatory Nos. 1, 2, 7)

In Set Two, Defendants challenge interrogatory nos. 1, 2, and 7 as containing discrete 

subparts. Interrogatory no. 1 asks Toshiba to identify actual or proposed agreements with 

competitors relating to pricing, material inputs, production/output levels and inventory levels of 

cells and batteries. It also asks for details such as the names of participants in the agreements, as 

well as dates and terms of agreements and information about meetings regarding such agreements. 

No. 2 asks Toshiba to identify meetings or communications with competitors during the relevant 

time period regarding eight subjects, such as pricing, profit margins or market share, and 

production/output levels, and to provide details about the dates, participants, and subject matters 

of such meetings. These interrogatories each count as a single interrogatory, because the first 

 

1 Apparently, the same interrogatories were served on all other Defendants, and only Toshiba 

objected on this basis. (See Joint Letter 1.)

Case 4:13-md-02420-YGR Document 690 Filed 03/17/15 Page 5 of 6
6

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

questions – identify agreements, meetings, and communications with competitors – are “primary,” 

and the “subsequent questions are secondary to the primary question.” See Kendall v. GES 

Exposition Servs., Inc., 174 F.R.D. 684, 685 (D. Nev. 1997); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 33, Advisory 

Committee Notes, 1993 amendment (“[a] question asking about communications of a particular 

type should be treated as a single interrogatory even though it requests that the time, place, persons 

present, and contents be stated separately for each such communication”). 

Interrogatory No. 7 asks Toshiba to state whether it manufactured or sold more than a de 

minimis quantity of cells or packs without corresponding “Underwriter Laboratories (‘UL’) listed 

mark” within the relevant time period, and if so to identify those products and state their intended 

use. This question, which asks for a yes or no answer and then asks for additional information 

based upon the response, qualifies as a single interrogatory. See, e.g., Swackhammer v. Sprint 

Corp. PCS, 225 F.R.D. 658, 661, 665 (D. Kan. 2004) (finding interrogatory with subparts asking 

for more information where answer to preceding question was in the affirmative “relate to a 

common theme” and was properly considered a single interrogatory). Therefore, the court finds 

that Plaintiffs’ second set of interrogatories contains nine interrogatories.

C. Conclusion

The court increases the number of interrogatories either side may propound beyond Rule 

33(a)'s presumptive limits. Plaintiffs collectively may serve 60 interrogatories on Defendants, and 

Defendants collectively may serve 60 interrogatories on Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs’ request for an order 

compelling Toshiba to provide full and complete responses to its three sets of interrogatories is 

GRANTED. Toshiba shall serve supplemental responses within thirty days of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 17, 2015

________________________

DONNA M. RYU

United States Magistrate Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Donna M. Ryu

Case 4:13-md-02420-YGR Document 690 Filed 03/17/15 Page 6 of 6