Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-01803/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-01803-23/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 385
Nature of Suit: Property Damage - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Property

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

TASION COMMUNICATIONS, INC., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

UBIQUITI NETWORKS, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

No. C-13-1803 EMC

ORDER RE PARTIES’ JOINT LETTER

OF APRIL 1, 2015; AND BRIEFING

SCHEDULE FOR CLASS

CERTIFICATION MOTION

(Docket No. 137)

Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Ubiquiti Networks, Inc. (“Ubiquiti”) and its distributor sold a

shielded ethernet cable product called TOUGHCable that was unsuited for its advertised outdoor

use. Pending before the Court is a discovery dispute. The parties have submitted a joint letter brief

regarding the dispute, which relates to Defendant’s responses to certain interrogatories and requests

for admission. 

Plaintiffs contend that the disputed discovery requests are relevant to class certification. The

deadline for Plaintiffs to file their motion for class certification is at hand – Plaintiffs’ motion is due

April 8, 2015. Correspondingly, Plaintiffs do not seek to compel further responses. Instead,

Plaintiffs appear to seek an evidentiary sanction in the form of an “interim order that [Defendant]

Ubiquiti may not argue in opposition to class certification any basis on which Plaintiffs sought

discovery, but Ubiquiti has failed or refused to provide a good faith response.” Docket No. 137 at 3. 

Ubiquiti responds that it has responded in good faith to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests and argues that

the issues in dispute are not relevant to class certification. Ubiquiti reiterates its position that certain

Case 3:13-cv-01803-EMC Document 138 Filed 04/03/15 Page 1 of 9
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

of Plaintiffs’ requests are compound and therefore exceed the 25 interrogatories permitted under the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Having reviewed the parties’ submissions, including over one-hundred pages of discoveryrelated material, the Court declines to issue the sanction Plaintiffs seek, but agrees that certain of

Ubiquiti’s responses are deficient. The Court therefore COMPELS the further responses described

herein.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs’ specific objections appear to pertain primarily to Ubiquiti’s interrogatroy

responses, although Plaintiffs also object that Ubiquiti’s responses to their requests for admission

were evasive or otherwise incomplete. These discovery requests were served on Ubiquiti on January

8, 2015. Plaintiffs have propounded interrogatories generally aimed at determining facts relating to: 

Ubiquiti’s denials or unqualified admissions in response to requests for admission and in its Answer;

notice provided to Ubiquiti of defects through the return merchandise authorization (“RMA”)

process or through Ubiquiti’s online community forum; Ubiquiti’s knowledge of the particulars of

end-users’ cable installation; serial numbers associated with TOUGHCable; Ubiquiti’s limited

warranty; differences between the TOUGHCable products; Ubiquiti’s position that the

TOUGHCable did not fail a particular UV test; and steps Ubiquiti took after the UV test. 

Despite being voluminous, Ubiquiti’s initial response to Plaintiffs’ interrogatories provided

little meaningful information. In its initial response, Ubiquiti refused to provide any substantive

response to interrogatories 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 11, 21, and 24. In a similar vein, Ubiquiti responded that

“the information Ubiquiti knows or can readily obtain is insufficient to enable [it] to provide a

substantive response” to interrogatories 13 and 14. Ubiquiti also claimed to be “unable to respond”

to interrogatories 22 and 23. In response to interrogatories 7-10, the gist of Ubiquiti’s response was

that it “may have communicated” with certain end-users of TOUGHCable who posted a complaint at

http://community.ubnt.com. Ubiquiti claimed that information on its forum is “publicly and equally

available to Plaintiff” and Ubiquiti refused to “incur the unnecessary expense and burden of finding

that information for Plaintiff.” Ubiquiti also generally averred that it had “produced documents

reflecting information responsive” to interrogatories 8 and 19 without identifying the documents in

Case 3:13-cv-01803-EMC Document 138 Filed 04/03/15 Page 2 of 9
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

3

any way. In response to interrogatories that sought “all facts” related to whether certain alleged test

results constituted a failure, Ubiquiti variously pointed to specific words used or not used in the test

report and incorporated prior responses by reference. 

 On March 10, 2015, Ubiquiti sent a meet and confer letter that largely reiterated and added to

its initial objections. Ubiquiti did, however, identify certain representative responsive documents

that were produced in the course of discovery by Bates number in response to interrogatories 4, 5,

13, 15, 22-24. The day before the parties filed their discovery letter brief, Ubiquiti served

supplemental, responses to interrogatories 4, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19 and to requests for admission

1, 2, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14.

Plaintiffs focus their argument on three categories of requests. First, Plaintiffs argue that

Ubiquiti has not provided sufficient discovery as to the technical details and manufacturing of the

cable, which relates directly to any class certification argument regarding purported differences in

the batches of TOUGHCable. Second, Plaintiffs contend that Ubiquiti has refused to provide

information from its RMA database and its online community forum. Third, Plaintiffs argue that

Ubiquiti has stonewalled efforts to get responses regarding four interrogatories that Ubiquiti initially

objected to as compound. 

Ubiquiti responds that any disputes regarding the identity of the manufacturer of a particular

batch of TOUGHCable do not affect Ubiquiti’s argument that there were batch differences. Second,

Ubiquiti dismisses the idea that adequacy of notice, e.g., through Ubiquiti’s online community

forum, can be resolved at class certification. Third, Ubiquiti reiterates its objection that

interrogatories 1, 2, 3, and 24 are compound and that any attempt to narrow and re-serve them in a

non-compound manner constitute “additional requests in excess of the [25 interrogatory] limit.” 

II. DISCUSSION

A. Legal Standard

“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.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(1). 

Discrete subparts may be considered as part of one interrogatory where they “are logically or

factually subsumed within and necessarily related to the primary question.” In re Lithium Ion

Case 3:13-cv-01803-EMC Document 138 Filed 04/03/15 Page 3 of 9
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

4

Batteries Antitrust Litig., No. 13MD02420YGRDMR, 2015 WL 1221924, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 17,

2015) (quoting Safeco of Am. v. Rawstrom, 181 F.R.D. 441, 445 (C.D. Cal.1998)); Dawson v. New

Life Cmty. Servs., Inc., No. 5:13-CV-0881-PSG, 2013 WL 6512052, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 12, 2013).

Some courts have counted “every interrogatory which is served, and causes a responding

party to undertake the burden of preparing and serving objections to the interrogatory” against the

25 interrogatory limit. See Benas v. Baca, No. CV00-011507LGBSHX, 2003 WL 21697750, at *1

(C.D. Cal. July 16, 2003) (quoting Walker v. Lakewood Condominium Owners Ass’n, 186 F.R.D.

584, 587 (C.D. Cal. 1999)). Where a party does not undertake the burden of responding to an initial

interrogatory, however, subsequent interrogatories do not necessarily count against the limit. Id. 

In terms of scope, under Rule 33, “[a]n interrogatory may relate to any matter that may be

inquired into under Rule 26(b).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(2). “An interrogatory is not objectionable

merely because it asks for an opinion or contention that relates to fact or the application of law to

fact, but the court may order that the interrogatory need not be answered until designated discovery

is complete, or until a pretrial conference or some other time.” Id. 

Rule 26(b), in turn, reaches broadly. “Relevant information need not be admissible at the

trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b); see also Foster v. ScentAir Technologies, Inc., No. 13-CV-05772-TEH (MEJ),

2014 WL 4063160, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2014) (“Relevancy, for the purposes of discovery, is

defined broadly, although it is not without ultimate and necessary boundaries.” (quoting Gonzales v.

Google, Inc., 234 F.R.D. 674, 679-80 (N.D. Cal.2006)).

Where an answer to an interrogatory may be gleaned from reviewing a party’s business

records, and such review would be equally burdensome to each party, Rule 33 permits the

responding party to “specify[] the records that must be reviewed.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d)(1). Rule

33 requires, however, that the records be specified “in sufficient detail to enable the interrogating

party to locate and identify them as readily as the responding party could.” Id. 

B. Ubiquiti’s Initial Response

To begin, the Court observes that Ubiquiti’s initial response was undoubtedly deficient in

multiple respects. For example, Ubiquiti provided no substantive response to the interrogatory

Case 3:13-cv-01803-EMC Document 138 Filed 04/03/15 Page 4 of 9
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

5

seeking identification of all TOUGHCable RMAs, even though it appears undisputed that the RMAs

are relevant and in Ubiquiti’s custody and control. Among other things, Ubiquiti objected based on

the possibility that RMAs may contain private information of its customers. Ubiquiti lodged this

objection on February 24, 2015, months after the Court entered the parties’ stipulated protective

order. Docket No. 109. The Court concludes that this objection appears to be without merit. 

As another example, Ubiquiti initially responded to other interrogatories with a general

reference to “produc[ing] documents reflecting information responsive.” Ubiquiti failed to specify

those documents, as is required. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d)(1). Finally, although not raised by

Plaintiffs, the Court also observes that Ubiquiti appears not to have complied with Rule 33’s

requirements that interrogatories must be answered “by the party to whom they are directed” and

that each interrogatory is to be answered “under oath.” Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 33(b)(1)(A); (b)(3); see

also Wright and Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, vol. 8B, sec. 2172 (3d ed.) (“It is improper

for the party’s attorney to answer [interrogatories.]”); cf. Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 33(b)(5) (an attorney

may sign objections). If Ubiquiti had abided by Rule 33’s requirements in its initial responses, these

protracted discovery disputes might have been avoided.

The Court notes the problems with Ubiquiti’s initial responses, because it does not find that

Ubiquiti has substantiated its position that “it has been responding in good faith to all discovery

requests.” See Docket No. 137 at 5. Nevertheless, in view of Ubiquiti’s supplemental responses,

which cure certain of the deficiencies in Ubiquiti’s initial response, and the limited purpose for

which the discovery in issue is presently being sought, the Court will focus on the specific

objections before the Court. 

C. Discovery Categories

1. Cable Uniformity

The first category for which Plaintiffs raise objections concerns the similarity or differences

of TOUGHCable across batches. 

Ubiquiti must provide full and complete answers to Interrogatory Nos. 1, 2, 3, 13, and 14

(which focuses most directly on potential differences in cable quality), and include information

Case 3:13-cv-01803-EMC Document 138 Filed 04/03/15 Page 5 of 9
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

1

 The Court notes that Ubiquiti’s repeated crutch – invocation of its “continuing

investigation” – is not particularly compelling where the discovery requests in issue were served

months ago. The Court further reminds Ubiquiti of its duty to supplement its responses if it “learns

that in some material respect the disclosure or response is incomplete or incorrect.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

26(e)(1)(A). 

6

received either directly or indirectly by Ubiquiti (not limited to “personal knowledge”). Any

evidence of differences in batches that may affect quality must be produced.

As to RFA supplementation, the Court, disagrees with Ubiquiti’s contention that the existing

discovery responses allow Plaintiffs to contend that Haitang made “all of the TOUGHCable.” 

Docket No. 137 at 4. Ubiquiti’s supplemental response to Plaintiffs’ request for admission 10 states

that “[a]fter a reasonable inquiry and investigation of sources reasonably available to Ubiquiti, it

appears that nearly all of TOUGHCable sold in 2011 was manufactured by Jiaxing Haitang

Electronics Co., LTD.” Docket No. 137-1 at 98-99. In its response, Ubiquiti proceeds to reveal that

“Ubiquiti has learned that there were purchase orders in December 2011 from another manufacturer

other than Jiaxing Hiatang Electronics Co., Ltd., and is in the process of ascertaining whether any of

these purchase orders to this manufacturer for TOUGHCable were actually filled in December

2011.” 

Thus, in addition to supplemental responses to Interrogatory Nos. 1, 2, 3, 13, and 14, the

Court ORDERS Ubiquiti to produce to Plaintiffs any purchase orders that Ubiquiti has located from

this other identified manufacturer within three (3) days of this order. The Court further ORDERS

Ubiquiti to clarify whether or not any manufacturer other than Haitang and the single manufacturer

who received purchase orders in December 2011 is alleged to have manufactured TOUGHCable in

2011. To the extent that Ubiquiti has located any other documents regarding the quantity and

identity of the TOUGHCable that was purportedly manufactured by this other entity in 2011,

Ubiquiti shall produce those documents as well. 

All discovery ordered herein shall be produced to Plaintiffs by April 15, 2015.

1

2. Notice

Plaintiffs sought communications to Ubiquiti that included any complaint about

TOUGHCable, and propounded interrogatories that specifically requested information regarding

Case 3:13-cv-01803-EMC Document 138 Filed 04/03/15 Page 6 of 9
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

7

RMAs as well as comments on Ubiquiti’s online community forum. Plaintiffs, in their letter brief

discuss the evolving meet and confer process and refer to seeking “Court assistance in resolving

these outstanding issues,” yet do not specify precisely what the issues are. It appears that Ubiquiti

has produced what it calls “a large portion,” although not all of the documents from its RMA

database. Ubiquiti does not discuss any reason for the delay in locating the outstanding RMA

information or show any undue burden in locating this information. Instead, Ubiquiti asserts that it

“will produce additional RMA information as it is located.” Ubiquiti contends that Plaintiffs do not

“need every single RMA participants’ identity” to move for class certification. Ubiquiti further

argues that it does not agree “that a forum or blog post (with nothing more) is notice, let alone

adequate notice for the breach of warranty claims.” 

Ubiquiti’s views on the adequacy of the forum posts for notice purposes do not determine the

scope of discovery. As one noted commentator aptly summarized:

A party may base interrogatories on its theory of the case. The

interrogatories cannot be objected to because, on the interrogated

party’s theory, they are based on a false assumption.

Wright and Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, vol. 8B, sec. 2168 (3d ed.). The RMAs and

forum comments are discoverable under Rule 26(b).

In its written objections, Ubiquiti asserted that information posted online at its community

forum is “publicly and equally available to Plaintiff” and therefore refused to locate that information

for Plaintiffs. On this record, the Court has doubts that the forum posts are “equally available” to

Plaintiffs where Ubiquiti appears to host the forum pages and, as administrator, may have unique

searching capabilities or increased access to older or deleted posts. Because such posts constitute

electronically stored information, posts pulled internally by Ubiquiti may also reveal metadata or

other pertinent information that is not publicly available. Such metadata may be responsive to the

interrogatories at issue, for example metadata may reflect the identity of the poster. See Docket No.

110 at 4 (stipulating to produce certain metadata). 

The Court therefore agrees that Ubiquiti should make a further response. The Court

therefore ORDERS Ubiquiti to respond to interrogatory 6, including its subparts a-c, which “are

Case 3:13-cv-01803-EMC Document 138 Filed 04/03/15 Page 7 of 9
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 2 In re Lithium Ion Batteries Antitrust Litig., 2015 WL 1221924, at *2.

8

logically or factually subsumed within and necessarily related to the primary question,”2 and to

complete its production of RMA information. The additional response and production should be

completed by April 15, 2015. The Court further finds that a meaningful response to interrogatory 6

will address other requests related to Ubiquiti’s online community forum.

To the extent that Ubiquiti finds the terms “jacket issues” or “jacket issue consequences” in

interrogatory 6 to be vague and ambiguous, the Court notes that the specific search terms Plaintiffs

provided in interrogatory 5 appear well-suited to locating responsive information for interrogatory 6. 

Should Ubiquiti prefer to produce responsive forum comments in lieu of a narrative response, the

Court finds that such a document production will suffice.

3. Objection to Subparts

Plaintiffs’ first three interrogatories seek facts, identification of documents, and identification

of witnesses for all of Ubiquiti’s responses to the requests for admission that were not an unqualified

admission. The Court agrees that Plaintiffs’ first three interrogatories are improperly compound and

therefore exceed the 25 interrogatory limit. Chapman v. California Dep’t of Educ., No. C-01-1780

CRB (EMC), 2002 WL 32854376, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 6, 2002) (“If the interrogatory relates to

distinct and separate requests for admission, the interrogatories should be treated as the same

number of subparts as there are requests for admission.”); Safeco, 181 F.R.D. at 446 (“Where the

underlying requests for admissions concern different, separate, or discrete matters, however, the

interrogatory should be viewed as containing a subpart for each request.”); see also Civ. L.R. 33-2

(“A demand that a party set forth the basis for a denial of an admission requested under Fed. R. Civ.

P. 36 will be treated as a separate discovery request (an interrogatory) and is allowable only to the

extent that a party is entitled to propound additional interrogatories.”). However because these

interrogatories seek relevant information, and the burden on Ubiquiti is not substantial, the Court

grants leave to exceed Rule 33 limits sua sponte. Responses are due April 15, 2015. 

Case 3:13-cv-01803-EMC Document 138 Filed 04/03/15 Page 8 of 9
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

9

III. CONCLUSION

The ruling herein moots Plaintiffs’ request for evidentiary sanctions. The Court notes,

however, that in considering class certification, the Court will not be inclined to consider any facts

that were not disclosed in discovery despite being the subject of a discovery request or to consider

any opinion based on such undisclosed facts. 

Because of the relief ordered herein, the class certification briefing and hearing schedule

shall be revised to the following:

Class Certification Motion due by April 23, 2015

Response/Opposition Brief to Class Certification Motion due by May 22, 2015

Reply Brief due by June 4, 2015

Hearing on Class Certification Motion scheduled for 1:30 p.m., June 18, 2015.

This order disposes of Docket No. 137. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 3, 2015

_________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:13-cv-01803-EMC Document 138 Filed 04/03/15 Page 9 of 9