EXHIBIT A

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

Case 3:17-cv-00079-EMC Document 223-1 Filed 05/02/18 Page 1 of 22
1

DEFENDANT P-COVE ENTERPRISES INC. dba BUYERS CONSULTATION SERVICE’S INTERROGATORIES 

TO PLAINTIFF FITBIT, INC., SET TWO

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

BROWN WHITE & OSBORN LLP

THOMAS M. BROWN (Bar No. 117449)

CALEB E. MASON (Bar No. 246653)

MATTHEW G. WHITTEN (Bar No. 307410)

333 South Hope Street, 40th Floor

Los Angeles, California 90071-1406

Telephone: 213.613.0500

Facsimile: 213.613.0550

tbrown@brownwhitelaw.com

cmason@brownwhitelaw.com

Attorneys for Defendants

P-COVE ENTERPRISES INC. dba 

BUYERS CONSULTATION SERVICE, 

ENVIRONMENTAL LIQUIDATION, 

INC., JONATHAN MANHAN and 

FRANCIS MICHAEL BAKER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FITBIT, INC., a Delaware Corporation,

Plaintiff,

 v.

LAGUNA 2, LLC, a New Jersey Limited Liability Company; JOEL BLANK, an 

individual; CALI RESOURCES, INC. 

dba BUY NOW FACTORY DIRECT, a 

California Corporation; CARLOS 

KELVIN, an individual; GREAT 

VALUE, LLC, a California Limited 

Liability Company; P-COVE 

ENTERPRISES INC. dba BUYERS 

CONSULTATION SERVICE, a 

California Corporation; 

ENVIRONMENTAL LIQUIDATION, 

INC., a California Corporation; 

JONATHAN MANHAN, an individual; 

FRANCIS MICHAEL BAKER aka 

MIKE BAKER, an individual; MI 

TECHNOLOGIES, INC. dba DISCOUNT 

MERCHANT, a California Corporation, AMIR TAFRESHI, an individual, 

INNOVATIVE ENTERPRISES, INC. 

dba THE MERCHANT KING, a 

California Corporation; JOUBIN 

RAHIMI, an individual, and DOES 12-30, 

Case No.: 3:17-cv-00079-EMC

Judge: Hon. Edward M. Chen

DEFENDANT P-COVE 

ENTERPRISES INC. dba BUYERS 

CONSULTATION SERVICE’S 

INTERROGATORIES TO PLAINTIFF 

FITBIT, INC., SET TWO

Case 3:17-cv-00079-EMC Document 223-1 Filed 05/02/18 Page 2 of 22
EXHIBIT B

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

Case 3:17-cv-00079-EMC Document 223-1 Filed 05/02/18 Page 3 of 22
1

DEFENDANT FRANCIS MICHAEL BAKER’S INTERROGATORIES TO PLAINTIFF FITBIT, INC., SET ONE

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

BROWN WHITE & OSBORN LLP

THOMAS M. BROWN (Bar No. 117449)

CALEB E. MASON (Bar No. 246653)

MATTHEW G. WHITTEN (Bar No. 307410)

333 South Hope Street, 40th Floor

Los Angeles, California 90071-1406

Telephone: 213.613.0500

Facsimile: 213.613.0550

tbrown@brownwhitelaw.com

cmason@brownwhitelaw.com

Attorneys for Defendants

P-COVE ENTERPRISES INC. dba 

BUYERS CONSULTATION SERVICE, 

ENVIRONMENTAL LIQUIDATION, 

INC., JONATHAN MANHAN and 

FRANCIS MICHAEL BAKER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FITBIT, INC., a Delaware Corporation,

Plaintiff,

 v.

LAGUNA 2, LLC, a New Jersey Limited Liability Company; JOEL BLANK, an 

individual; CALI RESOURCES, INC. 

dba BUY NOW FACTORY DIRECT, a 

California Corporation; CARLOS 

KELVIN, an individual; GREAT 

VALUE, LLC, a California Limited 

Liability Company; P-COVE 

ENTERPRISES INC. dba BUYERS 

CONSULTATION SERVICE, a 

California Corporation; 

ENVIRONMENTAL LIQUIDATION, 

INC., a California Corporation; 

JONATHAN MANHAN, an individual; 

FRANCIS MICHAEL BAKER aka 

MIKE BAKER, an individual; MI 

TECHNOLOGIES, INC. dba DISCOUNT 

MERCHANT, a California Corporation, AMIR TAFRESHI, an individual, 

INNOVATIVE ENTERPRISES, INC. 

dba THE MERCHANT KING, a 

California Corporation; JOUBIN 

Case No.: 3:17-cv-00079-EMC

Judge: Hon. Edward M. Chen

DEFENDANT FRANCIS MICHAEL 

BAKER’S INTERROGATORIES TO 

PLAINTIFF FITBIT, INC., SET ONE

Case 3:17-cv-00079-EMC Document 223-1 Filed 05/02/18 Page 4 of 22
EXHIBIT C

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

Case 3:17-cv-00079-EMC Document 223-1 Filed 05/02/18 Page 5 of 22
1 

DEFENDANT ENVIRONMENTAL LIQUIDATION, INC.’S INTERROGATORIES TO PLAINTIFF FITBIT, INC., 

SET ONE

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

BROWN WHITE & OSBORN LLP

THOMAS M. BROWN (Bar No. 117449)

CALEB E. MASON (Bar No. 246653)

MATTHEW G. WHITTEN (Bar No. 307410)

333 South Hope Street, 40th Floor

Los Angeles, California 90071-1406

Telephone: 213.613.0500

Facsimile: 213.613.0550

tbrown@brownwhitelaw.com

cmason@brownwhitelaw.com

Attorneys for Defendants

P-COVE ENTERPRISES INC. dba 

BUYERS CONSULTATION SERVICE, 

ENVIRONMENTAL LIQUIDATION, 

INC., JONATHAN MANHAN and 

FRANCIS MICHAEL BAKER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FITBIT, INC., a Delaware Corporation,

Plaintiff, 

 v.

LAGUNA 2, LLC, a New Jersey Limited Liability Company; JOEL BLANK, an 

individual; CALI RESOURCES, INC. 

dba BUY NOW FACTORY DIRECT, a 

California Corporation; CARLOS 

KELVIN, an individual; GREAT 

VALUE, LLC, a California Limited 

Liability Company; P-COVE 

ENTERPRISES INC. dba BUYERS 

CONSULTATION SERVICE, a 

California Corporation; 

ENVIRONMENTAL LIQUIDATION, 

INC., a California Corporation; 

JONATHAN MANHAN, an individual; 

FRANCIS MICHAEL BAKER aka 

MIKE BAKER, an individual; MI 

TECHNOLOGIES, INC. dba DISCOUNT 

MERCHANT, a California Corporation, AMIR TAFRESHI, an individual, 

INNOVATIVE ENTERPRISES, INC. 

dba THE MERCHANT KING, a 

California Corporation; JOUBIN 

RAHIMI, an individual, and DOES 12-30, 

Case No.: 3:17-cv-00079-EMC

Judge: Hon. Edward M. Chen

DEFENDANT ENVIRONMENTAL 

LIQUIDATION, INC.’S

INTERROGATORIES TO PLAINTIFF 

FITBIT, INC., SET ONE

Case 3:17-cv-00079-EMC Document 223-1 Filed 05/02/18 Page 6 of 22
EXHIBIT D

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

Case 3:17-cv-00079-EMC Document 223-1 Filed 05/02/18 Page 7 of 22
1

DEFENDANT JONATHAN MANHAN’S INTERROGATORIES TO PLAINTIFF FITBIT, INC., SET ONE

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

BROWN WHITE & OSBORN LLP

THOMAS M. BROWN (Bar No. 117449)

CALEB E. MASON (Bar No. 246653)

MATTHEW G. WHITTEN (Bar No. 307410)

333 South Hope Street, 40th Floor

Los Angeles, California 90071-1406

Telephone: 213.613.0500

Facsimile: 213.613.0550

tbrown@brownwhitelaw.com

cmason@brownwhitelaw.com

Attorneys for Defendants

P-COVE ENTERPRISES INC. dba 

BUYERS CONSULTATION SERVICE, 

ENVIRONMENTAL LIQUIDATION, 

INC., JONATHAN MANHAN and 

FRANCIS MICHAEL BAKER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FITBIT, INC., a Delaware Corporation,

Plaintiff,

 v.

LAGUNA 2, LLC, a New Jersey Limited Liability Company; JOEL BLANK, an 

individual; CALI RESOURCES, INC. 

dba BUY NOW FACTORY DIRECT, a 

California Corporation; CARLOS 

KELVIN, an individual; GREAT 

VALUE, LLC, a California Limited 

Liability Company; P-COVE 

ENTERPRISES INC. dba BUYERS 

CONSULTATION SERVICE, a 

California Corporation; 

ENVIRONMENTAL LIQUIDATION, 

INC., a California Corporation; 

JONATHAN MANHAN, an individual; 

FRANCIS MICHAEL BAKER aka 

MIKE BAKER, an individual; MI 

TECHNOLOGIES, INC. dba DISCOUNT 

MERCHANT, a California Corporation, AMIR TAFRESHI, an individual, 

INNOVATIVE ENTERPRISES, INC. 

dba THE MERCHANT KING, a 

California Corporation; JOUBIN 

Case No.: 3:17-cv-00079-EMC

Judge: Hon. Edward M. Chen

DEFENDANT JONATHAN 

MANHAN’S INTERROGATORIES 

TO PLAINTIFF FITBIT, INC., SET 

ONE

Case 3:17-cv-00079-EMC Document 223-1 Filed 05/02/18 Page 8 of 22
EXHIBIT E

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

Case 3:17-cv-00079-EMC Document 223-1 Filed 05/02/18 Page 9 of 22
circumvent the 25 interrogatory limit set by Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 33.

Based on the foregoing General and Speeific Objections, Responding Party will not

respond to this Interrogatory.

1

2

3

4 INTERROGATORY NO. 3:

IfYOU denied Request for Admission No. 5 ofDefendant P-Cove Enterprises Inc. dba

Buyers Consultation Serviee’s Requests for Admission, Set One, IDENTIFY all witnesses who

have knowledge offaets which support YOUR denial and state what information eaeh witness

5

6

7

8 possesses.

9 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 3;

Q. Responding Party incorporates the General Objections above as ifset forth fully herein. In

addition to its General Objections, Responding Party specifically objects to this Interrogatory to

the extent it seeks information that is proteeted by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney workproduct doctrine, or any other applicable privilege, protection or immunity. Responding Party

further specifieally objects to this Interrogatory on the ground that it is overbroad, unduly

burdensome, and seeks discovery ofmatters not relevant to any claim or defense and not

proportional to the needs ofthe case. Responding Party further specifically objects to this

Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks doeuments that are not in Responding Party’s possession,

custody or control, but rather likely are in other Defendants’, third party’s, and/or Propounding

Parties’ possession, custody or control, and/or otherwise equally accessible to the Propounding

Parties. Responding Party speeifieally objects to the Interrogatory as an impermissible effort to

circumvent the 25 interrogatory limit set by Fed. R. Civ. Proe. 33.

Based on the foregoing General and Specific Objections, Responding Party will not

respond to this Interrogatory.

10

CC

II -d < U_ 11. ^

11

CO

0^5 12

□C CNJ 0)

DC <

cn 0^

13 z

UJ

O

14

15

u CO z^g

< s<

_ s DC

16

lij li.

^ W 2 17

HI O < _ O (0

Q 18

U)

19

20

21

22

23

24 INTERROGATORY NO. 4:

If YOU denied Request for Admission No. 6 of Defendant P-Cove Enterprises Inc. dba

Buyers Consultation Service’s Requests for Admission, Set One, state all facts which support

25

26

27 YOUR denial.

28

9461-10\3494492v4 5 Case No. 3:17-cv-00079-EMC (EDL)

PLAINTIFF FITBIT, INC.’S OBJECTIONS TO FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED BY

DEFENDANT ENVIRONMENTAL LIQUIDATION, INC.

Case 3:17-cv-00079-EMC Document 223-1 Filed 05/02/18 Page 10 of 22
1 respond to this Interrogatory.

2 INTERROGATORY NO. 4;

3 IDENTIFY all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the evidence on which Brett Millar relied

in Paragraph 20 of his Declaration in support of YOUR ex parte motion for entry of a Temporary

Restraining Order, ECF No. 29, specifically his statement that: “Analysis by Fitbit quality

engineers, acting at my direction, determined that this specific product does not meet Fitbifs

quality control standards.

4

5

6

99 7

8 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 4;

Responding Party incorporates the General Objections above as ifset forth fully herein. In

addition to its General Objections, Responding Party specifically objects to this Interrogatory to

the extent it seeks information that is protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney workproduct doctrine, or any other applicable privilege, protection or immunity. Responding Party

further specifically objects to this Interrogatory on the ground that it is overbroad, unduly

burdensome, and seeks discovery ofmatters not relevant to any claim or defense and not

proportional to the needs ofthe case. Responding Party further specifically objects to this

Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks documents that are not in Responding Party’s possession,

custody or control, but rather likely are in other Defendants’, third party’s, and/or Propounding

Parties’ possession, custody or control, and/or otherwise equally accessible to the Propounding

Parties. Responding Party specifically objects to the Interrogatory as an impermissible effort to

circumvent the 25 interrogatory limit set by Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 33.

Based on the foregoing General and Specific Objections, Responding Party will not

respond to this Interrogatory.

9

D. 10

CC

II ' LL iL T11

CO

12

Q- CM 0)

CC <

CO 0^

13 ^ z

2^zCU SP

< u t

lij

u

14

15

Q CO

2 g — 10 u.

^ Z

lii ^ <

O CO

16

17

Q 18

U)

19

20

21

22

23 INTERROGATORY NO. 5:

State all facts RELATING TO all instances prior to YOUR AGREEMENT with BCS—

specifically prior to May 12, 2015—that YOU have taken steps to prevent used FITBIT

BRANDED products from being resold, including, but not limited to, marking and defacing such

products.

24

25

26

27

28

9461-10\3494478v5 6 Case No. 3;17-cv-00079-EMC (EDL)

PLAINTIFF FITBIT, INC.’S OBJECTIONS TO FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED BY

DEFENDANT JONATHAN MANHAN

Case 3:17-cv-00079-EMC Document 223-1 Filed 05/02/18 Page 11 of 22
EXHIBIT F

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

Case 3:17-cv-00079-EMC Document 223-1 Filed 05/02/18 Page 12 of 22
1 JEFFREY C. HALLAM (State Bar No. 161259)

E-Mail:

ZACHARY J. ALINDER (State Bar No. 209009)

E-Mail:

ELLEN P. LIU (State Bar No. 280459)

E-Mail:

REBECCA K. FELSENTHAL (State Bar No. 303476)

E-Mail:

SIDEMAN & BANCROFT LLP

One Embarcadero Center, Twenty-Second Floor

San Francisco, California 94111-3711

Telephone:

Facsimile:

jhallam@sideman. com

2

zalinder@sideman. com

3

eliu@sideman. com

4

rfelsenthal@sideman. com

5

6

(415)392-1960

7 (415)392-0827

Attorneys for Plaintiff

FITBIT, INC.

8

9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT a. 10 _l NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

h 8^ I I -J I LL u. T01.5

QC CN 0)

a: <

IH ^

LU ^

u Z z £ — . Ill u

11

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

12

FITBIT, ESfC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 3:17-cv-00079-EMC (EDL)

PLAINTIFF FITBIT, INC.’S FIRST SET OF

REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION TO

DEFENDANTS P-COVE ENTERPRISES,

INC. DBA BUYERS CONSULTATION

SERVICE; ENVIRONMENTAL

LIQUIDATION, INC.; JONATHAN

MANHAN; AND FRANCIS MICHAEL

BAKER AKA MIKE BAKER

CO O 13

Plaintiff,

14

°mg< > LU ^

3 *§8

o 0)

<i< ^ 111 u_

^ 2:

LU ^ <

V. 15

16 LAGUNA 2, LLC, et al.,

17 Defendants.

O cfl

Q 18

CO

19 Plaintiff Fitbit, Inc.

Defendants P-Cove Enterprises, Inc. dba Buyers Consultation

Service; Environmental Liquidation, Inc.; Jonathan Manhan; and

Francis Michael Baker aka Mike Baker

PROPOUNDING PARTY:

20 RESPONDING PARTY:

21

22

23 SET NO.: One

24 PlaintiffFitbit, Inc. hereby serves upon Defendants P-Cove Enterprises, Inc. dba Buyers

Consultation Service, Environmental Liquidation, Inc., Jonathan Manhan, and Francis Michael

Baker a.k.a. Mike Baker (the “BCS Defendants”) the following Requests for Admission, each of

which must be answered fully, separately, and pursuant in all respects to Rule 36 ofthe Federal

25

26

27

28 1 Case No. 3:17-cv-00079-EMC (EDL)

PLAINTIFF FITBIT, INC.’S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION TO DEFENDANTS P-COVE

ENTERPRISES, INC. DBA BUYERS CONSULTATION SERVICE; ENVIRONMENTAL LIQUIDATION, INC.;

JONATHAN MANHAN; AND FRANCIS MICHAEL BAKER AKA MIKE BAKER

Case 3:17-cv-00079-EMC Document 223-1 Filed 05/02/18 Page 13 of 22
1 Rules of Civil Procedure.

2 DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS

PERSON(S)” shall mean any natural person, firm, association, organization,

partnership, business, trust, corporation, governmental or public entity or any other form oflegal

entity.

3 1.

4

5

YOU, YOUR” or “YOURS” shall mean and refer to BCS Defendants P-Cove 99 id 6 2. di,

Enterprises, Inc. dba Buyers Consultation Service, Environmental Liquidation, Inc., Jonathan

Manhan, Francis Michael Baker a.k.a. Mike Baker, and any oftheir principals, officers, directors,

employees, agents, and/or any other PERSON acting on their behalf

Document” shall mean all documents, electronically stored information, and

tangible things as described in Rule 34 ofthe Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including without

limitation all written and graphic matter and all other means ofrecording information, whether

written, typed, transcribed, spoken, or in any other way produced, reproduced, or recorded, and

including but not limited to: originals, drafts, computer-sorted and computer-retrievable

information, copies and duplicates that are marked with any notation or annotation or otherwise

differ in any way from the original. Documents includes but is not limited to all communications,

correspondence, memoranda, reports, notes, minutes, contracts, agreements, statements ofwork,

bills oflading, books, records, checks, vouchers, invoices, purchase orders, ledgers, spreadsheets,

presentations, documents, diaries, logs, calendars, calendar entries, computer printouts, computer

disks, card files, lists of persons attending meetings or conferences, sketches, diagrams,

calculations, evaluations, analyses, directions, work papers, press clippings, sworn or unsworn

statements, requisitions, manuals or guidelines, audit work papers, financial analyses, tables of

organizations, charts, graphs, indices, advertisements and promotional materials, audited and

unaudited financial statements, trade letters, trade publications, newspapers and newsletters,

photographs, emails, voicemails, text messages, instant messages, imessages, chat messages of

any kind, skype messages, videos, any other electronic or mechanical records, facsimiles,

telegrams and telecopies, and audiotapes. Documents expressly includes any electronic records

7

8

9

0. 10 3. dd

_i

U_ LL vi

o “ -

q:; CN C3)

tf <

UJ 7

11

12

(0 U 13

14

3cbl8 15

U 0)

Z

<^i<^ tc 5^ UJ u_

Z W z

UJ oO <in

16

17

Q 18

0)

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 2 Case No. 3:17-cv-00079-EMC (EDL)

PLAINTIFF FITBIT, INC.’S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION TO DEFENDANTS P-COVE

ENTERPRISES, INC. DBA BUYERS CONSULTATION SERVICE; ENVIRONMENTAL LIQUIDATION, INC.;

JONATHAN MANHAN; AND FRANCIS MICHAEL BAKER AKA MIKE BAKER

Case 3:17-cv-00079-EMC Document 223-1 Filed 05/02/18 Page 14 of 22
EXHIBIT G

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

Case 3:17-cv-00079-EMC Document 223-1 Filed 05/02/18 Page 15 of 22
6

BCS DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF FITBIT, INC.’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE

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

full therein. An answer to a Request is not intended to be a waiver of any applicable 

specific or general objection to such Request.

Without waiver of the foregoing, Responding Parties further responds as 

follows:

RESPONSE TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1: 

Admit that the original of the document attached as Exhibit 1 is genuine.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1: 

Notwithstanding, expressly reserving, and without waiving any and all 

substantive objections to this Request, Notwithstanding, expressly reserving, and 

without waiving any and all substantive objections to this Request, Responding 

Parties object to this Request as defective as to form. Propounding Party has 

addressed the Request to four (4) separate defendants, in violation of Fed. Rule Civ. 

Pro. 36. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 36(a)(1) does not provide for joint 

responses by multiple parties. Calloway v. Veal, No. CIV S-09-2907 GEB, 2012 WL 

929607, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2012) (denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel 

because Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission were improper in seeking joint responses 

from both Defendants). See also Rule 36(a) (“A party may serve on any other party a 

written request to admit, for the purposes of the pending action only, the truth of any 

matters within the scope of Rule 26(b)(1)...”) (emphasis added); Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 

36(a)(4) (referring to a singular answering party). An objection to Rule 36 Requests 

as defective for seeking responses by multiple parties is proper. Calloway, 2012 WL 

929607, at *4 (denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel responses to Requests for 

Admission because the Requests sought joint responses from multiple parties).

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 2: 

Admit that the original of the document attached as Exhibit 1 is a true and 

accurate reproduction of the original of that document.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 2: 

Case 3:17-cv-00079-EMC Document 223-1 Filed 05/02/18 Page 16 of 22
EXHIBIT H

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

Case 3:17-cv-00079-EMC Document 223-1 Filed 05/02/18 Page 17 of 22
JEFFREY C. HALLAM (State Bar No. 161259)

E-Mail:

ZACHARY J. ALINDER (State Bar No. 209009)

E-Mail:

ELLEN P. LIU (State Bar No. 280459)

E-Mail:

REBECCA K. FELSENTHAL (State Bar No. 303476)

E-Mail:

SIDEMAN & BANCROFT LLP

One Embareadero Center, Twenty-Seeond Floor

San Francisco, California 94111-3711

Telephone:

Facsimile:

1

jhallam@sideman. com

2

zalinder@sideman. com

3

eliu@sideman. com

4

rfelsenthal@sideman. com

5

6

(415) 392-1960

7 (415)392-0827

Attorneys for Plaintiff

FITBIT, INC.

8

9

0. 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT _J

h 8 ^

II —It LL 11. ^

11 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

0^5 12 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

QT 0)

r •> DC <

03 '>1 H Z in i- p

o Z z 5

<s-

> LU C-'

3cd§8y w

z^g

<

13

U. FITBIT, INC., a Delaware corporation.

Plaintiff,

14 Case No. 3:17-cv-00079-EMC (EDL)

PLAINTIFF FITBIT, INC.’S SECOND SET

OF INTERROGATORIES TO

DEFENDANTS P-COVE ENTERPRISES,

INC. DBA BUYERS CONSULTATION

SERVICE AND ENVIRONMENTAL

LIQUIDATION INC.

15

16 V.

LU LL 17 LAGUNA 2, LLC, et al.,

LU oO <cn

Q 18 Defendants.

U)

19

20 Plaintiff Fitbit, Inc.

Defendant P-Cove Enterprises, Inc. dba Buyers Consultation

Service and Environmental Liquidation Inc.

Two

PROPOUNDING PARTY:

21 RESPONDING PARTY:

22

23 SET NO.:

24 Pursuant to Rule 33 ofthe Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff Fitbit, Inc. requests

that Defendants P-Cove Enterprises, Inc. dba Buyers Consultation Service and Environmental

Liquidation Inc. answer the following interrogatories in the above-captioned Action (the

Action”).

25

26

27 cc

28 1 Case No. 3:17-cv-00079-EMC (EDL)

PLAINTIFF FITBIT, INC.’S SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES

TO DEFENDANTS P-COVE ENTERPRISES, INC. DBA BUYERS CONSULTATION SERVICE

AND ENVIRONMENTAL LIQUIDATION INC.

Case 3:17-cv-00079-EMC Document 223-1 Filed 05/02/18 Page 18 of 22
1 DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS

PERSON(S)” includes any natural person, firm, association, organization,

partnership, business, trust, corporation, governmental or public entity or any other form oflegal

entity.

2 1.

3

4

5 2. DOCUMENT” or “DOCUMENTS” shall mean all documents, electronically

stored information, and tangible things as described in Rule 34 ofthe Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, including without limitation all written and graphic matter and all other means of

recording information, whether written, transcribed, taped, filmed, microfilmed, or in any other

way produced, reproduced, or recorded, and including but not limited to: originals, drafts,

computer-sorted and computer-retrievable information, copies and duplicates that are marked with

any notation or annotation or otherwise differ in any way from the original, correspondence,

memoranda, reports, notes, minutes, contracts, agreements, books, records, checks, vouchers,

invoices, purchase orders, ledgers, diaries, logs, calendars, computer printouts, computer disks,

card files, lists ofpersons attending meetings or conferences, sketches, diagrams, calculations,

evaluations, analyses, directions, work papers, press clippings, sworn or unsworn statements,

requisitions, manuals or guidelines, audit work papers, financial analyses, tables of organizations,

charts, graphs, indices, advertisements and promotional materials, audited and unaudited financial

statements, trade letters, trade publications, newspapers and newsletters, photographs, emails,

electronic or mechanical records, facsimiles, telegrams and telecopies, and audiotapes. Each draft,

annotated, or otherwise non-identieal copy is a separate DOCUMENT within the meaning ofthis

term. DOCUMENTS shall also include any removable sticky notes, flags, or other attachments

affixed to any ofthe foregoing, as well as the files, folder tabs, and labels appended to or

6

7

8

9

n 10 _i

CC

Hof

II —1 '

LL li. T11

CO

0^5 12

QC 0)

W U in ^

III -7 t- ^

u Z z S

13

UL 14

2DQg<

> IXJ ^

3cbS8 15

Q 0)

< i<^ DC

16

UJ LL 17

HI OO u) <

Q 18

(/)

19

20

21

22

containing any documents. DOCUMENTS expressly include all ELECTRONIC RECORDS.

ELECTRONIC RECORDS” shall mean the original (or identical duplicate when

23

24 3.

the original is not available) and any non-identical copies (whether non-identical because of notes

made on copies or attached comments, annotations, marks, transmission notations, or highlighting

of any kind) of writings of every kind and description inscribed by mechanical, facsimile.

25

26

27

28 2 Case No. 3:17-cv-00079-EMC (EDL)

PLAINTIFF FITBIT, INC.’S SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES

TO DEFENDANTS P-COVE ENTERPRISES, INC. DBA BUYERS CONSULTATION SERVICE

AND ENVIRONMENTAL LIQUIDATION INC.

Case 3:17-cv-00079-EMC Document 223-1 Filed 05/02/18 Page 19 of 22
electronic, magnetic, digital, or other means. ELECTRONIC RECORDS includes, by way of

example and not by limitation, computer programs (whether private, commercial, or work-inprogress), programming notes and instructions, activity listings of email transmittals and receipts,

output resulting from the use of any software program (including word processing documents,

spreadsheets, database files, charts, graphs and outlines), electronic mail, and any and all

miscellaneous files and file fragments, regardless ofthe media on which they reside and regardless

ofwhether said ELECTRONIC RECORDS exists in an active file, deleted file, or file fragment.

ELECTRONIC RECORDS includes without limitation any and all items stored on computer

memories, hard disks, diskettes and cartridges, network drives, network memory storage, archived

tapes and cartridges, backup tapes, floppy disks, CD-ROMs, removable media, magnetic tapes of

all types, microfiche, and any other media used for digital data storage or transmittal.

ELECTRONIC RECORDS also includes the file, folder tabs, and containers and labels appended

to or associated with each original and non-identical copy.

COMMUNICATION(S)” means any oral, written or electronic transmission of

information, including but not limited to meetings, discussions, conversations, telephone calls,

telegrams, memoranda, letters, telecopies, telexes, conferences, messages, notes or seminars.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Q. 10 _1

—^ oc

9 11

i-g,

IL [l

CO

0^5 12

tN 0)

0) U W 2

UJ t~ Qo Z z £

>cQg<

> UJ ^

3cbS8y 0)

<^i<^ cc ^ UJ u_

z

13

4. u

14

15

16

RELATING TO, 95 6C 17 5. RELATED TO” or “RELATE(S) TO” means constituting.

Q containing, concerning, embodying, reflecting, identifying, stating, mentioning, discussing,

describing, evidencing, supporting, or in any other way being relevant to that given subject matter.

ALL” shall be understood to include and encompass “ANY,” and “ANY” shall be

understood to include and encompass “ALL.

18

U)

19

20 6.

99 21

7. PLAINTIFF” or “Fitbft” shall mean Plaintiff FITBIT, INC. u22

8. DEFENDANTS, 99 a

23 YOU” and “YOUR” shall mean Defendants P-COVE

24 ENTERPRISES, INC. DBA BUYERS CONSULTATION SERVICE and ENVIRONMENTAL

LIQUIDATION, INC., and any oftheir subsidiaries, sister companies, affiliates, dbas, officers,

directors, employees, contractors, agents, and/or other PERSONS acting on YOUR behalf

IDENTIFY” shall mean shall mean to state the full name of, the subjects ofwhich

25

26

27 9.

28 3 Case No. 3:17-cv-00079-EMC (EDL)

PLAINTIFF FITBIT, INC.’S SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES

TO DEFENDANTS P-COVE ENTERPRISES, INC. DBA BUYERS CONSULTATION SERVICE

AND ENVIRONMENTAL LIQUIDATION INC.

Case 3:17-cv-00079-EMC Document 223-1 Filed 05/02/18 Page 20 of 22
EXHIBIT I

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

Case 3:17-cv-00079-EMC Document 223-1 Filed 05/02/18 Page 21 of 22
7

OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF FITBIT, INC.’S INTERROGATORIES, SET TWO

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

party who must answer in writing under oath). An objection to Rule 33 

Interrogatories as defective for seeking responses by multiple parties is 

proper. Calloway, 2012 WL 929607, at *4 (denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel 

responses to Interrogatories because the Interrogatories sought joint responses from 

multiple parties).

INTERROGATORY NO. 20:

If YOU denied, in whole or in part, Fitbit's Interrogatory for Admission No. 

227, STATE ALL FACTS that RELATE TO YOUR denial.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 20:

Responding Parties incorporate their General Objections. Notwithstanding, expressly 

reserving, and without waiving any and all substantive objections to this Interrogatory, 

Responding Parties further object to this Interrogatory as defective as to form. 

Propounding Party has addressed the Interrogatory to two (2) separate defendants, in 

violation of Fed. Rule Civ. Pro. 33. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 33(a)(1) 

does not provide for joint responses by multiple parties. Calloway v. Veal, No. CIV 

S-09-2907 GEB, 2012 WL 929607, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2012) (denying 

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel because Plaintiff’s Interrogatories were improper in 

seeking joint responses from both Defendants). See also Rule 33(a) (“a party may 

serve on any other party no more than 25 written interrogatories”) (emphasis added); 

Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 33(b)(1), (3) (referring to a singular answering party who must 

answer in writing under oath). An objection to Rule 33 Interrogatories as defective 

for seeking responses by multiple parties is proper. Calloway, 2012 WL 929607, at 

*4 (denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel responses to Interrogatories because the 

Interrogatories sought joint responses from multiple parties).

INTERROGATORY NO. 21:

If YOU denied, in whole or in part, Fitbit's Interrogatory for Admission No. 

243, STATE ALL FACTS that RELATE TO YOUR denial.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 21:

Case 3:17-cv-00079-EMC Document 223-1 Filed 05/02/18 Page 22 of 22