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

FITBIT, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

P-COVE ENTERPRISES, et al.,

Defendants.

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

ORDER REGARDING 5/2/18 JOINT 

LETTER

Re: Dkt. No. 223

On May 2, 2018, the parties filed a joint letter concerning two issues. (Joint Letter, Dkt. 

No. 223 at 1.) First, whether Fitbit may object and refuse to answer the first set of interrogatories 

propounded by Defendant ELI and the first set of interrogatories propounded by Defendant 

Manhan on the grounds that the interrogatories, in combination with the interrogatories 

propounded by Defendants BCS and Baker, exceed the 25 interrogatory limit set by Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 33. Id. Second, whether Defendants may properly object to and refuse to 

answer Fitbit’s Requests for Admission and Fitbit’s Interrogatories (Set Two) on the grounds that 

Fitbit propounded them as a single set directed at multiple defendants, rather than propounding 

them as separate documents to each named defendant. Id.

A. Written Discovery to Fitbit

On February 8, 2018, Defendants BCS, ELI, Manhan, and Baker each served, separate and 

distinct sets of interrogatories on Fitbit. (Joint Letter at 1.) On March 14, 2018, Fitbit served its 

responses and objections to the four sets of interrogatories. Id. Specifically, Fitbit responded to the 

interrogatories propounded by Defendants BCS and Baker, but objected to the 25 interrogatories 

propounded by Defendant ELI and the 14 interrogatories propounded by Defendant Manhan under 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33, because they exceeded the 25 interrogatory limit, and on that 
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

ground, refused to respond. Id.

Defendants now seek to compel Fitbit’s responses to those 39 interrogatories on the 

grounds that each party is entitled to propound 25 interrogatories under Rule 33 absent stipulation 

or court order. (Joint Letter at 2.) In opposition, Fitbit argues that it properly objected to the 

Manhan and ELI interrogatories as exceeding Rule 33’s numerical limit, because the four sets of 

interrogatories propounded by the BCS Defendants seek discovery on behalf of only BCS. (Joint 

Letter at 4.) For example, Fitbit represents that “the documents themselves plainly demonstrate 

that they are nothing more than follow-on requests to the original 25 BCS Interrogatories,” 

because they each seek facts, witnesses, and documents related to Fitbit’s responses to the 

Requests for Admission propounded by Defendant BCS rather than the propounding party—Mr. 

Manhan or ELI, respectively. Id. While the parties did not attach the propounded interrogatories 

to the joint letter—which would have been ideal—the undersigned notes that Defendants do not 

dispute this characterization. Moreover, Fitbit argues that Mr. Manhan owns and runs BCS and 

ELI, neither of which has any employees, and Mr. Baker is Mr. Manhan’s head of business 

development, thereby rendering the parties nominally separate. Id.

Given that the propounded interrogatories do not reference the propounding parties, and 

instead reference discovery propounded by BCS, it is evident that Defendants are attempting to 

circumvent Rule 33. While Defendants are correct that, generally, separate parties are entitled

propound 25 interrogatories each, the court can limit the number of interrogatories “to enforce the 

spirit of the 25-interrogatory limit.” See Interrogatories, Rutter Group Prac. Guide Fed. Civ. Pro. 

Before Trial Ch. 11(IV)-B ¶11.1687 (2018). Here, enforcing the spirit of Rule 33 requires that 

Fitbit’s objections be sustained.

Accordingly, the undersigned denies Defendants’ request to compel responses to the 39 

remaining interrogatories.

B. Written Discovery to Defendants

On March 7, 2018, Fitbit propounded its first set of Requests for Admission, naming all

four defendants as responding parties. (Joint Letter at 2, Exs. F.) On April 6, 2018, Defendants 

served objections to Fitbit’s Requests for Admission on the grounds that all 264 requests were 
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

served as one set, on all four Defendants jointly, in contravention of Rule 36, which requires that 

written requests for admission be served on an individual party. (Joint Letter at 2, Ex. G.)

Similarly, on March 8, 2018, Fitbit propounded nine interrogatories in one set and named 

both BCS and ELI as responding parties. (Joint Letter at 2, Ex. H.) On April 9, 2018, Defendants 

BCS and ELI served objections to Fitbit’s Interrogatories on the grounds that the interrogatories 

similarly violated Rule 33, arguing that they were improperly directed to more than one party 

simultaneously. (Joint Letter at 2, Ex. I.)

Defendants contend that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that written 

discovery be propounded individually on each party rather than jointly. (Joint Letter at 2, 7.) In 

opposition, Fitbit argues that it served the discovery requests on each of the respective BCS 

Defendants, because they were named separately as a responding party. (Joint Letter at 8.) The 

Court agrees, because what Fitbit did was the equivalent of propounding identical, separate sets of 

requests and interrogatories.

Accordingly, the Court orders the four BCS Defendants to each separately respond to the 

requests for admission and for BCS and ELI to respond to the nine interrogatories within 7 days of 

this order.

Based on the volume and nature of the discovery disputes recently filed, the Court is 

concerned that the parties are not sufficiently meeting and conferring prior to filing their joint 

letters. The parties are reminded of their obligation to meet and confer in good faith, and are 

directed to review the Northern District’s Guidelines for Professional Conduct, which should aid 

them in their future interactions in an effort to avoid the expense of unnecessary motion practice 

and to promote the interests of judicial economy. (Available at: 

https://cand.uscourts.gov/professional_conduct_guidelines). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 14, 2018

__________________________________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge