Wang v. Zymergen Inc.

Background

The court considered a joint statement about discovery disagreements between the lead plaintiff and the DCVC Defendants: Data Collective II, L.P., DCVC Opportunity Fund, L.P., and DCVC Management Co., LLC. The discovery concerned the “relation back” doctrine under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c)(1)(C). That doctrine can allow claims in an amended complaint to be treated as though they were filed with an earlier complaint.

A prior order on motions to dismiss stated that deciding whether the claims against DCVC Management relate back would depend on factual questions, including whether DCVC Management had actual notice of the action and whether it knew or should have known that it would have been named except for a mistake. The discovery dispute concerned those issues and DCVC’s statute-of-limitations defense.

Discovery Requests the Court Allowed

The court ruled that only three disputed requests were relevant and proportional to the needs of the litigation under Rule 26: DCVC’s contention Interrogatory No. 5, DCVC’s Request for Production No. 4, and the plaintiff’s Request for Production No. 19. The court found that all other interrogatories and requests for production were either not relevant on their face or, even if arguably relevant, not proportional.

Required Supplemental Responses

By February 20, 2025, the plaintiff had to provide a verified supplemental response to DCVC Interrogatory No. 5. The response had to identify, by paragraph number and complaint, the specific allegations in complaints filed before the Second Amended Complaint that the plaintiff contended put DCVC Management on notice of the action or of the possibility that it would have been named except for a mistake.

For DCVC Request for Production No. 4, the plaintiff had to identify and produce any documents on which it intended to rely to show that DCVC Management had notice before the Second Amended Complaint. If a document had already been produced, the plaintiff could identify its Bates number instead.

For the plaintiff’s Request for Production No. 19, DCVC had to identify and produce any documents or communications on which it intended to rely in support of its statute-of-limitations defense. If DCVC did not intend to rely on documents for that defense, it had to say so in its supplemental response.

Scope of the Order

The court rejected DCVC’s argument that it could not proceed without knowing what the mistake was, stating that DCVC knew the alleged mistake was the omission of DCVC Management from the prior complaint. The court also ruled that the order applied only to the discovery dispute between the plaintiff and DCVC. It did not bind the SoftBank Defendants or the True Ventures Defendants, although the court expected the parties to use the order during efforts to resolve similar disputes without additional court involvement.