Chen v. Vesync Corporation
- Alex Tse
- 3:23-cv-04458
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Rick Chen v. Vesync, Judge Tse denied without prejudice Chen’s request to compel two interrogatory responses, ordering discussion about one and denying relief on the other for now.
Rick Chen and Vesync Corporation, including the parties’ handling of Interrogatory Nos. 16 and 20.
What happened
In Rick Chen v. Vesync Corporation, Rick Chen asked the court to order Vesync Corporation, also called Levoit in the opinion, to respond to Interrogatory Nos. 16 and 20.
The court found that Interrogatory No. 16 contained twelve separately countable questions because it sought information about twelve requests for admission. The court also found that Vesync had answered Interrogatory No. 20 as written.
The court denied the requested relief without prejudice. It ordered the parties to discuss which of the twelve questions Vesync must answer and allowed a later joint discovery letter if they could not resolve the issue. Judge Alex G. Tse denied further relief on Interrogatory No. 20 for now.
The detailed version
- Chen v. Vesync Corporation · No. 3:23-cv-04458
- Alex Tse
- Oct. 1, 2025
Background
Rick Chen sought an order compelling Vesync Corporation, referred to as Levoit in the opinion, to respond to Second Set of Interrogatories Nos. 16 and 20. Vesync opposed the request. The court denied the requested relief without prejudice.
Interrogatory No. 16
Interrogatory No. 16 requested the complete legal and factual basis for each response to twelve requests for admission that Vesync did not fully admit. For each such response, it sought the supporting facts, documents or other evidence, and knowledgeable persons.
The parties disputed whether Interrogatory No. 16 counted as one interrogatory or as multiple subparts. The court held that it was compound as written and should be counted as twelve separate interrogatories—one for each relevant request for admission. The court noted that counting it this way might cause Chen to exceed the limit in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(a)(1). If Chen seeks additional interrogatories, he must ask for permission and explain in detail why they are necessary.
The court ordered the parties to meet and confer about which of the twelve interrogatories Vesync must answer. If Chen seeks permission to serve additional interrogatories and the parties cannot resolve the dispute informally, they may submit an updated joint discovery letter.
Interrogatory No. 20
Interrogatory No. 20 asked for the identity of the person most knowledgeable about customer-support-team communications concerning the challenged products during the class period. Chen argued that Vesync had not answered it. Vesync responded that no single person was most knowledgeable and argued that its answer was sufficient.
The court denied this request without prejudice, finding that Vesync had answered the interrogatory as drafted and that it was not clear that anything further could be compelled at that time. The court stated that it would consider further argument if depositions or documents later showed that this subject could be addressed by more than one witness but fewer than many witnesses.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.