Eagle Eyes Traffic Industry USA Holding LLC v. E-Go Bike LLC

Background

Eagle Eyes moved for an order compelling E-Go to provide complete responses, without objections, to three types of discovery: requests for production of documents, interrogatories (written questions), and requests for admission. Eagle Eyes also requested $3,912.50 in sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37.

The court initially thought it might need to decide whether E-Go had been properly served on January 5, 2022 and whether its responses were late. At the hearing, however, E-Go’s lawyer admitted that service by email on April 11, 2022 was valid and that E-Go had not served timely responses. The parties also agreed that E-Go still had not served responses as of the day before the hearing.

E-Go explained that it had ceased operations toward the end of the previous year and that COVID-19 lockdowns in Shanghai and surrounding areas made it difficult for U.S. counsel to obtain information from a former E-Go employee. The court found that this explained why producing documents or providing substantive information might have been difficult, but did not explain why counsel failed to serve written objections. The court stated that drafting objections was a legal task that did not require the missing information.

Court’s analysis

For the interrogatories, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33 provides that an objection not made on time is waived unless the court finds good cause to excuse the delay. The court found no good cause. It concluded that counsel could have served timely objections even if counsel could not yet provide complete substantive answers.

For the document requests, the court relied on Ninth Circuit authority stating that failing to object within the required time waives objections. The court again determined that the COVID-19-related difficulty in obtaining documents did not prevent counsel from serving appropriate objections.

For the requests for admission, Rule 36 provides that a matter is admitted unless the receiving party timely serves a written answer or objection. The court ruled that the requests were admitted. It noted that many requests concerned allegations E-Go had already denied in its answer or its affirmative defenses. The court also discussed one request concerning sales or distribution of the accused products and stated that counsel could have served objections or a lack-of-knowledge response rather than allowing the requests to go unanswered.

Ruling

The court ordered:

The court denied the sanctions request because the request had been combined with the motion to compel, while the local rule required a sanctions motion to be filed separately.