Facebook, Inc. v. OnLineNic Inc

Background

Facebook and Instagram, collectively called “Facebook” in the order, sought to compel Xiamen 35.com Internet Technology Co. (“35.CN”) to provide additional responses to interrogatories, requests for production, and requests for admission. The discovery concerned, among other things, whether 35.CN and OnlineNIC were alter egos, meaning legally separate companies that may be treated as the same entity, and whether the court had personal jurisdiction over 35.CN.

Interrogatories

The court required 35.CN to amend its responses to Interrogatories 2, 15, and 16 by identifying the date, amount, and reason for payments received from or made to OnlineNIC, or made for OnlineNIC’s benefit, since 2007. The court found the information relevant to the alleged alter-ego relationship and found that 35.CN had not shown that producing it would be unduly burdensome or disproportionate.

For Interrogatory 6, 35.CN had to identify, to the extent it knew, which 35.CN employee performed each category of work for OnlineNIC. For Interrogatory 8, 35.CN had to identify all of its employees who participated in producing discovery in the case. For Interrogatories 13 and 14, 35.CN had to give complete answers concerning why listed individuals loaned money to OnlineNIC and why some individuals were repaid on loans made by others, but only as to listed individuals who were or had been 35.CN employees.

Requests for production

The court required 35.CN to produce financial statements from 2007 through 2009 in response to Requests for Production 9–13. The parties had to meet and confer about whether 35.CN could produce internal or private financial documents without violating Chinese law; if production would not violate that law, 35.CN had to produce those documents.

For Requests for Production 17 and 19, 35.CN had to produce domain-name registration contracts with persons in California, including information sufficient to determine the number of those contracts. For Requests for Production 18 and 20–23, 35.CN had to produce contracts with U.S.-based parties, including domain-name registration contracts. The court found those records relevant to personal jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k)(2), which can allow jurisdiction based on a defendant’s contacts with the United States as a whole. The court rejected 35.CN’s argument that Rule 4(k)(2) could not be considered because Facebook had not identified it in the complaint.

For Requests for Production 36 and 37, the court said 35.CN did not need to respond further if its statement that it had no responsive documents was true. The court required production of documents concerning services 35.CN provided to OnlineNIC and ID Shield since January 1, 2014, under Request 46. It also required production of responsive communications between 35.CN and OnlineNIC concerning work performed for OnlineNIC since January 1, 2014, under Request 67.

For Requests for Production 72–75, 35.CN had to produce its contracts with the Internet Corporation of Assigned Names and Numbers, non-privileged documents related to those contracts, communications with that organization since 2007, and documents concerning any enforcement action against 35.CN under the Registrar Accreditation Agreement. 35.CN had to produce responsive documents in its possession, custody, or control and could not simply reproduce the organization’s entire production.

For Requests for Production 93, 95, 97, 99, 101, and 103, 35.CN had to supplement its production with contemporaneous documents reflecting the eighteen identified payments, such as bank statements, corporate ledgers, canceled checks, or wire-transfer confirmations, if such documents existed. For Requests for Production 124–127, the court did not require further production because 35.CN said it did not have the documents concerning payments and loans between OnlineNIC or ID Shield and Shaohui Gong.

The court also ruled that 35.CN did not need to respond to Requests for Production 58 and 59, which sought documents identifying 35.CN employees involved in destroying evidence. The court said 35.CN did not have to adopt Facebook’s position that its employees participated in the destruction of evidence.

Requests for admission

The court found 35.CN’s responses to Requests for Admission 1–16 adequate. Those requests sought information about other parties, and 35.CN’s admissions in part and denials in part complied with the applicable rule. 35.CN also did not have to amend its responses to Requests for Admission 17–26 and 29–30, which sought facts about other parties or non-parties; the court found its stated lack of information was not clearly deficient.

For Requests for Admission 42–43 and 46, 35.CN did not have to amend its responses concerning assertions about Carrie Yu. For Request for Admission 81, the court overruled 35.CN’s relevance objection but sustained its objection that the request lacked a time period. Facebook could seek an admission only by amending that request to use a relevant time period.

Disposition

Unless it obtained permission for more time, 35.CN had to supplement its production and amend its discovery responses as required by the order by December 22, 2022. The order was issued by Magistrate Judge Alex G. Tse.