Wang v. Zymergen Inc.

Background

Plaintiff Biao Wang submitted a joint discovery dispute concerning Interrogatory No. 2 to the Underwriter Defendants. The interrogatory asked the Underwriter Defendants to identify each person or entity on which they relied under their Tenth Defense, titled “Reasonable Reliance,” and to identify the relevant work, opinions, information, representations, reports, or advice involved.

The Underwriter Defendants identified 15 entities, including law firms and other corporate entities, but provided no additional information. Wang argued that the response should also identify the specific opinions or advice relied upon. Wang pointed to the March 28, 2024 fact-discovery deadline and the need for enough time to conduct discovery from the third parties.

Court’s analysis

The court rejected the Underwriter Defendants’ argument that the contention interrogatory was premature. The court stated that document production should be substantially complete and that fact discovery would close in just over 90 days. Because the interrogatory sought information about third parties whose opinions or advice formed the basis of a pleaded defense, the requested discovery was likely relevant and proportionate to the needs of the litigation.

The court also rejected the argument that identifying the relied-on material would be too burdensome. It explained that a contention interrogatory is intended to reveal what an opposing party will argue at trial, rather than all facts supporting that argument. The Underwriter Defendants therefore had to identify whatever material would show how they intended to establish their reasonable-reliance defense. The court noted that they could rely on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(d) if they had a good-faith basis for doing so.

The court further rejected the suggestion that the complete answer could wait until after depositions. It stated that depositions had not apparently been noticed or scheduled and that the response was needed promptly so Wang could pursue discovery from the identified third parties.

Order

The court ordered the Underwriter Defendants to provide the specific material they contended supported their reliance defense. When an Underwriter Defendant consistently interacted with a readily identifiable individual or group, those people had to be identified. Identification was not required when interactions occurred at a higher level or varied over time so that no individual or group was readily identifiable and more detailed identification would not be proportional to the needs of the litigation.

The opinion resolves a discovery dispute and does not decide the merits of the underlying claims or the reasonable-reliance defense.