Opinion
No. C10-00826 LHK (HRL).
February 24, 2011
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL INTERROGATORY ANSWERS [Re: Docket No. 51]
Plaintiff Shyh-Yih Hao (Hao) says that he invested millions of dollars in two venture funds established by his brother-in-law, defendant Wu-Fu Chen (Chen). The two corporate ventures at issue — Chens LLC and WFChen LLC — were formed in July 1998 and April 2000, respectively. In essence, plaintiff says that defendant misappropriated his money. He sues for conversion, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and an accounting. Diversity jurisdiction is asserted. Chen claims that plaintiff never had any ownership interest in the ventures, and that any interest Hao might have had was funded entirely by defendant's own money.
Defendant now moves for an order compelling Hao to serve supplemental answers to interrogatories 1-11. Hao opposes the motion. The matter is deemed suitable for determination without oral argument, and the March 1, 2011 hearing is vacated. CIV. L.R. 7-1(b). Upon consideration of the moving and responding papers, this court grants the motion in part and denies it in part as follows:
A. Boilerplate Objections
In the preamble to his interrogatory responses, Hao asserted a number of General Objections. He did not, however, assert any objections in response to a particular interrogatory. This practice obscures the extent to which Hao may be withholding information and does not satisfy the requirement for specificity under Fed.R.Civ.P. 33(b)(4). Thus, to the extent Hao relies on his General Objections as to any particular interrogatory, any such objection is overruled.
B. Plaintiff's Objection to Sub-Parts
Hao contends that defendant's interrogatories are improper because they contain multiple subparts and therefore exceed the 25-interrogatory limit under Fed.R.Civ.P. 33(a)(1). Suffice to say that Hao responded to all interrogatories, notwithstanding that he now argues that he should not have had to do so. His objection is overruled.
C. Information Available to Plaintiff
Hao has an obligation to answer each interrogatory fully, under oath, providing all information available to him. FED. R. CIV. P. 33(b). Chen argues that this duty requires Hao to make inquiries and obtain information from third parties who "managed" the Schwab account — such as Hao's sister, Ellen Chen. This court agrees. Accordingly, to the extent he has not already done so, Hao shall make diligent inquiry and conduct a reasonable investigation for all responsive information called for by defendant's interrogatories. To the extent Hao must inquire of third parties (including his sister Ellen Hao Chen) in order to fully comply with his obligations under Fed.R.Civ.P. 33, he shall do so. If, after conducting diligent inquiry and a reasonable investigation, Hao has no further responsive information, he shall say so in a supplemental verified interrogatory answer. Additionally, Hao shall, along with his supplemental verified interrogatory answer, provide defendant with a declaration (a) listing Hao's efforts (and those of his counsel) to obtain responsive information; (b) certifying that all information and documents have been provided to Chen; and (c) that he and his counsel have exhausted efforts to locate responsive information and documents.
That is, account number [XXXX]-6751 at Charles Schwab Co., Inc., opened in September 1997.
D. Interrogatories 1-4
In sum, these interrogatories ask Hao for information about the Schwab account, Hao's purchase of certain share certificates, and other matters pertinent to the instant action. Chen does not seek to compel further responses to these interrogatories, except for the identification of documents relating to Hao's responses. Chen's motion as to these interrogatories is granted. To the extent there are documents pertaining to Hao's response that he has not yet identified for defendant, Hao shall do so in a supplemental verified interrogatory answer.
E. Interrogatory 5
In sum, this interrogatory seeks information about the circumstances relating to the August 2004 deposit of Cisco Systems stock to the Schwab account. This court is underwhelmed by defendant's complaint about the form of Hao's response. Nevertheless, it appears that Hao has not provided certain information called for by this interrogatory. Nor has plaintiff presented any convincing reason why he should not be required to do so. Accordingly, Chen's motion as to this interrogatory is granted. Hao shall serve a supplemental interrogatory answer, correcting the deficiencies detailed in defendant's motion papers. If, after conducting diligent inquiry and a reasonable investigation, Hao has no further responsive information, he shall say so in his supplemental verified interrogatory answer.
F. Interrogatory 6
This interrogatory essentially seeks information about the circumstances relating to the August 2004 deposit of Nortel stock in the Schwab account. This court is underwhelmed by defendant's complaint about the form of Hao's response. Nevertheless, it appears that Hao has not provided certain information called for by this interrogatory. Nor has plaintiff presented any convincing reason why he should not be required to do so. Accordingly, Chen's motion as to this interrogatory is granted. Hao shall serve a supplemental a interrogatory answer, correcting the deficiencies detailed in defendant's motion papers. If, after conducting diligent inquiry and a reasonable investigation, Hao has no further responsive information, he shall say so in his supplemental verified interrogatory answer.
G. Interrogatory 7
Briefly stated, this interrogatory asks Hao to identify documents that he personally signed and those that Ellen Hao Chen (or others) signed on his behalf. And, as for those documents signed by others, the interrogatory asks Hao to state whether his signature was made with or without his authorization. It appears to this court that Hao has answered the interrogatory, albeit not in as much detail as the interrogatory calls for and that defendant would like. Plaintiff has not presented any convincing reason why he should not be required to do so. Accordingly, Chen's motion as to this interrogatory is granted. Hao shall serve a supplemental interrogatory answer, providing the detail sought by the interrogatory. Specifically, among the documents produced thus far in this litigation, Hao shall identify for defendant which documents he signed himself and which ones Ellen Hao Chen signed on his behalf.
H. Interrogatory 8
In essence, this interrogatory asks Hao to identify all assets he deposited into the Schwab account, provide certain details about any such deposits, and identify documents relating to his response. This court is underwhelmed by defendant's objections to the form of Hao's response. Nevertheless, the court agrees that Hao's answer is evasive, and Chen's motion as to this interrogatory is granted. Did plaintiff make any deposits to the Schwab account? If so, he shall so state and provide the requested information about any such deposit. Hao shall also identify all documents relating to his response, as requested by the interrogatory.
I. Interrogatory 9
J. Interrogatory 10
K. Interrogatory 11
In sum, this interrogatory asks Hao to identify all payments he made to acquire an interest in WFChen, LLC or in response to a capital call from WFChen, LLC, as well as certain other related information, and any documents relating to his answer. As discussed in connection with Interrogatory 9 (above). The court is not convinced that Hao's answer is deficient (or, at least not as lacking as defendant claims). But, to the extent Hao has more detailed information identifying the checks he refers to in his answer, he shall provide that information in a supplemental verified interrogatory answer.
Hao shall serve his supplemental interrogatory answers to defendant's interrogatories within 14 days from the date of this order.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 24, 2011