Federal District Court Opinions

ROUNTREE v. CHING FENG BLINDS INDUSTRY CO., (Alaska
12-29-2006) VALERIE ROUNTREE, individually and as Personal
Representative of the ESTATE OF APRIL LYNNE COX; MORGAN
SCHEDIWY, a minor through her natural mother and guardian
VALERIE ROUNTREE; and CHRISTOPHER COX, Plaintiffs, v. CHING
FENG BLINDS INDUSTRY CO., LTD., and WINDOW COVERING
MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION, Defendants. 3:04-cv-112 JWS.
United States District Court, D. Alaska. December 29, 2006

ORDER FROM CHAMBERS

[Re: Motion To Compel at Doc. 116]

JOHN SEDWICK, District Judge

I. MOTION PRESENTED

At docket 116 plaintiffs move to compel defendant Ching
Feng Blinds Industry Co., Ltd. (“Ching Feng”) to respond
more fully to certain discovery requests served by
plaintiffs. The motion is opposed and has been fully
briefed. Oral argument has not been requested and would not
assist the court.

II. BACKGROUND

The case at bar results from the death of a child, April
Lynne Cox, who got tangled in a window blind’s cord at her
grandparents’ home and died from strangulation Page 2 on
May 27, 2002.[fn1] As a consequence of her death,
plaintiffs filed this lawsuit against Ching Feng and three
other defendants. At docket 87, the court ordered
plaintiffs to show cause why their claims against Ching
Feng should not be dismissed for lack of personal
jurisdiction over that defendant. The burden is on
plaintiffs to demonstrate jurisdiction over Ching Feng
exists.[fn2]

In an order at docket 98, the court concluded that there
was no general jurisdiction over Ching Feng, but that
plaintiffs were entitled to conduct additional discovery to
determine whether specific jurisdiction might exist here in
the District of Alaska. Among other things, the test for
specific jurisdiction requires plaintiffs to show that
Ching Feng purposefully directed its activities at Alaska.
Noting that plaintiffs had requested limited discovery to
help them establish that proposition, the court’s order
made provision for plaintiffs to conduct additional
discovery on that topic.[fn3]

Plaintiffs directed 44 requests for admission (“RA”), 21
requests for production (“RP”), and 12 interrogatories
(“INT”) to Ching Feng. Copies of the discovery requests and
the responses have been provided to the court.[fn4]

III. DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs assert that Ching Feng’s responses are
inadequate[fn5] while Ching Feng takes the position that
many of the responses fall outside the limited scope of
discovery authorized by the court’s order, and that the
responses are otherwise adequate. The court will consider
the specific responses targeted by plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs’ first assertion is that the response to RA 20
is inconsistent with the response to INT 11. RA 20 reads:
“Please admit that you do not know when or by Page 3 whom
the subject window blinds were manufactured.” The response
translated into English is, “Yes.” INT 20 reads: “Please
describe with particularity what steps you have taken, if
any, to determine whether the subject blinds were
manufactured by you.” The response translated into English
reads: “Could do some determination to a certain extent, by
[looking at] the blinds’ appearance and parts.” In
resolving the adequacy of the responses to RA 20 and INT 11
it is appropriate to examine the response to a closely
related interrogatory, INT 12. It reads: “If you contend
that the subject blinds were not manufactured by you,
please set forth with particularity each and every fact
upon which you rely for such contention.” The translated
response is as follows: “The subject blinds’ place of
production was labeled as “Made in China.” But all of [the
products in] our dealings with Jencraft were produced in
and exported from Taiwan.” These responses when read as a
whole are adequate. Plaintiffs are not entitled to relief
with respect to them.

Next, plaintiffs object to the responses to INT 5 and INT
7. INT 5 reads as follows: “Please identify each U.S.
distributor and/or retailer to whom you delivered
horizontal window blinds between 1995 and 2002.” INT 7
reads as follows: Please state the number of horizontal
window blinds manufactured by you or on your behalf that
were delivered to the U.S. in each of the years 1995
through 2002, inclusive.” The translated response to each
interrogatory is the same: “Too long ago. [We are] unable
to provide.” The court agrees with plaintiffs that these
responses are perfunctory and do not comply with Ching
Feng’s duty to make a diligent and good faith effort to
respond. Perhaps the information is not available —
although it is counter-intuitive to suppose that a
manufacturer does not keep a record of when and to whom it
has successfully sold its products — but such a
response needs to include a showing of what effort was made
to find the information and why it is unavailable.
Plaintiffs are entitled to fuller responses to INT 5 and 7.

Next, plaintiffs point to RA 40 which reads, “Please admit
that horizontal window blinds manufactured by you or on
your behalf were distributed into Alaska between 1995 and
2002, inclusive.” The response to RA 40 in its entirety
reads, “Not sure.” Ching Feng must either admit or deny,
and if it cannot honestly do either, then its Page 4
response must “set forth in detail why the answering party
cannot truthfully admit or deny the matter.”[fn6] Plaintiffs
point to the same problem with the next three RAs. The same
“not sure” answer was given to RAs 41, 42 and 43. For the
same reason, these responses are inadequate. Plaintiff is
entitled to relief as to RAs 40, 41, 42, and 43.

The next series of discovery requests about which
plaintiff complains are ones as to which Ching Feng
objected on the grounds that they were directed at
discovery of information outside the limited scope of
discovery relating to forum directed activities which was
authorized by the court. Plaintiff points to the RPs 7, 9,
10 thru 17, 20 and 21. After examining these RPs, the court
agrees with Ching Feng. The requests are outside the
limited scope of discovery which has been permitted.
Plaintiff is not entitled to relief with respect to these
RPs.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the motion at docket 116
is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows:

1. Within thirty (30) days from the filing of this order
defendant Ching Feng shall serve complete responses to INTs
5 and 7, and RAs 40, 41, 42, and 43.

2. Plaintiffs are not entitled to relief as to the other
discovery responses.

3. It is the court’s preliminary view that no award of
expenses to either party is appropriate. Any party who
believes otherwise may file a motion pursuant to
Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(4)(C) within five (5) days from the
filing of this order.

[fn1] Doc. 6, p. 2, § 3.

[fn2] Dole Food Co., Inc. v. Watts, 303 F.3d 1104, 1108 (9th
Cir. 2002).

[fn3] Order at doc. 98.

[fn4] Copies are attached to docket 113.

[fn5] The motion at docket 116 incorporates the arguments
made in the renewed response to the court’s order to show
cause which is at docket 113.

[fn6] Fed.R.Civ.P. 36(a). Page 1