Lashify Inc v. Pro Lash Inc, et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION
LASHIFY, Inc.,
Plaintiff
v.
PRO LASH, Inc., et al,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER DENYING [87]: DEFENDANTS’
SHORT FORM DISCOVERY MOTION
REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE
TO INTERROGATORY NO. 1
Case No. 2:24-cv-00016-HCN-CMR
Judge Howard C. Nielson, Jr
Magistrate Judge Cecilia M. Romero
This matter is referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) (ECF 12).
Before the court is Defendants Pro Lash, Inc., Bella Lash Extensions LLC d/b/a Pro Lash (Pro
Lash), Zachary Chipman, and Haley Chipman’s (collectively referred to as Defendants or Pro
Lash) Short Form Discovery Motion Regarding Plaintiff’s Response to Interrogatory No. 1
(Motion) (ECF 87). The court has also considered Plaintiff Lashify, Inc.’s (Plaintiff or Lashify)
Opposition to Defendants’ Motion (Opposition) (ECF 89). The court finds that oral argument is
not necessary and decides this matter on the written memoranda. See DUCivR 7-1(g). For the
reasons set forth below, the court, having carefully considered the parties’ relevant filings and case
law, enters the following Memorandum Decision and Order DENYING the Motion.
I. 	BACKGROUND
Lashify brought this action alleging that Pro Lash unlawfully copies Lashify’s DIY luxury
lash extension system (see ECF 59). In connection with its luxury lash extension system, Lashify
currently holds four patents, which it alleges Pro Lash infringes (see id. at 40–63). On September
17, 2025, the court set a pre-claim-construction schedule consistent with the Local Patent Rules,
which did not allow expert discovery before claim construction (see ECF 78 & 81). On October 1,
2025, Pro Lash served its Initial Non-Infringement, Ineligibility, Invalidity, and Unenforceability
Case 2:24-cv-00016-HCN-CMR Document 99 Filed 01/06/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 1 of 7

Contentions pursuant to Local Patent Rules (LPR) 2.4 (see ECF 89-1). On this same day, Pro Lash
also 	served 	Interrogatory 	No.1, 	which 	requested 	that 	Lashify 	answer 	the 	following:
“INTERROGATORY NO. 1: To the extent you disagree with Defendants’ contentions pursuant
to LPR 2.4, explain why” (ECF 87-1). The present issue concerns Lashify’s response to
Interrogatory No.1. On October 31, 2025, Lashify responded to Interrogatory No.1 asserting
various objections (see ECF 87-2 at 4–3, and ECF 89). Thereafter, Pro Lash filed the present
Motion seeking a court order compelling Lashify to respond to Interrogatory No. 1, or, in the
alternative, to reset the claim construction deadline to after expert discovery, which this court has
already declined to do (see ECF 87).
II. 	DISCUSSION
Unless otherwise limited by court order, the scope of discovery is as follows:
Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to
any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering
the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the
par-ties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the
importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or
expense of the pro-posed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Information within
this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). “An interrogatory may relate to any matter that may be inquired into
under Rule 26(b).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(2). “Contention interrogatories are interrogatories that
seek to clarify the basis for or the scope of an adversary’s claims.” Lucero v. Valdez, 240 F.R.D.
591, 594 (D.N.M. 2007) (citing Starcher v. Corr. Med. Sys. Inc., 144 F.3d 418, 421 n. 2 (6th
Cir.1998). This court has ruled that in complex patent cases, contention interrogatories are a useful
“vehicle for establishing facts underlying a party’s legal position[.]” In re Brca1-and Brca2-based
Hereditary Cancer Test Pat. Litig., No. 2:14-MD-02510-RJS, 2014 WL 12600708, at *1 (D. Utah
Nov. 19, 2014) (citing TV Interactive Data Corp. v. Sony Corp., No. C 10–475, 2012 WL 1413368,
Case 2:24-cv-00016-HCN-CMR Document 99 Filed 01/06/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 2 of 7

at *2–3 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 23, 2012)).
While contention interrogatories are a permissible form of discovery, “they need to be
examined by a court and then modified if necessary.” EC Source Services v. Burndy LLC, No.
2:16-CV-122-JNP, 2018 WL 3625330, at *2 (D. Utah July 30, 2018). Contention interrogatories
that require the responding party to provide “every fact” supporting identified allegations or
defenses will generally be deemed overly broad and unduly burdensome. See Hiskett v. Wal-Mart
Stores, Inc., 180 F.R.D. 403, 405 (D. Kan. 1998) (citing Lawrence v. First Kansas Bank & Trust,
169 F.R.D. 657, 664 (D. Kan. 1996)). Contention interrogatories may, however, properly ask for
the “principal or material” facts which support an allegation or defense. Id.; see also Lucero, 240
F.R.D. at 594.
Here, Interrogatory. No.1 is a contention interrogatory by explicitly asking Lashify to
explain the basis for why it disagrees with Pro Lash’s initial contentions (ECF 87-1). As written,
the court agrees with Lashify’s contention that this interrogatory is vague. Asking Lashify to
explain “why” it disagrees with Pro Lash’s initial contentions could be interpreted as requesting a
full articulation of all underlying facts and legal analysis. If so, Lashify is correct in asserting that
this Interrogatory is not only vague, but also overly broad and unduly burdensome (ECF 89 at 2).
The court, however, after considering the arguments raised by Pro Lash in its Motion,
interprets Interrogatory No.1 as seeking only the material and principal facts underlying Lashify’s
disagreements with the initial contentions. In its Motion, Pro Lash states that it seek “Plaintiff’s
own views on patent validity and infringement” and that “Plaintiff should be able to explain why
its patents are valid and why it believes Defendants’ non-infringement contentions are incorrect”
(ECF 87 at 2). Pro Lash also cites Amgen Inc. v. F. Hoffman La Roche Ltd., which approved
interrogatories aimed at uncovering the material and principal facts underlying the plaintiff’s
Case 2:24-cv-00016-HCN-CMR Document 99 Filed 01/06/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 3 of 7

claims rather than “every” fact, legal conclusion, or expert analysis (see id.) (Amgen Inc. v. Sandoz
Inc., No. 14-CV-04741-RS (MEJ), 2017 WL 1352052, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 13, 2017 (“Amgen
shall respond to Interrogatory Nos. 15 and 16. . . however, Amgen’s responses shall be limited to
material facts and shall not include any expert opinions.”)).
Thus, the court determines that Interrogatory No.1 while vague as written, is clarified by
the arguments asserted by Pro Lash in its Motion. The court clarifies that Interrogatory No.1
requests Lashify to provide the material and principal facts currently known to Lashify that support
its disagreements with Pro Lash’s contentions on non-infringement, §101 ineligibility, invalidity,
and unenforceability. As rewritten above, the court finds that this information is relevant, but as
discussed below, it contains multiple subparts.
Reviewing Lashify’s other objections in its Opposition, except for Lashify’s claim that
Interrogatory No.1 includes multiple subparts, the court finds them to be unconvincing. Lashify
asserts that it need not respond because the Local Patent Rules do not require a response to LPR
2.4 contentions (ECF 89 at 2). While the Local Patent Rules do not require a response, accepting
Lashify’s position would delay the discovery of relevant information until final infringement
contentions are due, which is not the intent of the rules. In fact, the Local Patent Rules are intended
to promote early and meaningful disclosure of the parties’ positions by requiring early service of
infringement contentions (LPR 2.2) and early disclosure of a defendant’s initial non-infringement
contentions (LPR 2.4). An interrogatory seeking the factual basis for Lashify’s claims is consistent
with the early exchange of information contemplated by the rules.
Lashify also argues that Interrogatory No.1 improperly seeks expert opinion (ECF 89 at 3).
However, as explained above, the court interprets Interrogatory No.1 to ask only for the material
and principal facts supporting Lashify’s position, not how an expert would construe those facts.
Case 2:24-cv-00016-HCN-CMR Document 99 Filed 01/06/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 4 of 7

The court now considers Lashify’s assertion that Interrogatory No.1 contains multiple sub-
parts (see ECF 89 at 2). Pro Lash contends that Interrogatory No.1 does not contain multiple
subparts because it is “directed at eliciting details concerning a common theme” (ECF 87 at 2–3).
In the alternative, Pro Lash claims that the “scope of the claims asserted in this case, the
information requested in the subject interrogatory is not disproportionate to the defendant’s need
for this information” (id. (quoting SPH Am. v. Rsch. in Motion, 2016 WL 6305414, at *1–3 (S.D.
Cal. Aug. 16, 2016)).
Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(1) provides that “discrete subparts” count as separate interrogatories.
However, “Rule 33 does not define ‘discrete subparts’ or when certain ‘subparts’ may count as
more than one interrogatory.” SMHG Phase I LLC v. Eisenberg, No. 122CV00035DBBJCB, 2023
WL 2275182, at *1 (D. Utah Feb. 28, 2023). In general, courts use a “common-theme” test to
determine whether subparts count as a separate question or fall under the broader interrogatory.
See Id. (“[I]t would appear that an interrogatory containing subparts directed at eliciting details
concerning the common theme should be considered a single question ... [o]n the other hand, an
interrogatory with subparts inquiring into discrete areas is more likely to be counted as more than
one for purposes of the limitation.”) (quoting Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, 8B Fed. Prac.
& Proc. Civ. § 2168.1 at 261 (3d ed. April 2022 update)).
Applying this standard, Interrogatory No.1 contains numerous subparts. First, initial
contentions pursuant LPR 2.4 requires a party to provide information regarding four discrete areas:
(1) non-infringement, (2) §101 ineligibility, (3) invalidity, and (4) unenforceability. At a minimum,
each of these discrete areas is a theme, as they are governed by different legal standards, facts, and
evidence. Additionally, Lashify holds four patents, and Pro Lash’s initial contentions address each
patent separately (see ECF 89-1). Because each patent has distinct claims, details, and history,
Case 2:24-cv-00016-HCN-CMR Document 99 Filed 01/06/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 5 of 7

each patent is a separate subpart. Therefore, Interrogatory No.1 contains the following fifteen (15)
subparts:
a. 	Non-infringement contentions against all four patents: four subparts (see ECF 89-
1 at 4, Table 1).
b. 	Ineligibility contentions against two patents: two subparts (see id., Table 2).
i. 	Initial inventorship and § 112 contentions against three patents: three
subparts (see id. at 8, Table 7).
c. 	Invalidity contentions against all four patents: four subparts (see id. at 7–8,
Table(s) 3–6).
d. 	Initial unenforceability contentions against two patents: two subparts (see id. at 29,
Table 8).
This counting of Interrogatory No.1 is consistent with SPH America, a Southern District
of California case cited by Pro Lash (ECF 87 at 3). In SPH America, the court found a similar
interrogatory concerning nine patents, to contain multiple subparts. SPH Am., LLC v. Research in
Mot., Ltd., No. 13CV2320 CAB (KSC), 2016 WL 6305414, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 16, 2016).
Although the interrogatory in SPH America would place the defendant over the interrogatory limit,
because the case was “no longer in its infancy” and in the interest of judicial economy, the court
found it prudent to grant the defendant leave to propound interrogatories in excess of the
interrogatory 	limit. 	Id. 	at 	*2 	(“While 	defendant 	has 	not 	moved 	for 	leave 	to 	propound
interrogatories in excess of the 25 interrogatory limit, in this one instance the Court will so construe
their request to allow for responses to all subparts of defendant Common Interrogatory No. 6.”).
The court is unsure whether Pro Lash is seeking this same relief, and given the lack of clarity
declines to address it herein.
Case 2:24-cv-00016-HCN-CMR Document 99 Filed 01/06/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 6 of 7

III. 	CONCLUSION
Because Interrogatory No. 1 contains discrete subparts and Pro Lash has not indicated that
it wishes to use additional interrogatories for this request, Lashify is not required to answer it as
written. The court instructs Pro Lash to review this ruling and decide whether Interrogatory No. 1,
as written, fits its discovery plan or whether issuing a new interrogatory would be more beneficial.
Accordingly, Pro Lash’s Motion is DENIED without prejudice.
DATED this 5 January 2026.
________________________________________
Magistrate Judge Cecilia M. Romero
United States District Court for the District of Utah
Case 2:24-cv-00016-HCN-CMR Document 99 Filed 01/06/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 7 of 7