United States v. Greenlight Organic, Inc.

Slip Op. 21-145
UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE
UNITED STATES,
Plaintiff,
v.
GREENLIGHT ORGANIC, INC. and
PARAMBIR SINGH AULAKH,
Defendants.
Before: Jennifer Choe-Groves, Judge
Court No. 17-00031
OPINION AND ORDER
[Granting in part and denying in part Defendants’ motion to compel Plaintiff to
answer requests for admission.]
Dated: October 18, 2021
William Kanellis, Attorney, and Ashley Akers, Attorney, Commercial Litigation
Branch, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, of Washington, D.C., for
Plaintiff United States. With them on the brief were Brian M. Boynton, Acting
Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E. Davidson, Director, and Patricia M.
McCarthy, Assistant Director.
Robert B. Silverman and Joseph M. Spraragen, Grunfeld, Desiderio, Lebowitz,
Silverman & Klestadt LLP, of New York, N.Y., for Defendants Greenlight
Organic, Inc. and Parambir Singh Aulakh.
Choe-Groves, Judge: This matter involves a discovery dispute in a claim
brought under 19 U.S.C. § 1592. Plaintiff United States (“Plaintiff”) brings this 19
U.S.C. § 1592 civil enforcement action seeking to recover unpaid duties and to
Case 1:17-cv-00031-JCG Document 169 Filed 10/18/21 Page 1 of 18

Court No. 17-00031 	Page 2
affix penalties, alleging that Defendants Greenlight Organic, Inc. (“Greenlight”)
and Parambir Singh Aulakh (“Aulakh”) (collectively, “Defendants”) imported
wearing apparel into the United States fraudulently. Second Am. Compl. ¶ 1, ECF
No. 124. The statute, 19 U.S.C. § 1592, prohibits companies from making false
statements or omitting material information in the course of importing merchandise
into the United States through fraud, gross negligence, or negligence. See 19
U.S.C. § 1592(a)(1). Plaintiff alleges that Greenlight misclassified and
undervalued its subject merchandise fraudulently in violation of the statute.
Second Am. Compl. ¶¶ 21–22.
Before the court is the Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Provide Proper
Answers to Defendants’ Requests for Admission (“Motion to Compel” or “Mot.
Compel”), ECF No. 155, filed by Defendants under USCIT Rule 36(a)(6) to
determine the sufficiency of Plaintiff’s answers and objections to Defendants’
requests for admission. See also Mem. Supp. Defs.’ Mot. Compel (“Defs.’ Mem.”)
at 4, ECF No. 155-1. Defendants assert that in responding to Defendants’ requests
for admission, Plaintiff failed to comply with USCIT Rule 36 by objecting and
making qualified denials to requests for admission numbers 1–43, 47–57, 59, 61–
75, 77–104, and 107–116. Mot. Compel at 1. Defendants ask the Court to direct
Plaintiff to provide sufficient answers or order that the matters are admitted, and
award legal fees incurred in preparing the Motion to Compel. Id. at 2–3. Plaintiff
Case 1:17-cv-00031-JCG Document 169 Filed 10/18/21 Page 2 of 18

Court No. 17-00031 	Page 3
contends that it complied with USCIT Rule 36 in its answers and objections due to
misleading or ambiguous wording, use of excerpts from documents taken out of
context, and Plaintiff’s inability to confirm the veracity of information due to
destruction of corroborating records by Aulakh. United States’ Opp’n Defs.’ Mot.
Compel (“Pl.’s Opp’n”) at 1, ECF No. 161. For the following reasons, the Court
grants in part and denies in part the Motion to Compel.
BAGKGROUND
The Court presumes familiarity with the facts and procedural history and
recounts briefly the procedural history for context. Plaintiff commenced this
action against Greenlight on February 8, 2017. Summons, ECF No. 1; Compl.,
ECF No. 2. The Court denied Greenlight’s motion for summary judgment because
the record did not provide enough information to assess when Plaintiff first
discovered Greenlight’s fraud—whether in 2011, as Greenlight asserted, or in
February 2012, as Plaintiff asserted—from which time the five-year statute of
limitations began to run. See United States v. Greenlight Organic, Inc., 42 CIT __,
__, 352 F. Supp. 3d 1312, 1313–14, 1315–16 (2018) (citing 19 U.S.C. § 1621).
Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint, adding Aulakh as a defendant
and pleading additional facts with leave of the Court on April 2, 2019. See First
Am. Compl., ECF No. 111. The Court granted Aulakh’s motion to dismiss the
First Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be
Case 1:17-cv-00031-JCG Document 169 Filed 10/18/21 Page 3 of 18

Court No. 17-00031 	Page 4
granted, with judgment to be entered after forty-five days if Plaintiff did not file a
second amended complaint. 1 United States v. Greenlight Organic, Inc., 43 CIT __,
__, 419 F. Supp. 3d 1298, 1306 (2019).
Plaintiff filed the Second Amended Complaint on January 8, 2020. Second
Am. Compl. The Court denied Aulakh’s motion to dismiss on the theories that
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“Customs”) failed to exhaust administrative
remedies, the five-year statute of limitations had expired, and Plaintiff failed to
plead fraud with particularity based on additional facts pleaded in the Second
Amended Complaint. 2 United States v. Greenlight Organic, Inc., 44 CIT __, __,
466 F. Supp. 3d 1260, 1263–66 (2020). Aulakh argued that the five-year statute of
limitations had run and Plaintiff asserted again that the Government discovered
Defendants’ fraudulent scheme in February 2012, when Aulakh first produced to
Customs records from Greenlight showing evidence of a double-invoicing scheme.
Id. at __, 466 F. Supp. 3d at 1264. The Court held that the Second Amended
Complaint contained sufficient facts accepted as true to establish on its face that
1 The Court granted the motion of Greenlight’s counsel to withdraw its appearance
in this matter. Order (Feb. 27, 2018), ECF No. 108. Greenlight had not retained
counsel at the time of the Court’s decision on Aulakh’s motion to dismiss and did
not join Aulakh’s motion to dismiss. United States v. Greenlight Organic, Inc., 43
CIT __, __, 419 F. Supp. 3d 1298, 1301 n.1, 1306 (2019).
2 Greenlight was not represented by counsel. United States v. Greenlight Organic,
Inc., 44 CIT __, __, 466 F. Supp. 3d 1260, 1261 n.1 (2020).
Case 1:17-cv-00031-JCG Document 169 Filed 10/18/21 Page 4 of 18

Court No. 17-00031 	Page 5
the Government discovered the fraudulent activity in February 2012, and the
Complaint was filed within five years in February 2017. Id. at __, 466 F. Supp. 3d
at 1265.
JURISDICTION
The Court has jurisdiction over the underlying action pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1582.
DISCUSSION
I. 	Legal Standards
USCIT Rule 36 permits a party to serve a request for admission on another
party. USCIT R. 36(a)(1). When answering a request for admission:
If a matter is not admitted, the answer must specifically deny it or state
in detail why the answering party cannot truthfully admit or deny it. A
denial must fairly respond to the substance of the matter; and when
good faith requires that a party qualify an answer or deny only a part of
a matter, the answer must specify the part admitted and qualify or deny
the rest. 	The answering party may assert lack of knowledge or
information as a reason for failing to admit or deny only if the party
states that it has made reasonable inquiry and that the information it
knows or can readily obtain is insufficient to enable it to admit or deny.
USCIT R. 36(a)(4). When objecting to a request for admission, “[t]he grounds for
objecting to a request must be stated.” USCIT R. 36(a)(5). To challenge
responses:
The requesting party may move to determine the sufficiency of an
answer or objections. 	Unless the court finds an objection justified, it
must order that an answer be served. On finding that an answer does
Case 1:17-cv-00031-JCG Document 169 Filed 10/18/21 Page 5 of 18

Court No. 17-00031 	Page 6
not comply with this rule, the court may order either that the matter is
admitted or that an amended answer be served.
USCIT R. 36(a)(6).
“The purpose of requests for admission[] is not necessarily to obtain
information but to narrow the issue for trial.” Beker Indus. Corp. v. United States,
7 CIT 361, 361 (1984) (citation omitted). The purpose of USCIT Rule 36, as with
the corresponding Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 36, “is to expedite trial by
eliminating the necessity of proving essentially undisputed and peripheral issues.”
See id. at 362. “Rule 36 admissions are ‘not to be used . . . in the hope that a
party’s adversary will simply concede essential elements.’” Kahrs Int’l, Inc. v.
United States, 33 CIT 117, 121, 602 F. Supp. 2d 1352, 1357 (2009) (quoting
Conlon v. United States, 474 F.3d 616, 622 (9th Cir. 2007)).
II. 	Requests for Admission Regarding Certain Entries and Vendors
Defendants assert that Plaintiff’s responses to requests 1–33 are
unacceptable because Plaintiff is able to admit the matters based on entry records
in the possession of Customs, and Exhibits 1 and 2 filed by Plaintiff with the
Second Amended Complaint. Defs.’ Mem. at 8. Defendants explain that when a
foreign vendor ships an entry package to Greenlight, Greenlight’s broker prepares
a customs entry form based on the commercial invoice and bill of lading. Id. at 8–
9. Defendants explain further that “[t]he data received in all entry filings is
Case 1:17-cv-00031-JCG Document 169 Filed 10/18/21 Page 6 of 18

Court No. 17-00031 	Page 7
maintained by [Customs] in a data base that is available to [Customs] personnel.”
Id. at 9. In Defendants’ view, Plaintiff is able to corroborate requests 1–33 with
entry information available to Plaintiff in Customs’ database. Id. at 8. Plaintiff
responds that it does not have the ability to admit the matters in requests 1–33
because there is evidence that Defendants and their “co-conspirators submitted
false documentation to the Government” and Defendants did not provide email
communications with Greenlight’s brokers or other internal records that may have
allowed Plaintiff to verify the information in requests 1–33. Pl.’s Opp’n at 9–10.
Requests 1–3, 8–9, 14–15, 19–20, 24–25, and 29–30 ask Plaintiff to admit
facts related to certain entries. See Defs.’ Objs. Pl.’s Resps. Defs.’ [Reqs. Admis.]
(“Ex. B”), ECF No. 155-3. As an example of Plaintiff’s responses to requests 1–3,
8–9, 14–15, 19–20, 24–25, and 29–30, request 1 states and Plaintiff responds, in
relevant part:
1. 	Admit that entry numbers 408-1163899-5 . . . covered goods
purchased by Greenlight from Rajlakshmi Cotton Mills PVT. Ltd.
(“Rajlakshmi”) in India.
Response. 	Plaintiff objects because . . . defendants GREENLIGHT,
AULAKH, 	and/or 	their 	co-conspirators 	destroyed, 	spoliated, 	or
otherwise failed to disclose the GREENLIGHT records which would
allow for a meaningful response as to the contents of the entries.
Otherwise, denied.
Id. at 1–2.
Plaintiff brings this case based on allegations that Defendants conspired with
Case 1:17-cv-00031-JCG Document 169 Filed 10/18/21 Page 7 of 18

Court No. 17-00031 	Page 8
one of Greenlight’s foreign vendors, One Step Ahead, to make false statements to
Customs, and that Defendants created a second falsified set of invoices for
purchases from One Step Ahead. See Second Am. Compl. ¶¶ 9, 12–14, 17, 21.
Plaintiff also explains that Defendants blame Greenlight’s brokers. See Pl.’s
Opp’n at 9. Thus, there are allegations of falsified invoices and false statements by
Defendants, one of Greenlight’s foreign vendors, and possibly Greenlight’s
brokers. As Defendants explain, the information in Customs’ database, from
which the information in Exhibits 1 and 2 is derived, reflects information provided
in commercial invoices and prepared by Greenlight’s brokers. It seems to be
Plaintiff’s position that due to the allegations of false statements, Plaintiff does not
assume the veracity of any information provided by Defendants, Greenlight’s
foreign vendors, or Greenlight’s brokers without corroborating documentation,
which Defendants have not provided to Plaintiff. See id. at 9–10. Because
Plaintiff asserts an inability to answer due to lack of corroborating documentation,
Plaintiff’s objections are akin to “assert[ions] [of] lack of knowledge or
information as a reason for failing to admit or deny . . . and that the information it
knows or can readily obtain is insufficient to enable it to admit or deny” under
USCIT Rule 36(a)(4). The Court concludes that Plaintiff’s objections to requests
1–3, 8–9, 14–15, 19–20, 24–25, and 29–30 are justified or are sufficient answers
based on lack of knowledge or information.
Case 1:17-cv-00031-JCG Document 169 Filed 10/18/21 Page 8 of 18

Court No. 17-00031 	Page 9
Requests 4, 10, 16, 21, 26, and 31 ask Plaintiff to admit that Customs’
claims in this case exclude goods from respective vendors or manufacturers. See
Ex. B. As an example of Plaintiff’s responses to requests 4, 10, 16, 21, 26, and 31,
request 4 states and Plaintiff responds, in relevant part:
4. Admit that [Customs] has no fraud claim against Greenlight that the
Rajlakshmi goods should have been entered as knit goods.
Response. 	Plaintiff 	objects 	because 	(1) 	defendants’ 	statement,
“[Customs] has no fraud claim against Greenlight that the Rajlakshmi
goods should have been entered as knit goods[,]” sic erat scriptum, is
incoherent and prevents a meaningful response, and (2) defendant’s use
of the term “fraud claim” is ambiguous, as it involves a legal question
that is capable of multiple definitions, and otherwise misstates the basis
of the fraud alleged against GREENLIGHT and AULAKH in the
second amended complaint. 	Otherwise, because GREENLIGHT,
AULAKH, 	and/or 	their 	co-conspirators 	destroyed, 	spoliated, 	or
otherwise failed to disclose the GREENLIGHT records which would
allow for a meaningful examination . . . , denied.
Id. at 4.
“The purpose of requests for admission[] is . . . to narrow the issue for trial.”
Beker Indus. Corp., 7 CIT at 361 (citations omitted). The Second Amended
Complaint refers to “a manufacturer in Vietnam” and names only one
manufacturer, “One Step Ahead, the Vietnamese manufacturer of wearing
apparel.” See Second Am. Compl. ¶¶ 6, 9, 13–15. Defendants assert that “a
number of entries which are purported to be included in this case [] are not covered
by the allegations of misclassification and/or undervaluation in the complaint” or
Case 1:17-cv-00031-JCG Document 169 Filed 10/18/21 Page 9 of 18

Court No. 17-00031 	Page 10
Exhibits 1 and 2. See Defs.’ Mem. at 8. Plaintiff initiated this action and is able to
answer, including by admitting, qualifying, or denying with specificity and in good
faith, whether the issues can be narrowed to exclude vendors or manufacturers
other than One Step Ahead. The Court concludes that Plaintiff’s objections to
requests 4, 10, 16, 21, 26, and 31 are not justified. Plaintiff shall answer pursuant
to USCIT Rule 36. See USCIT R. 36(a)(4) (“[W]hen good faith requires that a
party qualify an answer or deny only a part of the request, the answering party
must specify the part admitted and qualify or deny the rest.”); see also USCIT R.
37(a)(3) (“[A]n evasive or incomplete disclosure, answer, or response must be
treated as a failure to disclose, answer, or respond.”).
Requests 5–7, 11–13, 17–18, 22–23, 27–28, and 32–33 ask Plaintiff to admit
that Exhibits 1 and 2 list or provide or do not list or provide information related to
entries of goods from respective vendors or manufacturers. See Ex. B. As an
example of Plaintiff’s responses to requests 5–7, 11–13, 17–18, 22–23, 27–28, and
32–33, request 5 states and Plaintiff responds, in relevant part:
5. Admit [that] Exhibit 1 to the second amended complaint (Court Doc
124) does not list any of the Rajlakshmi goods as having been
fraudulently entered as woven goods.
Response. Plaintiff objects because of defendants’ use of “Rajlakshmi
goods,” for reasons stated in responses to requests for admission 1 and
2, and because defendant[s] mischaracterize[] the purpose of Exhibit 1
to the second amended complaint, which was not to identify goods
which were “fraudulently entered,” but rather, to identify entries and
Case 1:17-cv-00031-JCG Document 169 Filed 10/18/21 Page 10 of 18

Court No. 17-00031 	Page 11
the 	classification 	for 	those 	entries, 	which 	were 	based 	upon 	the
incomplete 	records 	supplied 	by 	GREENLIGHT 	and 	AULAKH.
Plaintiff also objects because GREENLIGHT, AULAKH, and/or their
co-conspirators destroyed, spoliated, or otherwise failed to disclose the
GREENLIGHT 	records 	which 	would 	allow 	for 	a 	meaningful
examination . . . .
Id. at 5.
Exhibits 1 and 2 were filed by Plaintiff with the Second Amended
Complaint. Exhibit 1 is a spreadsheet that Plaintiff described as identifying “[t]he
specific date of entry, price, and factual circumstances” of the 148 entries from a
manufacturer in Vietnam about which Plaintiff alleges that Defendants made
material false statements. Second Am. Compl. ¶¶ 6–7. Exhibit 2 is a spreadsheet
that Plaintiff described as identifying “[e]ntries for which AULAKH and
GREENLIGHT created two sets of invoices, including the date of entry and the
factual circumstances relating to each entry.” Id. ¶¶ 12, 15. Plaintiff filed Exhibits
1 and 2 and Plaintiff is able to answer concerning information as listed or provided
or not listed or provided in Exhibits 1 and 2. The Court concludes that Plaintiff’s
objections to requests 5–7, 11–13, 17–18, 22–23, 27–28, and 32–33 are not
justified. Plaintiff shall answer pursuant to USCIT Rule 36. See USCIT R.
36(a)(4); see also USCIT R. 37(a)(3).
III. 	Terms and Phrases in Certain Requests for Admission
Defendants assert that Plaintiff’s answers and denials to requests 1, 4, 7–8,
Case 1:17-cv-00031-JCG Document 169 Filed 10/18/21 Page 11 of 18

Court No. 17-00031 	Page 12
10, 14, 16–19, 21, 23–24, 26, 28–29, 31, 33, 36–38, 40–42, 48–51, 53–54, and 71–
72 based on ambiguity of terms or phrases are insufficient. Defs.’ Mem. at 11–13.
Plaintiff objected to the use of the terms “covered” or “covered by” as
ambiguous in requests 1, 8, 14, 19, 24, and 29. Ex. B at 2, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24. The
Court concluded above that Plaintiff’s objections to requests 1, 8, 14, 19, 24, and
29 were justified and does not consider Plaintiff’s objections to the terms
“covered” or “covered by.”
Plaintiff objected to the use of the terms “freight charges,” “international
freight charges,” “vendors,” and “international freight deductions” in requests 37–
38 and 40–42; the term “CIF USA port terms” in requests 40 and 41; and the term
“FOB foreign port terms” in request 42. Ex. B at 30–33. Defendants argue that
the terms are “commonly used industry terms” that both parties have used
“throughout this litigation without issue.” Defs.’ Mem. at 12.
As an example of Plaintiff’s responses to requests 37–38 and 40–42, request
37 states and Plaintiff responds:
37. 	Admit that Greenlight’s payments for customs duties and freight
charges were not separately identified on Greenlight’s tax returns.
Response. Plaintiff objects because defendants’ request for admission
uses terms that are ambiguous, such as “freight charges,” because
defendants[’] question is overbroad, and because the Government does
not possess the GREENLIGHT tax returns to allow it to answer this
request for admission. Otherwise, denied.
Case 1:17-cv-00031-JCG Document 169 Filed 10/18/21 Page 12 of 18

Court No. 17-00031 	Page 13
Ex. B at 30. Plaintiff’s objection to request 37 because it does not possess
Greenlight’s tax returns is akin to an “assert[ion] [of] lack of knowledge or
information as a reason for failing to admit or deny . . . and that the information it
knows or can readily obtain is insufficient to enable it to admit or deny” under
USCIT Rule 36(a)(4). The Court concludes that Plaintiff’s objection to request 37
is justified or is a sufficient answer based on lack of knowledge or information.
For responses 38 and 40–42, Plaintiff also objected “because
GREENLIGHT, AULAKH, and/or their co-conspirators destroyed, spoliated, or
otherwise failed to disclose the GREENLIGHT records which would allow for a
response to this request for admission.” Ex. B at 31–33. For the reasons discussed
above, Plaintiff’s objections to requests 38 and 40–42 are justified or are sufficient
answers based on lack of knowledge or information.
Plaintiff objected to the following terms related to fraud—“fraud claim,”
“fraudulent undervaluation,” “undervaluation details,” “details of undervaluation,”
“fraudulent misclassification and undervaluation,” “fraudulent customs
undervaluation and fraudulent consumer product misstatements,” “fraudulent
customs undervaluation,” “fraudulently entered as woven goods,” and “details for
any double payments”—in requests 4, 7, 10, 16–18, 21, 23, 26, 28, 31, 33, 48–51,
53–54, and 71–72. Defs.’ Mem. at 13. Defendants argued that “[t]he
Government’s ambiguity claim regarding these phrases is without merit as they are
Case 1:17-cv-00031-JCG Document 169 Filed 10/18/21 Page 13 of 18

Court No. 17-00031 	Page 14
the basis for [its] entire case before this Court.” Id. The Court concluded above
that Plaintiff is able to and shall answer requests 4, 7, 10, 16–18, 21, 23, 26, 28, 31,
and 33 because they relate to Plaintiff’s allegations and exhibits.
Requests 48–51 and 53–54 ask Plaintiff to respond concerning information
as identified or not identified in Exhibit 2 filed with Plaintiff’s Second Amended
Complaint. See Ex. B. Requests 48–51 and 53–54 state:
48. 	Admit that Exhibit 2 to Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint
does 	not 	identify 	details 	for 	any 	double 	payments 	or 	for 	any
undervaluation for Greenlight entries filed in 2008 or 2009.
49. 	Admit that Exhibit 2 to Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint
identifies double invoicing and/or undervaluation details for only some
of Greenlight’s entries of goods purchased from One Step Ahead which
were filed in 2010.
50. 	Admit that Exhibit 2 to Plaintiff’s Second Complaint does not
identify double invoicing and/or undervaluation details for Greenlight
entries of goods purchased from vendors other than One Step Ahead
which were filed in 2010.
51. 	Admit that the 2010 entries in Exhibit 2 for which details of
undervaluation have been provided account for 18.98% of entered
value for Greenlight’s entries filed in 2010.
53. 	Admit that Exhibit 2 to Plaintiff’s Second Complaint identifies
undervaluation details for only some of Greenlight’s entries of goods
purchased from One Step Ahead which were filed in 2011, and
Greenlight 	entry 	WLQ 	1101356-2 	of 	goods 	purchased 	from
Rajlakshmi, and Greenlight entry WLQ 1101344-8 of goods purchased
from Chau Thy.
54. 	Admit that the 2011 entries in Exhibit 2 for which details of
undervaluation have been provided account for 39.41% of entered
Case 1:17-cv-00031-JCG Document 169 Filed 10/18/21 Page 14 of 18

Court No. 17-00031 	Page 15
value for Greenlight’s entries filed in 2011.
Id. at 34–38.
Exhibit 2 is a spreadsheet that Plaintiff filed, and Plaintiff described as
identifying “[e]ntries for which AULAKH and GREENLIGHT created two sets of
invoices, including the date of entry and the factual circumstances relating to each
entry.” Second Am. Compl. ¶ 12. Exhibit 2 has five columns grouped together
under the title “Payment (Double) Invoice.” Id. Ex. 2. Exhibit 2 also has a
“Legend” for color-coded cells of the spreadsheet for “Qty differences between 1st
and 2nd invoices,” “Unit price in 2nd invoice was lower than the 1st invoice,” and
“Total payment does not match 2nd invoice.” Id. The “Legend” includes “NOTE:
This worksheet only shows details for those entries where the 2nd invoices and/or
payment records were provided.” Id. Plaintiff filed Exhibit 2 and Plaintiff is able
to answer requests 48–51 and 53–54 concerning information as identified or not
identified in Exhibit 2. The Court concludes that Plaintiff’s objections to requests
48–51 and 53–54 are not justified. Plaintiff shall answer pursuant to USCIT Rule
36. See USCIT R. 36(a)(4); see also USCIT R. 37(a)(3).
The Court’s discussion of Plaintiff’s objections to requests 71–72 is included
below.
Case 1:17-cv-00031-JCG Document 169 Filed 10/18/21 Page 15 of 18

Court No. 17-00031 	Page 16
IV. 	Requests for Admission Regarding the Government’s
Investigation
Requests 69–116 relate to the investigation into Greenlight’s activities as
presented in documents that were produced in discovery by Plaintiff. See Defs.’
Mem. at 13, 15; Ex. B at 45–71. Defendants challenge the sufficiency of
Plaintiff’s responses to requests 69–75, 77–104, and 107–116. Mot. Compel at 1.
As an example of Plaintiff’s objections to requests 69–75, 77–90, 92–104, 107–
109, and 111–116, request 69 states and Plaintiff responds:
69. 	Admit that on or about May 31, 2011, U.S. Immigration and
Customs 	Enforcement 	(“ICE”) 	received 	a 	complaint 	that 	alleged
fraudulent customs undervaluation and fraudulent consumer product
misstatements by Greenlight. (DOC# US0000001-US0000012).
Response. The Government objects because this request for admission
misstates or mischaracterizes the contents of the document cited, and
does not properly reflect the context of the document in relation to other
contemporaneous documents. Otherwise, denied.
Ex. B at 45. Request 91 states and Plaintiff answers:
91. 	Admit that on or about September 26, 2011[,] ICE sought
investigative assistance from the ICE Attaché in Vietnam relating to the
investigation 	of 	Greenlight 	undervaluation 	and 	misclassification.
(DOC# US0012011-US0012012).
Response. The Government admits that in September 2011, HSI sought
assistance from an HSI attache in Vietnam relating to GREENLIGHT.
Otherwise, denied.
Id. at 57. Request 110 states and Plaintiff answers:
110. 	Admit that on December 14, 2012, [Customs] Field Director,
Case 1:17-cv-00031-JCG Document 169 Filed 10/18/21 Page 16 of 18

Court No. 17-00031 	Page 17
Office of Regulatory Audit, San Francisco[,] CA transmitted the results
of audit report number 811-12-ATIAU-23550 to ICE Supervisory
Special Agent Kevin Glazner, Oakland[,] CA. (DOC# US0002253-
US0002304).
Response. 	Plaintiff admits that on or about December 14, 2012,
[Customs] Regulatory Audit communicated with HSI Supervisory
Special Agent Kevin Glazner relating to an audit of GREELIGHT.
Otherwise, denied.
Id. at 66–67.
Defendants assert that Plaintiff’s objections and answers to requests 69–75,
77–104, and 107–116 based on ambiguity, mischaracterization, misstatement,
and/or lack of context are insufficient. Defs.’ Mem. at 15. In Defendants’ view,
“an item-by-item review of each request for admission and government response
thereto demonstrates the lengths to which plaintiff went to deny the obvious - that
the statute of limitations ran before plaintiff filed its complaint in this case.” Id.
Plaintiff counters that the parties disagree regarding the date that fraud was
discovered, from which the statute of limitations would begin to run, and requests
69–116 are Defendants’ attempt to settle this dispute through the inappropriate
medium of requests for admission. Pl.’s Opp’n at 14–16.
The purpose of requests for admission is to identify undisputed facts or
issues, see Beker Indus. Corp., 7 CIT at 362, not to confront an opposing party into
conceding an essential fact or issue, see Kahrs Int’l, 33 CIT at 121, 602 F. Supp. 2d
at 1357 (quoting Conlon, 474 F.3d at 622). The date of discovery of fraud is a
Case 1:17-cv-00031-JCG Document 169 Filed 10/18/21 Page 17 of 18

Court No. 17-00031 	Page 18
disputed and potentially dispositive issue. Even if Defendants interpret documents
related to communications and investigations to readily establish the date of
discovery of fraud, Plaintiff is not required to admit to Defendants’ interpretation
of the facts. The Court concludes that Plaintiff’s objections and answers to
requests 69–75, 77–104, and 107–116 are justified and sufficient due to the
disputed contents and context of the referenced documents.
V. 	Request for Attorney’s Fees
Because Plaintiff’s objections were substantially justified, the Court does not
order payment of attorney’s fees. See USCIT R. 37(a)(4)(A)(ii).
CONCLUSION
Upon consideration of the Motion to Compel, and all other papers and
proceedings in this action, it is hereby
ORDERED that the Motion to Compel, ECF No. 155, is granted in part and
denied in part; and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff shall serve amended answers to requests 4–7, 10–
13, 16–18, 21–23, 26–28, 31–33, 48–51, and 53–54 on opposing counsel on or
before November 5, 2021.
/s/ Jennifer Choe-Groves
Jennifer Choe-Groves, Judge
Dated: 	October 18, 2021
New York, New York
Case 1:17-cv-00031-JCG Document 169 Filed 10/18/21 Page 18 of 18