Lopez v. Apple, Inc.
Lopez v. Apple, Inc.
Case No. 19-cv-04577 (N.D. Cal. 2024)
February 5, 2024

Kim, Sallie,  United States Magistrate Judge

Failure to Produce
30(b)(6) corporate designee
Download PDF
To Cite List
Summary
The court addressed several discovery disputes between the plaintiffs and Apple, including a sampling proposal, a motion to compel further documents, and requests for depositions and information regarding Siri budget documents and data collection. The court ruled in favor of Apple's sampling proposal and denied the plaintiffs' motion to compel, but granted their request for certain information. The court also emphasized the importance of properly responding to requests for ESI.
Additional Decisions
FUMIKO LOPEZ, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
APPLE, INC.,
Defendant
Case No. 19-cv-04577-JSW (SK)
United States District Court, N.D. California
Filed February 05, 2024
Kim, Sallie, United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER ON PENDING DISCOVERY DISPUTES Regarding Docket No. 138, 141, 171-3

Now before the Court are several pending discovery disputes. The Court will address the outstanding motions to seal in a separate Order. The parties’ pending disputes are as follows:

(1) a dispute concerning Plaintiffs’ First Set of Requests for Production (“RFPs”), dated on February 18, 2022, and Apple’s response thereto and Plaintiffs’ First Set of Interrogatories dated September 15, 2022, and Apple’s response thereto; (Dkt. No. 138), which was addressed in a larger discussion about sampling proposals (Dkt. Nos. 197, 198);

(2) a second dispute concerning Plaintiffs’ Requests for Production dated on February 18, 2022, and Apple’s response thereto, but focusing on Request for Production No. 3; (Dkt. No. 141); and

(3) a dispute concerning: (a) Plaintiffs’ request for more than 10 depositions; (b) the scope of Plaintiffs’ Rule 30(b)(6) Topic 11 regarding Siri budget documents; (c) Apple’s response to Plaintiffs Request for Production Set One, Nos. 6 and 22; and (d) Apple’s response to Plaintiffs’ Interrogatory No. 23 relating to the scope of Apple’s data collection. (Dkt. No. 171-3.)[1] 

Having considered the parties’ written submissions and considered arguments raised at the hearing of January 19, 2024, the Court rules as follows:

(1) The Court adopts the sampling proposal proposed by Apple. (Dkt. No. 197-1.)

(2) The Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further documents in response to Request for Production No. 3.

(3) The Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ request for more than 10 depositions. The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion to compel the Rule 30(b)(6) Topic 11 regarding Siri budget documents. The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion to compel Apple’s responses to Interrogatory No. 23 relating to the scope of Apple’s data collection.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Footnotes

The parties have not filed a public version of this document. After the Court resolves the pending motions to seal, the parties are required to publicly file a redacted version if Court grants in part the related motion to seal or publicly file an unredacted version if the Court denies the related motion to seal.