Adkins et al v. Apple Inc et al

Filing 147

ORDER REGARDING DISCOVERY DISPUTES re 140 Response and 142 Response. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 03/24/2015. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/24/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

FABRIENNE ENGLISH,

Case No. 14-cv-01619-WHO

Plaintiff,
8

ORDER REGARDING DISCOVERY
DISPUTES

v.
9
10

APPLE INC, et al.,

Re: Dkt. Nos. 140, 142

Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

On March 2, 2015, I issued an order instructing plaintiffs to file a supplemental brief
regarding the parties’ dispute over a number of plaintiffs’ requests for production. Dkt. No. 138.
Plaintiffs filed a supplemental brief on March 9, 2015, and defendants filed a response on March 17,
2015. Dkt. Nos. 140, 142. Having reviewed the parties’ submissions, I find that no hearing is
necessary to resolve the parties’ dispute.
Defendants need not produce additional documents (except for those that defendants have
already agreed to produce) in response to plaintiffs’ requests for documents relating to training
manuals for sales of new devices, or packaging of replacement devices. Defendants state that they
have already “produced or agreed to produce training materials and packaging exemplars for a
transaction comparable to Ms. English’s as well as for the sale of a new iPhone 4 (the same model
iPhone Ms. English received).” Dkt. No. 142 at 2. Additional documents relating to training manuals
for sales of new devices or packaging of replacement devices are not relevant to plaintiffs’ claims.
Nor are documents relating to the basic one year warranty. At most, plaintiffs are entitled to
discovery of the terms of the basic one year warranty itself. I assume that it is publicly available. If it
is not, defendants shall produce it. Defendants need not produce additional documents relating to it.
Defendants are required to produce documents relating to telephone sales of APP or

1
2
3
4
5

AC+. This information will likely be relevant in determining the scope of plaintiffs’ class.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 24, 2015
______________________________________
WILLIAM H. ORRICK
United States District Judge

6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2