Perez v. Monster Inc. et al

Filing 79

ORDER to Plaintiff to file legible copies of images and archived websites referenced in 74 Joint Discovery Letter Brief filed by Benjamin Perez. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu on 06/30/2016. (dmrlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/30/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

BENJAMIN PEREZ,

Case No. 15-cv-03885-EMC (DMR)

Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
10

MONSTER INC., et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER TO FILE LEGIBLE COPIES OF
IMAGES AND ARCHIVED WEBSITES
REFERENCED IN JUNE 15, 2016 JOINT
DISCOVERY LETTER
Re: Dkt. No. 74

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

In the parties’ June 15, 2016, joint discovery letter, Plaintiff Benjamin Perez moved to

13

compel Defendants to produce all sales figures from August 2011 to the present for all Monster

14

HDMI cables with more than 10.2 Gbps of bandwidth. [Docket No. 74.] Plaintiff contends that

15

although Defendants have provided sales information for the 18.0, 22.5, and 27.0 Gbps HDMI

16

cables that were sold in the same packaging as the chart in paragraph 33 of Plaintiff’s First

17

Amended Complaint (“FAC”), this production is incomplete because it excludes other HDMI

18

cables that Plaintiffs contend “all contain the core misrepresentation at issue in this case:

19

Monster’s claim that some video signals require more than 10.2 Gbps of bandwidth.” [Docket No.

20

74 at 3.] Plaintiff provided a number of footnotes to support his position that other Monster

21

HDMI cables contained the same core representations at issue in this suit, although they contained

22

charts or language different than the one included in paragraph 33 of his FAC. [Docket No. 74 1t

23

3 ns. 2-5.] However, as Defendants pointed out in their portion of the discovery letter, many of

24

the links Plaintiff provided do not work and only produce error messages. [Docket No. 74 at 4-5.]

25

Further, for some of the functional links, the images are not legible. Although Plaintiff was on

26

notice of this issue at the time of the filing of the letter, inexplicably he did not correct the links or

27

provide images of the packaging or websites that he relies on.

28

Therefore, the Plaintiff is ordered to file legible .pdf versions of the referenced images or

1

webpages clearly identifying the alleged misrepresentations that Plaintiff contends “contain the

2

same core misrepresentation at issue in the case” as exhibits to the joint discovery letter by 4:00

3

p.m. on July 1, 2016. The .pdfs should be clearly labelled, so that the court and Defendants can

4

tell what they are and to which footnote in the joint discovery letter they relate.

5
6
7
8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 30, 2016
______________________________________
Donna M. Ryu
United States Magistrate Judge

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