Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-05548/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-05548-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

ORDER – No. 17-cv-05548-RS (LB)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

San Francisco Division

DAVID KHAN, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

JUSTIN ROGERS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-05548-RS (LB)

ORDER ADDRESSING ONGOING 

DISCOVERY DISPUTE REGARDING 

PLAINTIFFS’ CELL PHONE

Re: ECF No. 88, 101, 105

The court assumes the reader’s familiarity with the subject matter and procedural history of 

this case and the parties’ various disputes, and in particular, the court’s September 28, 2018, and 

November 6, 2018, orders regarding plaintiff David Khan’s cell phone. Khan v. Rogers, No. 17-

cv-05548-RS (LB), 2018 WL 4693414 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 28, 2018) (Khan I); Khan v. Rogers, No. 

17-cv-05548-RS (LB), 2018 WL 5849010 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2018) (Khan II).

1

The defendants 

have submitted a declaration stating that the plaintiffs continue to refuse to take back Mr. Khan’s 

cell phone and produce responsive documents therefrom, as the court had ordered the plaintiffs to 

do.2 Most recently, Mr. Khan stated that he would accept his cell phone only if, among other 

 

1 Khan I Order – ECF No. 88; Khan II Order – ECF No. 101. Citations refer to material in the 

Electronic Case File (“ECF”); pinpoint citations are to the ECF-generated page numbers at the top of 

documents.

2 Blechman Decl. – ECF No. 105 at 2 (¶¶ 3–5).

Case 3:17-cv-05548-RS Document 107 Filed 11/13/18 Page 1 of 3
ORDER – No. 17-cv-05548-RS (LB) 2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

things, the defendants pay him $20.7 million and return the phone to him in the presence of the 

FBI and various U.S. senators.3The defendants request that (1) the court issue sanctions against 

the plaintiffs for failure to comply with the court’s orders, (2) allow the defendants full access to 

the forensically downloaded backup data from the phone, and (3) order that the phone remain in 

the defendants’ custody for the duration of this litigation for preservation purposes.

As the court has discussed previously, including at the September 27, 2018, hearing and the 

court’s orders, the court is mindful of Mr. Khan’s privacy interests in his cell phone and has been 

trying to accommodate these privacy interests, while not prejudicing the defendants from being 

able to obtain the discovery they need from the phone. See Khan I, 2018 WL 4693414, at *3; 

Khan II, 2018 WL 5849010, at *3.4The court’s attempts to accommodate Mr. Khan’s privacy 

interests have been frustrated by Mr. Khan’s refusal to cooperate and comply with the court’s 

orders. Nevertheless, the court will try one more time to accommodate Mr. Khan’s privacy 

interests. In lieu of granting the defendants’ request for direct access to the forensically 

downloaded backup data from the phone, the court directs the defendants to submit by November 

16, 2018, (1) a proposal for review of the data by a “taint team” or a third-party vendor separate 

and apart from the individuals and counsel directly involved with this litigation and (2) a proposed 

protective order that would protect non-responsive documents and information from the phone 

being produced to individuals outside of the “taint team” or vendor, or to show cause why this 

would be infeasible. The plaintiffs may thereafter submit a response by November 19, 2018, and 

the defendants may submit a reply by November 20, 2018.

The court grants the defendants’ request to allow the phone to remain in the defendants’ 

custody for the duration of this litigation for preservation purposes, absent further order of the 

court. The plaintiffs have had multiple opportunities to take back their phone after the court’s 

September 28 order and have rejected those opportunities. To avoid ambiguity as to whether the 

 

3

Id. at 3 (¶ 7); Blechman Decl. Ex. B – ECF No. 105 at 10.

4 Khan I Order – ECF No. 88 at 5; Khan II Order – ECF No. 101 at 6; see also Order – ECF No. 77 at 

3–4.

Case 3:17-cv-05548-RS Document 107 Filed 11/13/18 Page 2 of 3
ORDER – No. 17-cv-05548-RS (LB) 3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

court’s prior orders that the defendants return the phone remain in effect, as well as to avoid 

gamesmanship regarding the phone’s custody, the court rescinds its prior orders requiring the 

defendants to return the phone to the plaintiffs.

The court declines to issue sanctions on its own authority against the plaintiffs at this time.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 13, 2018

______________________________________

LAUREL BEELER

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:17-cv-05548-RS Document 107 Filed 11/13/18 Page 3 of 3