Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-01117/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-01117-25/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Northern District of California

STEVEN MCARDLE, an individual, on

behalf of himself, the general public and those

similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

 vs.

AT&T MOBILITY LLC; NEW CINGULAR

WIRELESS PCS LLC; NEW CINGULAR

WIRELESS SERVICES, INC., and Does 1-50

_____________________________________/ Defendants.

No. C 09-1117 CW (MEJ)

ORDER RE: DISCOVERY DISPUTE

(DKT. NO. 214)

The Court is in receipt of the parties’ joint discovery dispute letter, filed December 20, 2012. 

Dkt. No. 214. Upon review of the parties’ letter, the Court hereby ORDERS Defendants to respond

to Plaintiff’s discovery requests only as they relate to the validity of the arbitration agreement at

issue in this case. Defendants need not respond to Plaintiff’s requests that relate to other

agreements, disputes, arbitrations, and lawsuits relating to other customers. See Meyer v. T-Mobile

USA Inc., 836 F. Supp. 2d 994, 1007 (N.D. Cal. 2011) (disallowing discovery where the requests

focused not on the plaintiff’s arbitration agreement, but instead focused on all agreements, disputes,

arbitrations and lawsuits relating to T–Mobile customers). 

Given that Judge Wilken only recently granted Plaintiffs leave to conduct limited discovery

regarding matters relevant to generally applicable contract defenses, it does not appear that the

parties have had the opportunity to meet and confer to determine whether they are able to agree on

the scope of relevant discovery. Thus, if the parties are unable to fully resolve their dispute after

issuance of this Order, the parties are ORDERED to meet and confer in person and thereafter file an

updated joint letter (or letters), if necessary.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 21, 2012 _______________________________

Maria-Elena James 

Chief United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 4:09-cv-01117-CW Document 215 Filed 12/21/12 Page 1 of 1