Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-01628/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-01628-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Property Damage

---

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 

1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

DAVID ANDINO, individually and on 

behalf of all others similarly situated, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

APPLE INC., a California Company, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:20-cv-01628 DAD AC 

ORDER 

This matter is before the court on defendant’s motion to compel production of documents and 

devices for forensic inspection. ECF No. 48. This discovery motion was referred to the 

magistrate judge pursuant to E.D. Cal. R. 302(c)(1). The matter was taken under submission on 

the papers. ECF No. 49. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is GRANTED. 

I. Relevant Background 

This case is a putative class action in which plaintiff alleges that defendant Apple misled 

reasonable consumers into paying more than they otherwise would have by misrepresenting that 

they were buying ownership of “Digital Content” at the point of purchase when, in truth, they 

were essentially getting a lease. ECF No. 11 at 1-7. Plaintiff alleged that representations related 

to the option to “buy” Digital Content are “misleading because they give the impression that the 

Digital Content is purchased – i.e. the person owns it – when in fact that is not true because 

Case 2:20-cv-01628-DAD-AC Document 54 Filed 01/17/24 Page 1 of 4
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 

2 

Defendant or others may revoke access to the Digital Content at any time and for any reason.” Id. 

at 7. The parties are currently engaging in discovery. 

Through the motion at bar, Apple seeks to compel a limited inspection of the devices 

(“Devices”) the plaintiff used to purchase, download, use, and otherwise access the Digital 

Content at the heart of this case. Defendant argues that the “Apple Media Services Terms and 

Conditions (“Terms”) applicable to his purchases clearly warned him to download the content or 

“back it up” because it “may not be available for subsequent download at any given time.” ECF 

No. 51 at 6. Defendant asserts the forensic inspection is necessary because “plaintiff has placed 

his purchase and use of Digital Content at issue, leading Apple to seek discovery regarding (1) 

what Digital Content he purchased, (2) whether and how he uses or accesses that Digital Content, 

(3) whether the plaintiff heeded Apple’s warning to download or otherwise back up any of his 

Digital Content, and if so, which content and when, (4) which purchased Digital Content, if any, 

the plaintiff can no longer access and whether that inaccessibility was caused by him or Apple, 

and (5) if the plaintiff lost access to Digital Content, how much value he and others got from his 

purchases before the content became inaccessible. These issues are directly relevant to Apple’s 

defenses to liability and damages and whether the plaintiff can sustain his claims or prove them 

on a class-wide basis.” Id. at 8. 

This case is factually related to another pending case in the Western District of New York, 

McTyere v. Apple Inc., No. 21-CV-1133-LJV. McTyere is a parallel case involving the same 

plaintiff’s counsel, Reese LLP, and defense counsel, DLA Piper LLP (US), and nearly identical 

claims against Apple. This court found good cause to modify the May 25, 2022 and June 1, 2023 

Scheduling Orders to better align and coordinate this case with the schedule in McTyere. ECF 

Nos. 38, 43, 47, 50. Pursuant to Local Rule 230(m)(2), defendant gave notice to the undersigned 

of a decision in McTyere regarding a motion to compel forensic inspection that is substantively 

identical to the motion before the undersigned. ECF No. 52, McTyere at ECF No. 60 (W.D.N.Y. 

Dec. 20, 2023). The decision in McTyere granted the motion and compelled the production of the 

devices of the McTyere plaintiffs for forensic inspection, which is the same relief sought in the 

pending motion. ECF No. 52. 

Case 2:20-cv-01628-DAD-AC Document 54 Filed 01/17/24 Page 2 of 4
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 

3 

II. Motion to Compel 

The scope of discovery in federal cases is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

26(b)(1). The current Rule states: 

Unless otherwise limited by court order, the scope of discovery is as 

follows: Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged 

matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and 

proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of 

the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the 

parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, 

the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether 

the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely 

benefit. Information within this scope of discovery need not be 

admissible in evidence to be discoverable. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Evidence is relevant if: (a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or 

less probable than it would be without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of consequence in 

determining the action. Fed. R. Evid. 401. Relevancy to the subject matter of the litigation “has 

been construed broadly to encompass any matter that bears on, or that reasonably could lead to 

other matter that could bear on, any issue that is or may be in the case.” Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. 

v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351 (1978). Relevance, however, does not establish discoverability; in 

2015, a proportionality requirement was added to Rule 26. Under the amended Rule 26, 

relevance alone will not justify discovery; discovery must also be proportional to the needs of the 

case. 

A party seeking to compel discovery has the initial burden to establish that its request is 

proper under Rule 26(b)(1). If the request is proper, the party resisting discovery has the burden 

of showing why discovery was denied; they must clarify and support their objections. 

Blankenship v. Hearst Corp., 519 F.2d 418, 429 (9th Cir.1975). General or boilerplate objections, 

without explanation, are not prohibited but are insufficient as a sole basis for an objection or 

privilege claim. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. v. United States Dist. Court, 408 F.3d 1142, 

1149 (9th Cir.2005). 

 Here, the court has fully reviewed the motion to compel and considered all the arguments 

presented in the joint statement. ECF No. 51. The court also reviewed the decision in McTyere. 

Case 2:20-cv-01628-DAD-AC Document 54 Filed 01/17/24 Page 3 of 4
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 

4 

ECF No. 52 at Ex. A. The undersigned agrees with the McTyere court that the motion to compel 

must be granted. The court finds the discovery is relevant because defendant is entitled to test 

plaintiff’s allegations that plaintiff actually lost access to digital content, and to investigate 

whether plaintiff followed the instructions to download the Digital Content. Plaintiff has not 

shown that the requested forensic imaging is unreasonable or unduly burdensome in this case, 

where content on computers and devices is at the heart of the dispute. Privacy concerns are 

addressed by the existing protective order. ECF No. 33. For all of 

 these reasons, the motion is granted. 

III. Conclusion

Defendant’s motion to compel a forensic inspection (ECF No. 48) is GRANTED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: January 17, 2024 

Case 2:20-cv-01628-DAD-AC Document 54 Filed 01/17/24 Page 4 of 4