Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-01619/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-01619-11/pdf.json

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

---

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

FABRIENNE ENGLISH,

Plaintiff,

v.

APPLE INC, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-01619-WHO 

ORDER REGARDING DISCOVERY 

DISPUTES

Re: Dkt. Nos. 140, 142

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 

Case 3:14-cv-01619-WHO Document 147 Filed 03/24/15 Page 1 of 2
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

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

Case 3:14-cv-01619-WHO Document 147 Filed 03/24/15 Page 2 of 2