Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-00453/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-00453-42/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 380
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Property Damage
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

MARC OPPERMAN, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

PATH, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 13-cv-00453-JST 

ORDER REGARDING DISMISSAL OF 

PLAINTIFF THEDA SANDIFORD

Re: ECF Nos. 597, 637

Pursuant to a prior Court order, see ECF No. 597, Plaintiff Theda Sandiford and 

Defendants Apple and Instagram submitted notice to the Court regarding Ms. Sandiford’s 

discovery responses. See ECF No. 637. 

Apple requests that the Court defer dismissal of Ms. Sandiford until (1) the Court 

determines Plaintiffs’ discovery obligations with respect to her contacts and device data, and (2) 

Ms. Sandiford complies with any such obligation. Instagram requests that the Court defer 

dismissal of Ms. Sandiford until (1) Instagram has had a reasonable opportunity to review Ms. 

Sandiford’s amended discovery responses to identify any remaining disputes, and (2) she has 

completed document production. Ms. Sandiford requests that the Court dismiss her from the 

action now. 

The Court declines to dismiss Ms. Sandiford at this time. Whether Ms. Sandiford has 

satisfied her obligation to produce documents and data is presently the subject of a discovery 

dispute before Judge Spero. Instagram should also have sufficient time to review Ms. Sandiford’s 

amended discovery responses. 

Within seven days of the resolution of the discovery dispute before Judge Spero, the 

Parties will notify the Court whether any issues remain with the adequacy of Ms. Sandiford’s 

/ / /

Case 3:13-cv-00453-JST Document 641 Filed 02/10/16 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

responses. The Court will then either determine how to resolve any remaining disputes or refer 

them to Judge Spero for resolution. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 10, 2016

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge

Case 3:13-cv-00453-JST Document 641 Filed 02/10/16 Page 2 of 2