Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03885/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03885-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:2301 Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act

---

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

BENJAMIN PEREZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

MONSTER INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-03885-EMC (DMR)

ORDER TO FILE LEGIBLE COPIES OF 

IMAGES AND ARCHIVED WEBSITES 

REFERENCED IN JUNE 15, 2016 JOINT 

DISCOVERY LETTER 

Re: Dkt. No. 74

In the parties’ June 15, 2016, joint discovery letter, Plaintiff Benjamin Perez moved to 

compel Defendants to produce all sales figures from August 2011 to the present for all Monster 

HDMI cables with more than 10.2 Gbps of bandwidth. [Docket No. 74.] Plaintiff contends that 

although Defendants have provided sales information for the 18.0, 22.5, and 27.0 Gbps HDMI 

cables that were sold in the same packaging as the chart in paragraph 33 of Plaintiff’s First 

Amended Complaint (“FAC”), this production is incomplete because it excludes other HDMI 

cables that Plaintiffs contend “all contain the core misrepresentation at issue in this case: 

Monster’s claim that some video signals require more than 10.2 Gbps of bandwidth.” [Docket No. 

74 at 3.] Plaintiff provided a number of footnotes to support his position that other Monster 

HDMI cables contained the same core representations at issue in this suit, although they contained 

charts or language different than the one included in paragraph 33 of his FAC. [Docket No. 74 1t 

3 ns. 2-5.] However, as Defendants pointed out in their portion of the discovery letter, many of 

the links Plaintiff provided do not work and only produce error messages. [Docket No. 74 at 4-5.] 

Further, for some of the functional links, the images are not legible. Although Plaintiff was on 

notice of this issue at the time of the filing of the letter, inexplicably he did not correct the links or 

provide images of the packaging or websites that he relies on. 

Therefore, the Plaintiff is ordered to file legible .pdf versions of the referenced images or 

Case 3:15-cv-03885-EMC Document 79 Filed 06/30/16 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

webpages clearly identifying the alleged misrepresentations that Plaintiff contends “contain the

same core misrepresentation at issue in the case” as exhibits to the joint discovery letter by 4:00 

p.m. on July 1, 2016. The .pdfs should be clearly labelled, so that the court and Defendants can 

tell what they are and to which footnote in the joint discovery letter they relate. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 30, 2016

______________________________________

Donna M. Ryu

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:15-cv-03885-EMC Document 79 Filed 06/30/16 Page 2 of 2