Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-01068/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-01068-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Adobe, Inc.
Defendant
Viann Bonoan
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

VIANN BONOAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

ADOBE, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 19-cv-01068-RS (SK)

ORDER REGARDING DISCOVERY 

LETTER BRIEF FILED ON 

NOVEMBER 22, 2019

Regarding Docket No. 65

Now before the Court is the discovery dispute addressed by the parties in their joint letter 

brief filed on November 22, 2019. Plaintiff seeks answers to Interrogatory No. 10. Defendant 

seeks protection from responding and also seeks protection for responses to Interrogatories Nos. 

11, 13, and 14.

The Court ORDERS that Defendant must provide responses to Interrogatories Nos. 10, 11, 

13 and 14. Interrogatory No. 10 does not ask for information based on a legal description. 

Instead, Interrogatory No. 10 seeks only information about telephone calls that Defendant made 

“using the hardware or software Defendant used” to call Plaintiff.

Because Defendant is not required to respond to Interrogatory No. 9, to the extent that 

Interrogatories Nos. 11, 13 and 14 are dependent on telephone numbers provided in responses to 

Interrogatory No. 9, Defendant is not required to answer Interrogatories Nos. 11, 13 and 14 with 

respect to telephone numbers in response to Interrogatory No. 9 but instead should respond only as 

to the telephone numbers provided in responses to Interrogatories Nos. 10, 11, or 13. The 

responses are due on December 16, 2019.

The Court is concerned that the parties have different positions on whether Defendant 

earlier agreed to provide a response to Interrogatory No. 10. The Court notes that, in an earlier

discovery letter brief (Dkt. 56), Defendant stated: “Adobe did not object to Interrogatory No. 10 

on that basis because it seeks information related only to Adobe’s alleged communications to 

Case 3:19-cv-01068-RS Document 68 Filed 11/26/19 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

Plaintiff or to telephone number (281) XXX9685.” It is thus understandable that Plaintiff would 

interpret this statement as an agreement to respond to Interrogatory No. 10. The Court notes that 

the parties appear to be submitting briefs without meeting and conferring, and the Court 

encourages the parties to do so rather than to rush to Court with every discovery dispute.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 26, 2019

______________________________________

SALLIE KIM

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:19-cv-01068-RS Document 68 Filed 11/26/19 Page 2 of 2