throbber

`
`
`
`Case 5:18-cv-07597-BLF Document 236 Filed 05/04/21 Page 1 of 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`JERI CONNOR,
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`QUORA, INC.,
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 18-cv-07597 BLF (NC)
`
`ORDER ON DISCOVERY DISPUTE
`AS TO FORENSIC INSPECTION OF
`PLAINTIFF’S ELECTRONIC
`DEVICES
`Re: ECF 235
`
`
`
`
`In this negligence case arising from a data breach, defendant Quora moves to
`
`compel a forensic examination of plaintiff Connor’s devices that she used to access the
`Quora platform. ECF 235. Quora states that it seeks to examine plaintiff’s digital
`“hygiene” on her devices, and asserts that the search is relevant to causation, comparative
`negligence, and class certification. Connor objects that the request is untimely,
`cumulative, irrelevant, overly intrusive, and not proportional to the needs of the case under
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).
`The document request at issue, Quora RFP No. 15, seeks “ALL PHYSICAL
`HARDWARE OR DEVICES YOU have used to access the QUORA PLATFORM,
`including but not limited to the mobile phone(s), tablets, laptops or other computers or
`devices that YOU used to access the Quora platform.” As drafted, Quora’s request is
`
`
`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
`
`NorthernDistrictofCalifornia
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-07597-BLF Document 236 Filed 05/04/21 Page 2 of 2
`
`
`
`dramatically overbroad, intrusive, and not proportional to the needs of the case under Rule
`26.
`In the discovery letter brief, Quora suggests that it would agree to adopt “reasonable
`
`protocols” like those adopted in the Anthem data breach case, No. 15-md-02617 LHK,
`including the use of a third-party forensic examiner. ECF 235 at p. 4. But Quora’s
`discovery brief is short on details as to what it is proposing. What does it want to search
`for on the devices? Using what methods? Who would do the search? Where? Who would
`pay for it? What access and control will plaintiff have over the search?
`Without these curbs to limit the burden and expense of the production, the proposed
`search is a fishing expedition that is not proportional to the needs of the case. Less
`burdensome discovery methods could have been used to learn the information Quora now
`seeks. Quora’s request is therefore denied.
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`
`Dated: May 4, 2021
`
`_____________________________________
`NATHANAEL M. COUSINS
`United States Magistrate Judge
`
` 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
`
`NorthernDistrictofCalifornia
`United States District Court
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket