Andino
Andino v. Apple, Inc.
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 DAVID ANDINO, individually and on No. 2:20-cv-01628 DAD AC behalf of all others similarly situated, 12 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 14 APPLE INC., a California Company, 15 Defendant.
17 This matter is before the court on two discovery motions brought by plaintiff: a motion to compel production (ECF No. 57, joint statement at ECF No. 60) and a motion for a protective order (ECF No. 63, joint statement at ECF No. 65). These discovery motions were referred to the magistrate judge pursuant to E.D. Cal. R. 302(c)(1) and were taken under submission. ECF Nos. 58 and 64. In light of the procedural history of this case, discussed below, there are no pending discovery deadlines and requests related to deadline extensions are therefore moot. For the reasons stated below, the court will (1) deny plaintiff’s motion to compel (ECF No. 58) on the merits, (2) deny the motion for a protective order (ECF No. 63) as premature, and (3) set a discovery management conference for October 2, 2024.…