Andino

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 defendant’s motion to compel production of documents and devices for forensic inspection. ECF No. 48. This discovery motion was referred to the magistrate judge pursuant to E.D. Cal. R. 302(c)(1). The matter was taken under submission on the papers. ECF No. 49. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is GRANTED. I. Relevant Background This case is a putative class action in which plaintiff alleges that defendant Apple misled reasonable consumers into paying more than they otherwise would have by misrepresenting that they were buying ownership of “Digital Content” at the point of purchase when, in truth, they were essentially getting a lease. ECF No. 11 at 1-7. Plaintiff alleged that representations related to the option…