1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 MOBILE EMERGENCY HOUSING Case No. 20-cv-09157-SVK CORP., et al., 8 Plaintiffs, ORDER ON JOINT DISCOVERY 9 SUBMISSION v. 10 Dkt. No. 102

HP, INC.,

11 Defendant. 12

13 Before the Court is the Parties’ Joint Discovery Submission regarding Plaintiffs’ request to 14 compel HP to provide additional information in response to interrogatories and to produce 15 additional documents. Dkt. 102. The Court has reviewed the submission, the relevant law and the 16 litigation history in this action and determines that this matter may be resolved without oral 17 argument. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). 18 19 The litigation history, including rulings on the motion to dismiss (Dkt. 52), motion to 20 amend (Dkt. 82) and a discovery dispute (Dkt. 69), provide the relevant background to, and 21 guidance for, resolving the current disputes. As previously addressed by this Court, and as set 22 forth in the operative Third Amended Complaint (Dkt. 42; “TAC”), the relevant subject matter of 23 this action is HP Color LaserJet (“LaserJet”) printers that received HP firmware updates that 24 allegedly disabled non-HP cartridges in Plaintiffs’ and putative class members’ printers. As they 25 relate to the current disputes, the relevant parameters are: 26 27 HP Color LaserJet Printers: This Court previously adjudicated a dispute as to whether that issue, HP offered a “compromise” to include all LaserJet printers, along with certain caveats 1 2 of its choosing. Dkt. 67 at 3. Pursuant to the Partis’ submissions and relevant case law, the Court 3 excluded InkJet printers and allowed discovery as to “all LaserJet printers” without adopting HP’s 4 further limitations. Dkt. 69 at 2. That ruling stands, subject only to the further limitations 5 addressed herein. 6 Firmware Updates: As referenced throughout the Third Amended Complaint, the named 7 Plaintiffs suffered the alleged harm from firmware updates. See, e.g., TAC ¶¶ 1-2, 25-26, 91. 8 Plaintiff’s quest for discovery “on all of HP’s transmissions that resulted in third-party cartridges 9 10 being blocked, including transmissions of programs, information, code, and commands” (Dkt. 102 11 at 6) is a bridge too far from the allegations in the TAC. See Dkt. 102 at 7-8. 12 On the other side of the ledger, HP argues that discovery should be limited only to the 13 firmware update of November 2020. The Court disagrees. Named Plaintiffs’ machines received 14 firmware updates in November 2020 and January 2021. TAC ¶¶ 40, 52, 62. Further, Plaintiffs 15 make a prima facie showing that (1) HP sent similar firmware updates to their machines, TAC ¶¶ 16 40, 52, 62; (2) the firmware updates caused similar injuries, namely the disabling of Plaintiffs’ 17 18 printers and their compatible third-party toner supply cartridges, necessitating the purchase of new 19 machines and/or new cartridges, TAC ¶¶ 42, 44-45, 54, 56-57, 67-68, 70; and (3) HP made 20 substantially similar, if not identical, representations regarding the cause of their machines’ 21 malfunction following a firmware update, TAC ¶¶ 41, 53, 65-66. Given these allegations, the 22 Court concludes that the discovery Plaintiffs seek for all firmware updates affecting LaserJet 23 printers in the identified timeframe is likely to substantiate their class certification allegations. See 24 25 Mantolete v. Bolger, 767 F.2d 1416, 1424 (9th Cir. 1985). 26 Relevant Time Period: The Court finds that the Relevant Time Period covers any 27 firmware updates received from November 2020-January 2023, which is Plaintiffs’ proposed 1 meet-and-confer letters, is not persuasive, particularly since HP’s substantial production of 9 || documents was not even completed until December 2022. It is unfortunate that the Parties could 3 not see their way clearly to meet and confer on date parameters early on in this action; that 4 || shortcoming, and any resulting burden, is of the Parties’ own making. 5 Production of technical materials: HP objects to responding to inquiries and producing 6 documents regarding its procedures for cartridge authentication and mechanisms for disabling 7 3 third-party cartridges. HP’s relevance objections as to authentication procedures and disabling

9 mechanisms implemented through firmware in the Relevant Time Period as set forth herein are not 10 || well taken and are OVERRULED. HP must produce the responsive technical materials for the 11 Relevant Time Period before the close of discovery. 12

SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 6, 2023

© 15 Season 16 SUSAN VAN KEULEN : United States Magistrate Judge

Z 18

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28