Maude

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 ERIN K. MAUDE, Case No. 22-cv-03405-RFL (TSH)

9 Plaintiff,

DISCOVERY ORDER

10 v. Re: Dkt. No. 73 11 CIRO BARBOZA, 12 Defendant.

13 14 In ECF No. 73, Defendant Ciro Barboza moved to compel Plaintiff Erin Maude “to 15 provide responses and produce documents” in response to his first set of requests for production 16 (“RFPs”). RFP 1 asked for all documents pertaining to the facts alleged in the Complaint. RFPs 17 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8 all seem to be the same, asking for all documents, records and/or tangible 18 material listed in Plaintiff’s Rule 26 initial disclosures. RFP 7 sought all documents supporting 19 Plaintiff’s contention that Barboza did not honor her constitutional rights. RFPs 9 and 10 asked 20 for all documents that show Plaintiff is entitled to damages. RFP 11 asked for all documents that show she is entitled to attorneys’ fees. Basically, these RFPs asked for everything that supports 21 Plaintiff’s case. Defense counsel stated in his declaration that Plaintiff…