Hughes et al v. Apple, Inc.

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
United States District Court
Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
LAUREN HUGHES, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
APPLE, INC.,
Defendant.
Case No. 22-cv-07668-VC (TSH)
DISCOVERY ORDER
Re: Dkt. No. 180
The parties have a dispute about Plaintiffs’ redactions to their medical records. To help the
Court better understand the practicalities of the dispute, the Court ordered the parties to submit ten
examples of the redacted medical records for in camera review, five chosen by Plaintiffs and five
chosen by Apple. ECF No. 185.
The Court has now reviewed the examples, and doing so has been quite illuminating. The
examples total hundreds of pages and imply that the total volume of medical records at issue in the
case is enormous. Each redaction, of course, is individual, made to one portion of a document.
Except for Apple Exhibit 4, the redactions Plaintiffs have made in the examples submitted are
quite restrained. It’s obvious that careful thought went into these redactions, and these redactions
do not look like an effort to conceal relevant evidence. In context, sometimes you can tell the
particular reason for a redaction, but many times you can’t just from looking at the redacted
document, and the redaction log usually says that the redaction concerns a physical condition for
which emotional distress is not a recognized symptom, or alternatively, medication or treatment
not prescribed for emotional distress and/or prescribed for physical condition for which emotional
distress is not a recognized symptom.
Having reviewed these examples in camera, the Court has come to the conclusion that the
Case 3:22-cv-07668-VC Document 212 Filed 11/10/25 Page 1 of 2

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
United States District Court
Northern District of California
level of detail Apple seeks for each redaction is completely infeasible. As a purely academic
matter, if you just thought about it in the abstract, Apple’s request for “(1) Plaintiff-specific
showings for each redaction; (2) contextual explanations demonstrating why the redacted
information is not directly related to the mental conditions placed at issue; and (3) sufficient
identifying information to allow Apple to assess the propriety of Plaintiffs’ redactions” might
seem logical. But this collapses under the weight of reality when you realize the volume of
redactions and medical records at issue. Further, this is not like a privilege log where every entry
is either privilege, work product, or both. The explanations Apple is demanding would be specific
to each redaction and would presumably consist of information substantiating why the redacted
material is not relevant to the medical conditions each Plaintiff put at issue by filing suit.
This is an unjustifiable amount of work. Discovery is supposed to be proportional to the
needs of the case, see Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 26(b)(1), and sometimes the Court’s job is to declare that
perfection isn’t worth it. This is one of those times, and Apple’s motion to compel is therefore
DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 10, 2025
THOMAS S. HIXSON
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 3:22-cv-07668-VC Document 212 Filed 11/10/25 Page 2 of 2