Cress v. Nexo Financial LLC et al

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
JOHN CRESS,
Plaintiff,
v.
NEXO CAPITAL INC.,
Defendant.
Case No. 23-cv-00882-TSH
DISCOVERY ORDER
Re: Dkt. Nos. 132, 133, 136
The parties have filed joint discovery letter briefs at ECF Nos. 132, 133 and 136. The
Court addresses them as follows.
A. ECF No. 132
In ECF No. 132, Cress moves to compel concerning rog 23 and RFPs 296, 300-301, 303-
310, 312-323, 325, 328-330, 333, 338-345 and 350-380. In ECF No. 132-1, the parties include a
chart that lists each of these discovery requests and then “Plaintiff’s Proposed Compromise” and
“Defendant’s Response.” For each request1 the Court adopts either “Plaintiff’s Proposed
Compromise” or “Defendant’s Response” and writes “SO ORDERED” underneath the adopted
proposal. The Court will file that discovery order separately. A major factor that guides the
Court’s ruling is that this joint discovery letter brief was filed five days before the close of fact
discovery. As the close of fact discovery approaches, the parties should be wrapping up any last
discovery disputes, and the Court is not inclined to order broad new avenues of discovery at this
stage of the case.
1 For RFP 377, nothing is listed for “Defendant’s Response.” However, from the surrounding
RFPs, the Court can infer what the Defendant’s response is.
Case 3:23-cv-00882-TSH Document 139 Filed 07/13/26 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
B. ECF No. 133
The Court DENIES Cress’s motion to compel. He has not shown that the discovery he
seeks is proportional to the needs of the case. In particular this joint discovery letter brief was
filed just after the close of fact discovery, when the parties are supposed to be wrapping up
discovery disputes, not embarking on new discovery projects.
C. ECF No. 136
Cress’s motion to compel is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 13, 2026
THOMAS S. HIXSON
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 3:23-cv-00882-TSH Document 139 Filed 07/13/26 Page 2 of 2