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. No. 99
The parties have filed a joint letter brief at ECF No. 99. In the brief, “Cress seeks the
following remedies at Nexo’s expense: 1) An order that Nexo provide a certified response to his
February 3 letter (Ex. 6) by February 20, 2026, 2) Leave to take a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of
Nexo by February 27, 2026 regarding its document collection, retention, search, and production;
3) A forensic examination of Nexo’s systems and the custodians’ electronic devices; 4) Leave to
file for sanctions under F.R.C.P. 37(e).”
Request 1 looks like a request for discovery because it seeks information. However, a
meet and confer letter is not itself a discovery request. Accordingly, Request 1 is DENIED
without prejudice to Cress seeking the requested information through a form of discovery
permitted under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, such as a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice or
interrogatories.
The Court does not understand Request 2. Discovery is open, and the parties do not need
leave of court to serve a deposition notice.
Request 3 looks like a form of sanction for misconduct and should be requested in a
motion for sanctions. Similarly, the request for cost shifting is also a request for a sanction.
In Request 4, Cress seeks leave to file for sanctions. The Court’s Discovery Standing
Case 3:23-cv-00882-TSH Document 101 Filed 02/19/26 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
Order provides that “No motion for sanctions may be filed until after the moving party has
complied with the requirements above,” meaning the requirement to file a joint discovery letter
brief. The Court determines that Cress has complied with that requirement, and he is therefore
free to move for sanctions. A sanctions motion should be brought as a regular noticed motion
pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.
This order terminates ECF No. 99.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 19, 2026
THOMAS S. HIXSON
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 3:23-cv-00882-TSH Document 101 Filed 02/19/26 Page 2 of 2