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. 262
Plaintiffs’ rog 8 asks Apple to “Identify, to date, the number of times law enforcement has
contacted Apple regarding unwanted tracking from an AirTag.” Their rog 9 asks Apple to
“Identify, to date, the number of times any person who is not law enforcement has contacted
Apple regarding unwanted tracking from an AirTag.” Apple previously limited its response to rog
9 to an end date of April 5, 2024. The Court overruled that end date in ECF No. 239, finding it
arbitrary. Apple’s deadline to amend its response to rog 9 is March 13, 2026. ECF No. 246 at 10.
The parties have agreed that Apple will amend its response to rog 8 by March 13, 2026, as well.
ECF No. 262 at 4 n.7 The issue that currently divides the parties is that Apple intends to limit its
upcoming amended responses to rogs 8 and 9 to June 30, 2025, whereas Plaintiffs think the
amended responses should go through the present.
The Court agrees with Plaintiffs. As the Court explained in ECF No. 239, the total number
of these contacts is relevant to the merits of Plaintiffs’ negligent design and product liability
claims. Apple’s arbitrary end date of the middle of last year cuts off months of relevant
information.
Apple points to the Court’s order at ECF No. 158, which set a June 30, 2025 end date for
the production of Plaintiffs’ medical records. Apple’s analogy is unpersuasive. In ECF No. 158
Case 3:22-cv-07668-VC Document 273 Filed 02/25/26 Page 1 of 3

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
the Court explained:
As for the end date, both sides agree that medical records from after
the events alleged in the Third Amended Complaint are relevant; they
just disagree about how long after. The Court sees no reason in
principle why there should be an end date to relevance for emotional
distress that in many cases is alleged to be ongoing. However, the
Court is again mindful that the purpose of producing these medical
records is to enable the depositions to proceed. So, we do need an end
date, and it should be a date that has already happened, so Plaintiffs’
counsel can go collect the records and finish that task. Accordingly,
the Court ORDERS that the end date for the medical records is June
30, 2025. The Court is setting this end date to enable document
collection and production to proceed so the depositions can happen.
This end date is without prejudice to being reconsidered later if there
is a reason to do so.
The purpose of the June 30, 2025 end date for medical records was to enable the
depositions to proceed. Apple wanted to depose the Plaintiffs after they produced their medical
records. And Apple wanted to take those depositions before it opposed the class certification
motion. That’s why the Court came up with a deadline to produce the medical records. As the
Court explained: “The Court is setting this end date to enable document collection and production
to proceed so the depositions can happen.” The Court was not setting an all-purpose end date on
discovery.
The information Plaintiffs seek in rogs 8 and 9 is relevant, and there is no justification for
Apple denying them months of that information. At the hearing Apple stated that it would be able
to include information through today in supplemental responses to be served on March 13, 2026,
but that if the Court required information through a later date, Apple requested an extension of the
March 13 deadline. The Court prefers to keep the March 13 deadline intact. Accordingly, the
Court ORDERS Apple to answer rogs 8 and 9 through February 25, 2026 in its upcoming March
13, 2026 responses.
To avoid confusion, the Court is not proclaiming that February 25, 2026 is the end date for
fact discovery either. Rather, the Court rejects Apple’s proposed June 30, 2025 deadline. The
Court then has to decide through what date Apple’s March 13 responses should include
information, and Apple said that February 25 was a workable date. So that’s what the Court is
ordering.
Case 3:22-cv-07668-VC Document 273 Filed 02/25/26 Page 2 of 3

3
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
Generally speaking, the end date for document and data collection works in one of two
ways. First, the end date can be driven by case needs, such as a need to produce documents in
advance of depositions or because of the fact discovery cut off. Second, the end date can be
driven by relevance and proportionality, for example, when the events giving rise to the lawsuit
ended at some point. Apple’s proposed June 30, 2025 cut off for rogs 8 and 9 isn’t either of these,
and February 25, 2026 isn’t either. By contrast, the Court’s deadline of June 30, 2025 for the
production of medical records was driven by case needs. Thus, the Court’s order for Apple to
produce data through February 25 in its March 13 amended responses is not a ruling that February
25 is forever the end date for these rogs, precluding Plaintiffs from coming back later and asking
for a refresh. A hard cut off like that would need some basis in either case needs or relevance and
proportionality, which so far has not been demonstrated.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 25, 2026
THOMAS S. HIXSON
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 3:22-cv-07668-VC Document 273 Filed 02/25/26 Page 3 of 3