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. Nos. 183, 188
The parties have a couple of discovery disputes. ECF Nos. 183, 188. The Court held a
hearing on November 6, 2025 and now issues the following order.
A. ECF No. 183
For the reasons discussed at the hearing, the Court ORDERS as follows:
1. Apple shall serve its narrative responses to interrogatories 1-18, for the interrogatories
to which it intends to provide a narrative response, by November 7, 2025.
2. Apple shall complete by December 8, 2025 its initial production of documents from all
non-custodial sources and from the documents returned from Apple’s application of the 47 initial
search terms to the data collected from its initial custodians.
3. Apple shall serve its Rule 33(d) references in its responses to interrogatories 1-18 by
January 9, 2026.
B. ECF No. 188
The parties have a dispute concerning Plaintiffs’ communications with their alleged
stalkers. Plaintiffs have agreed to produce communications with third parties (including their
stalkers) discussing AirTags or unwanted tracking, stalking, and evidencing discovery or reporting
of an AirTag. ECF No. 187-3 at 6. Apple wants “all” communications between Plaintiffs and
Case 3:22-cv-07668-VC Document 209 Filed 11/06/25 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
their stalkers from one year before discovery of the AirTag through the present. Id. at 2. The
Court thinks Plaintiffs have the better of the argument.
In many cases, the alleged stalkers are an ex-spouse or an ex-partner. Plaintiffs’
communications with them could relate to family members (including children), divorce
proceedings, child custody disputes, marital problems, new relationships, or anything at all that
someone might discuss with an ex. It is likely that many of those communications won’t relate
directly to stalking, and also likely that producing the full scope of those communications will be
highly invasive to Plaintiffs’ privacy. The Court doesn’t buy Apple’s argument that this much
invasion of privacy is needed to defend against a lawsuit that alleges AirTags enabled stalking.
When it comes to medical records, the Court has already rejected Apple’s argument that Plaintiffs’
claims of emotional distress damages entitled Apple to unfettered access to medical records – on
the theory that any medical issue could be distressing and therefore an alternative cause of
damages. ECF No. 163. Apple’s similar argument that it needs absolutely every communication
between Plaintiffs and their alleged stalkers, regardless of subject matter, so it can properly
contextualize the alleged stalking and assess causation and damages is overreaching.
Accordingly, Apple’s motion to compel is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 6, 2025
THOMAS S. HIXSON
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 3:22-cv-07668-VC Document 209 Filed 11/06/25 Page 2 of 2