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. 106
The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to compel. RFPs 274 and 275 are substantially
overbroad. RFPs 280, 284 and 294 seek irrelevant information because deduplication and email
threading have nothing to do with the spoliation issues Plaintiff is complaining about. The Court
doubts that documents responsive to RFP 282 exist that are not attorney work product. RFP 285 is
vague but also looks disproportional to the needs of the case. The Court does not see a reason to
enforce RFP 292 in light of Nexo’s representation that data in old computers is not maintained.
RFP 293 seems like it asks Nexo to create documents that do not otherwise exist, which is not
appropriate for an RFP. And RFP 295 is disproportional to the needs of the case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 25, 2026
THOMAS S. HIXSON
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 3:23-cv-00882-TSH Document 107 Filed 03/25/26 Page 1 of 1