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. 74, 77, 82
The parties have several discovery disputes. The Court addresses them as follows.
A. ECF No. 74
1. Rog 5
The Court already ordered Nexo to answer rog 5 for worldwide sales. ECF No. 69. Nexo
is in violation of that order, and its conduct is sanctionable.
2. Rog 12
The Court orders Nexo to answer rog 12.
B. ECF No. 77
For the most part, Nexo’s motion to compel seeks documents that have nothing to do with
this case and is broadly invasive of Cress’s privacy. The Court denies Nexo’s motion except
grants it as to RFP 132.
C. ECF No. 82
The Court is concerned that Plaintiff’s motion to compel is seeking class action discovery
far beyond what is needed to adjudicate his claims. For all but two of the RFPs in question, the
Court adopts “Nexo’s Final Proposed Compromise.” For RFPs 178 and 247, the Court adopts
“Plaintiff’s Proposed Compromise.” Please note that both RFPs are “sufficient to show.” Thus,
Case 3:23-cv-00882-TSH Document 89 Filed 10/31/25 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
by adopting Plaintiff’s Proposed Compromise, the Court is saying that Nexo may limit its search
for documents sufficient to show these things to its 14 custodians and 9 non-custodial sources.
This order terminates ECF Nos. 74, 77 and 82.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 31, 2025
THOMAS S. HIXSON
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 3:23-cv-00882-TSH Document 89 Filed 10/31/25 Page 2 of 2