John Does 1-5, et al. v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., et al., 3:23-cv-02865

The case involves Plaintiffs (John Does 1-5) alleging Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. shared user interaction data from its website and apps with third-party technologies, potentially violating privacy laws.
Plaintiffs moved to compel broader discovery responses from Kaiser, specifically concerning the identification of all third-party technologies present on Kaiser’s log-in/authentication webpages.
Kaiser claims its discovery production already covers relevant technologies and that expanding further is overly burdensome and not legally required.
Plaintiffs also challenged Kaiser’s extensive designations of materials as "Attorney Eyes Only," claiming it hampers their ability to prosecute the case effectively.
Additional discovery management issues included how parties should address disputes over electronically stored information (ESI) sources and the proper format of joint submissions.
The Court’s order resolves multiple discovery disputes and sets guidance for ongoing discovery management.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Scope of ROG 4 (identification of tech)	All third-party techs on login pages are relevant and central to the case.	Only six specific techs are implicated; broader response is unduly burdensome.	Plaintiffs entitled to all tech identities & contract dates; not limited to six.
Requirement to describe "purpose"	Purpose can be stated briefly; not unduly burdensome.	Describing purpose for each tech is burdensome, requires employee interviews.	Kaiser not required to describe purposes; must provide contracts for review.
Over-designation of "Attorney Eyes Only"	Mass AEO designations are excessive, restrict case prep and expert access.	Plaintiffs haven’t identified specific documents; mass review request inappropriate.	Parties must use dispute process for AEO, avoid mass challenges and overdesignations
ESI Database Disclosure	Seek schema/info on tracking database for appropriate discovery requests.	No specific contrary argument stated; guidance needed for conferral process.	Kaiser must supply schema; parties to confer with technical staff.

U.S. Fidelity & Guar. Co. v. Lee Inv. LLC, 641 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir. 2011) (district courts have broad discretion in managing discovery)
Surfvivor Media, Inc. v. Survivor Prods., 406 F.3d 625 (9th Cir. 2005) (relevancy in discovery is broadly construed)
Blankenship v. Hearst Corp., 519 F.2d 418 (9th Cir. 1975) (defendants bear heavy burden to deny discovery under liberal rules)
Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574 (1998) (trial courts have broad discretion to tailor and sequence discovery)
Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340 (1978) (scope of discovery is broad, covering matters that might lead to relevant information)