Pattison v. HP Inc.

Background

Mary Pattison filed a proposed class action alleging that HP sells a “risk free” HP Care Pack service program with its computers and related equipment. Under the program described in the opinion, a purchaser who has no service events involving the covered equipment for three years may receive a full rebate of the Care Pack cost after submitting a timely rebate form. Pattison alleges that HP does not properly administer the program or provide rebates on time.

The proposed class covers individuals and entities in the United States and its territories who bought computer equipment and a Care Pack covering that equipment and did not experience a service event involving the equipment for three years.

On September 30, 2025, the parties submitted two discovery letters concerning Pattison’s interrogatories and requests for production, or RFPs.

Interrogatories

For Interrogatory No. 3, Pattison sought the number of Care Packs sold, the number involving covered service events, and the number of rebate requests HP had fulfilled since the program began. HP had provided the number of rebate requests for the risk-free Care Pack program from 2020 through 2024. The court found that the numbers of Care Packs sold and Care Packs involving service events were not shown to be relevant to the proposed class and ruled that HP did not need to respond to those portions. The court rejected HP’s objection that “Care Packs” was overbroad because Pattison had defined the term to mean the risk-free Care Packs at issue.

Interrogatory No. 5 sought the names, contact information, and purchase amounts of customers who bought covered equipment and Care Packs during the six years before the lawsuit was filed, did not have a service event, and the amounts they spent. The court found this information discoverable as information about potential class members. It rejected HP’s arguments that the information was too burdensome, was not maintained in one database, or could not be disclosed because of privacy concerns. The court noted that the information was electronic and that a stipulated protective order was in place. It ordered HP to respond fully.

Interrogatory No. 6 sought information about customers who met the proposed class definition, submitted rebate forms, and either received no rebate or did not receive one within 10 weeks. The court treated this as a subset of the information sought in Interrogatory No. 5 and rejected HP’s relevance, burden, and privacy objections for the same reasons. It ordered HP to respond fully.

Interrogatory Nos. 9, 10, and 11 sought counts of customers who bought HP equipment and Care Packs. The court found Nos. 9 and 11 overbroad because they sought information about people outside the proposed class, including people who had service events. It found No. 10 specific to the proposed class and ordered HP to respond fully.

Requests for Production

The parties had agreed that HP would withdraw its general objections except for attorney-client and work-product privilege. The court stated that boilerplate general objections generally were improper. It also stated that HP’s preliminary statement about continuing production did not relieve HP of its obligation to comply with the court’s standing order after completing production.

RFP Nos. 1 and 7 sought complaints and communications about Care Pack rebates, including communications about delays. The court found that HP had not adequately explained why it failed to search for relevant emails. It ordered HP to respond fully, including by producing internal emails and responsive emails in former employees’ inboxes, to the extent such emails existed. The court stated that personal information could be produced under the protective order.

For RFP No. 11, concerning documents about nonworking website links, phone numbers, and information provided to customer-service representatives, HP stated that it had produced nonprivileged internal emails. Because Pattison did not identify what additional documents she sought, the court did not require further production.

For RFP No. 15, concerning the timeline for processing rebates and failures to meet that timeline, HP stated that it could not locate documents about the program’s formation or the decision about the timeline. The court had no reason to question that representation and could not require production of documents that did not exist.

RFP Nos. 2, 3, 10, and 14 concerned documents and communications about creating, implementing, marketing, and administering the Care Pack program. The court did not require further production of documents HP said did not exist. However, if HP had located and withheld privileged communications responsive to those requests, it had to provide a privilege log identifying those materials.

RFP No. 36 sought documents sufficient to identify proposed class members who bought covered equipment and Care Packs and did not have a service event during the six years before the lawsuit. The court found the request permissible, rejected HP’s burden and privacy objections, and concluded that the six-year period appeared appropriate because a rebate claim would become legally ready to pursue after the three-year service period, placing the claim within the three-year limitations period. The court ordered HP to respond fully.

Disposition

The court ordered HP to respond to Interrogatory Nos. 5, 6, and 10 and RFP Nos. 1, 7, and 36 within 30 days of the order. HP also had to provide a privilege log for privileged materials responsive to RFP Nos. 2, 3, 10, and 14. The order disposed of the two discovery letters, Docket Nos. 77 and 78.