Mobile Emergency Housing Corp. v. HP, Inc.
- Susan Van Keulen
- 5:20-cv-09157
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Mobile Emergency Housing v. HP, Judge Van Keulen ordered broader discovery about LaserJet firmware updates and cartridge-disabling technology.
The ruling directly affects the plaintiffs’ discovery requests and HP’s obligation to provide information and technical documents in this case. It also concerns evidence relevant to the plaintiffs’ putative class-certification allegations.
What happened
Mobile Emergency Housing Corp. and other plaintiffs sued HP over firmware updates that allegedly disabled non-HP cartridges in HP Color LaserJet printers.
The plaintiffs asked HP to provide more interrogatory answers and documents. The court allowed discovery about all LaserJet printers and firmware updates received from November 2020 through January 2023, but rejected the request for information about every HP transmission and excluded InkJet printers.
Judge Susan Van Keulen also rejected HP’s objections to producing technical materials about cartridge authentication and the firmware mechanisms used to disable third-party cartridges during that period. The court ordered HP to produce responsive materials before discovery closed.
The detailed version
- Mobile Emergency Housing Corp. v. HP, Inc. · No. 5:20-cv-09157
- Susan Van Keulen
- Mar. 6, 2023
Background
The court considered the parties’ joint submission about a discovery dispute. The plaintiffs sought an order requiring HP to provide additional information in response to interrogatories and to produce additional documents.
The case concerns HP Color LaserJet printers that allegedly received firmware updates disabling non-HP cartridges in the plaintiffs’ and putative class members’ printers. The court relied on the operative Third Amended Complaint and its earlier rulings concerning the motion to dismiss, motion to amend, and prior discovery dispute.
Discovery Limits
The court maintained its earlier ruling allowing discovery concerning all LaserJet printers while excluding InkJet printers. It rejected the plaintiffs’ request for discovery about all HP transmissions that resulted in third-party cartridges being blocked, including transmissions of programs, information, code, and commands, because that request went beyond the allegations in the complaint.
The court also rejected HP’s position that discovery should be limited to the November 2020 firmware update. The named plaintiffs’ machines received firmware updates in November 2020 and January 2021, and the court found that the plaintiffs had shown that similar updates allegedly caused similar injuries and were followed by substantially similar representations about the printers’ malfunctions. The court concluded that discovery concerning all firmware updates affecting LaserJet printers from November 2020 through January 2023 was likely relevant to the plaintiffs’ allegations supporting class certification.
Ruling
The court overruled HP’s relevance objections to inquiries and documents concerning cartridge-authentication procedures and mechanisms for disabling third-party cartridges when those mechanisms were implemented through firmware during the relevant period. It ordered HP to produce the responsive technical materials before discovery closed. The court resolved the submission without oral argument.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.