In Yotta Techs. Inc. v. Evolve Bank & Trust, No. 24-cv-06456-TLT (TSH) (N.D. Cal. Jan. 22, 2026), California Magistrate Judge Thomas S. Hixson, among other rulings, denied plaintiff’s motion to compel four categories of documents.

Case Discussion and Judge’s Ruling

In this case, Plaintiff Yotta moved to compel four categories of documents, as follows:

Personally Identifying Information

Defendant Evolve withheld certain documents (and redacted others) on the ground that they include PII, such as bank account numbers, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, home addresses, etc. While Yotta claimed that “[t]he parties now agree” that Evolve should be ordered to produce all of these documents in native format, and that the only dispute was whether the protective order in this action should be amended to add an attorneys’ eyes only provision, Evolve indicated that the parties were in the middle of a meet and confer about account statements and transaction data when Yotta filed the instant request for all PII in every responsive document and requested that Yotta’s request should be denied.

Judge Hixson stated: “The Court is not going to order this… One of Evolve’s arguments concerning what that deadline should be was its burden in redacting PII… The Court’s order observed that ‘Evolve says there is significant PII in the potentially responsive documents that needs to be redacted under federal and state privacy laws’”.

Continuing, he said: “So, Yotta knew Evolve would be redacting PII. Yotta then waited until 39 days after the substantial completion deadline, and on the last day of fact discovery filed this motion to force Evolve to produce all the PII. While this motion is technically compliant with the deadline to file a discovery motion,…redoing a significant part of Evolve’s document production like this is not proportional to the needs of the case, especially when Evolve made clear that redacting the PII in the first instance required a lot of work…Yotta’s motion to compel is DENIED.”

FDIC Insurance

On this request, Judge Hixson stated: “Next, Yotta moves to compel ‘documents sufficient to show (a) the amount of Yotta and Synapse end user funds that was FDIC insured on a daily basis and (b) all representations to the FDIC regarding balances of Yotta and Synapse end user funds.’ Yotta says these documents are responsive to RFPs 25, 26, 27, 47 and 56. However, the Court does not think they are responsive to those RFPs. Yotta’s motion to compel is DENIED.”

Ankura

On this request, Judge Hixson said: “Yotta also moves to compel ‘key documents concerning Ankura’s ‘reconciliation,’ ‘ specifically, ‘(a) the calculations used to generate the Spreadsheet, (b) documents concerning the logic and reasoning behind deciding which balance (i.e. (1), (2), or (3) above) would be paid to each user, (c) the code or matching logic used by Ankura to classify Synapse transaction records; and (d) any presentations made to the CFPB.’ Yotta does not identify any request for production these materials are responsive to. Accordingly, its motion to compel is DENIED.”

Linked Documents

Here, Judge Hixson stated: “Finally, Yotta moves to compel the documents that are hyperlinked in the produced documents listed in ECF No. 139-2. The Court agrees with Evolve that a hyperlink relationship (meaning the document, such as an email, contains a link to another document) does not by itself mean the linked document should be treated as an attachment and produced… However, sometimes it may be appropriate to produce a linked document, depending on the nature of the produced document.”

Judge Hixson cited In re Meta Pixel Healthcare Litig., which stated: “[T]he Court anticipates that for some documents, it will be important to collect (or attempt to collect) hyperlinked documents and associate them with the underlying ESI in which the links appear. In such circumstances, the parties should consider reasonable requests for production of hyperlinked documents on a case-by-case basis. Such requests should not be made as a matter of routine.” He added this: “Here, Yotta gestures at the documents listed in ECF No. 139-2 and proclaims them to be ‘important.’ This is not a sufficient case-by-case showing. Therefore, Yotta’s motion to compel is DENIED.”

So, what do you think? Are you surprised that the Court denied plaintiff’s motion to compel all four categories of documents.? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Case opinion link courtesy of Minerva26, an Affinity partner of eDiscovery Today.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by my employer, my partners or my clients. eDiscovery Today is made available solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Today should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.