DISCOVERY ORDER

Re: ECF No. 338

LAUREL BEELER, Magistrate Judge.

Interrogatory number 12 asks for the amount of money paid by each lender to Selling Source during the class period. At the June 21 hearing, Selling Source's counsel described its platform for selling leads to lenders. It is an auction platform where lenders bid on "leads" and pay a per-lead dollar amount (such as $50); the lenders then use the leads to sell loans and may or may not consummate a loan to a lead. Selling Source produced its contracts with the lenders, the leads sold to the lenders, and the sales amounts for the leads. This is sufficient.

The plaintiff essentially asked Selling Source to do the math. Apparently the information was produced in native-format spreadsheets. Selling Source said that its other records are (essentially) invoices to lenders that would have a total amount due for a particular time period, regardless of where the leads are located. An invoice thus would cover all sales of all leads in all states and would not be specific to California. The court agrees with Selling Source that this information is overbroad and is not readily capable of being parsed out to capture only California class members. The plaintiff's counsel asked only for "readily available" information; Selling Somce represented that it has produced what is readily available. Moreover, producing data in native [onnat means that the data is maintained in a database in a comma-delineated fannat that can be exported and manipulated fairly easy (albeit probably with expert assistance). The court will not order Selling Source to do more. That said, if Selling Source ever "does the math," then it must produce it to the plaintiffs cOlIDsel.

As to the tinting issues raised by the plaintiffs cOllIsel at the hearing, Selling Source's cOlIDsei represented that she was working diligently on the requests and estimated approximately two weeks to fmish the pending productions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.