Corinne Gonsalves, et al. v. Block, Inc., et al.

Opinion

CORINNE GONSALVES, et al., Case No. 25-cv-00642-NW (VKD)

Plaintiffs, ORDER RE MAY 12, 2026 DISCOVERY v. DISPUTE RE PLAINTIFFS' DOCUMENT REQUESTS BLOCK, INC., et al., Re: Dkt. Nos. 148, 149, 172 Defendants.

Plaintiffs NYC funds (“plaintiffs”) and defendants Block, Inc. (“Block”), Jack Dorsey, and Amrita Ahuja (collectively, “defendants”) ask the Court to resolve their dispute regarding plaintiffs’ demand for data and related information regarding publicly reported Cash App user metrics that plaintiffs contend misled investors.1 Dkt. No. 148. On May 19, 2026, the Court held a hearing regarding this dispute. Dkt. Nos. 157, 161. Following the May 19, 2026 hearing, the Court ordered defendants to complete their proposed production of data and other information for the 17 months for which Block reported challenged account metrics, including specifically the information defendants described during the hearing. Dkt. No. 158 at 1. The Court ordered plaintiffs to review that production and to confer

1 Block moves to seal portions of the discovery letter brief that Block says reveal sensitive features of Block’s internal data architecture and data storage practices. Dkt. No. 149. Block states that this information is not generally known to the public or to Block’s competitors, and that Block maintains this information as confidential in the ordinary course of its business. Id. As Block’s sealing motion relates to a discovery matter, the good cause standard applies. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1098-99 (9th Cir.), cert. denied sub nom FCA U.S. LLC v. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 580 U.S. 815 (2016); Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d with defendants in an effort to resolve their dispute. Id. On June 18, 2026, at the Court’s direction, the parties filed a report indicating that they disagree regarding the adequacy of defendants’ production regarding the account metrics. Dkt. No. 172. According to the status report, defendants produced the following information to plaintiffs: (1) number of monthly transacting actives, transacting actives connected to a verified identity, unique SSNs associated with verified accounts, and denylisted accounts counted as transacting actives; (2) identification of underlying data tables queried to provide these metrics, and complete field-level schema; and (3) the methodology used to generate the metrics, including specific queries. Id. at 3. Plaintiffs complain that defendants “did not produce the historical queries or [data] table cross-walks Block actually used” during the class period. Id. at 2. Plaintiffs now demand that defendants produce the following additional information: 1. the four summary metrics (transacting actives, verified, SSNs, and denylisted) for each month during the class period (67 months total); 2. monthly summary totals for five additional sub-categories: a. individual device IDs; b. IP addresses; c. other hardware identifier(s); d. bank account linked to Cash App account (yes/no); and e. mailing address linked to account (yes/no)); and 3. the number of transacting active accounts that share information in sub-categories 2(a)- (e) with a previously denylisted account. Id. In addition, plaintiffs state that they have “requested read-only access for specific fields that provide evidence relevant to the scope of fraudulent, illicit, or duplicative accounts,” which request has been refused. Id. at 3. Defendants advise that via this request plaintiffs seek “direct access to raw data tables comprising 35 separate fields and tens of billions of rows of raw data.” Id. at 4. The record reflects that defendants produced the information they said they would produce ] understand what plaintiffs mean by “table cross-walks.” The May 12, 2026 discovery dispute 2 } letter does not refer to any “cross-walks,” and that term was not used by any party during the May 3 19, 2026 hearing. As for “historical queries,” defendants indicated during the hearing that while 4 Block has a record of these queries, the historical queries cannot be run against the historical data 5 without some amount of reconstruction. See id. at 33:11-34:13. Moreover, it is not clear from the 6 status report why plaintiffs now seek 67 months’ worth of data and additional categories of 7 information. This is understandable, as the parties were not permitted to include argument in the 8 status report. See Dkt. No. 158. 9 Nevertheless, in view of the discussion at the May 19, 2026 hearing, and because 10 defendants have offered to produce some further information to plaintiffs, the Court orders 11 defendants to produce the following additional information: 12 1. aper-month breakdown of the denylisted transacting actives figure between 13 (a) accounts denylisted during the reported month and (b) those denylisted previously; 14 2. summary metrics for three additional months: one challenged in the Complaint and two 15 implicated by challenged year-over-year metric comparisons; and a 16 3. the historical queries, in the form they were originally run, that Block used to generate 17 the challenged metrics. Zz 18 || See Dkt. No. 172 at 4; Dkt. No. 161 at 33:11-34:13. Defendants must produce this material to 19 plaintiffs no later than July 10, 2026, unless the parties stipulate to a different date. The Court 20 will hold a further hearing regarding this dispute on July 21, 2026 at 10:00 a.m. Ifthe parties 21 have resolved the dispute, they shall so advise the Court before the July 21 hearing date. 23 Dated: July 2, 2026 24 <«.e 25 Vara LaMarche: Virginia K. DeMarchi 26 United States Magistrate Judge 27 28