Camenisch v. Umpqua Bank

Opinion

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 SHELA CAMENISCH, et al., Case No. 20-cv-05905-RS (AGT)

7 Plaintiffs, DISCOVERY ORDER v. 8 Re: Dkt. Nos. 68, 74 9 UMPQUA BANK, Defendant. 10

11 1. For the 152 Actimize alerts pertaining to PFI, Umpqua must produce the associated ac- 12 count numbers and transaction details. Those facts will help contextualize each alert, and the alerts 13 are relevant. Umpqua reports that Actimize doesn’t have “an export function for alert information 14 or details,” Dkt. 68 at 5, but the bank can manually extract this data. The extraction may be tedious, 15 but the benefit here outweighs the burden. 16 As for the analyst notes accompanying each alert, the Court previously concluded that they 17 were protected by the suspicious activity report privilege. See Dkt. 59 at 2–3 (document no. 20). 18 Umpqua need not produce them. Umpqua also needn’t allow the plaintiffs to inspect the Actimize 19 system, which contains privileged information that would be difficult to safeguard. 20 2. Umpqua doesn’t dispute that the monthly statements it generated for PFI’s bank accounts 21 often didn’t show the names of the parties sending or receiving funds. See Dkt. 74 at 1. Those 22 names would be helpful for tracking the flow of funds, which is relevant in this case about a Ponzi 23 scheme. Since the names don’t appear on the account statements, Umpqua must produce deposit 24 slips, check images, and documentation of the senders and recipients of PFI’s wires. See id. The 25 plaintiffs timely requested these additional documents, and Umpqua hasn’t shown that the burden 26 or expense of producing them will outweigh the likely benefit. 27 3. In response to RFPs 17–20, Umpqua need not produce additional internal reports that 1 Umpqua “significantly benefited from PFI’s business,” which would have given Umpqua a “motive 2 || for aiding and abetting” PFI’s scheme. Jd. at 2. But as Umpqua notes, and the plaintiffs don’t 3 dispute, motive isn’t an element of aiding and abetting fraud. See Casey v. U.S. Bank Nat. Ass’n., 4 127 Cal. App. 4th 1138, 1144 (2005) (identifying the elements of an aiding-and-abetting claim). 5 And even if motive was relevant, the reports are cumulative. Umpqua already produced emails 6 || “establishing that PFI was the Novato branch’s number-one business client.” Dkt. 74 at 2. 7 4. Umpqua previously agreed to search six custodians’ emails for messages referencing PFI, 8 PISF, or Professional Financial Investors. The plaintiffs now seek a court order that would require 9 Umpqua to run the same search for nineteen new custodians, who collectively have around 4,400 10 || unproduced emails mentioning one or more of the three proposed terms. See id. at 2-3. 11 The nineteen people in question were further removed from PFI’s accounts than the original 12 six custodians. See id. at 2,5. Their emails, in consequence, may not be that telling. But these 5 13 individuals did have some involvement with PFI, and 4,400 is a modest number of emails for nine- 14 teen custodians. Nineteen is also a small fraction of the “over 2,000 [possible] custodians who have 3 15 hits” on the three proposed terms. /d. at 2. Weighing these facts, the Court concludes that they a 16 || favor production: the burden and expense of searching for and producing the emails doesn’t out- 3 17 weigh the likely benefit. Umpqua must search for and produce the emails requested.

19 By March 2, 2022, Umpqua must comply with this order and produce the documents de- 20 scribed herein. The undersigned is mindful that Judge Seeborg set today, February 2, as the fact- 21 discovery cutoff. See Dkt. 36 § 3, as modified, Dkt. 65. But this order doesn’t permit new discovery 22 || requested on the eve of the cutoff. It directs Umpqua to supplement its responses to timely discovery 23 requests and timely requests to compel production. The record reflects that the parties have engaged 24 || in an iterative discovery process and that the plaintiffs haven’t been dilatory. 25 Each side will bear its own fees and costs. 26 IT IS SO ORDERED. □ | ) 27 Dated: February 2, 2022 ALEX G. TSE 28 United States Magistrate Judge