DiGiacinto v. RB Health (US) LLC

Opinion

1 2 3 6 7 JOSEPH DIGIACINTO, Case No. 22-cv-04690-DMR

8 Plaintiff, ORDER ON JOINT DISCOVERY 9 v. LETTER

10 RB HEALTH (US) LLC, Re: Dkt. No. 83 11 Defendant.

12 The parties filed a joint discovery letter in which Plaintiff Joseph DiGiacinto challenges 13 redactions in Defendant RB Health (US) LLC’s document production and moves to compel 14 production of unredacted documents. [Docket No. 83.] Defendant argues that “all of the 15 redactions cover information” that is non-responsive to Plaintiff’s discovery requests and not 16 relevant to the litigation. Id. at 3. 17 As a general matter, it is improper to redact portions of otherwise responsive documents on 18 the grounds that those portions are not relevant or responsive. Doe v. Trump, 329 F.R.D. 262, 275 19 (W.D. Wash. 2018); see In re High-Tech Emp. Antitrust Litig., No. 11-CV-2509-LHK, 2013 WL 20 12230960, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2013) (“The Court will not permit Defendants to redact 21 information based on Defendants’ unilateral assessment of lack of relevance and/or 22 responsiveness.”). “It is a rare document that contains only relevant information; and irrelevant information within an otherwise relevant document may provide context necessary to understand 23 the relevant information.” Doe, 329 F.R.D. at 276. Moreover, “the unilateral redaction of 24 irrelevant or nonresponsive material from otherwise responsive documents gives rise to suspicion 25 that relevant material harmful to the producing party has been obscured and tends to make 26 documents confusing or difficult to use.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 27 1 No. 36). See Magana-Munoz v. W. Coast Berry Farms, LLC, No. 5:20-CV-02087-EJD, 2022 WL 2 ||} 6584545, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 29, 2022) (affording only “slight deference” to defendant’s 3 concern about disclosure of irrelevant information where there was a protective order in place and 4 || disallowing redactions based only on responsiveness and relevancy); United States v. McGraw- 5 || Hill Companies, Inc., No. CV 13-0779-DOC JCGX, 2014 WL 8662657, at *3, 4 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 6 || 25, 2014) (“if materials are already shielded by a protective order, unilateral redactions do little 7 more than breed suspicion between the parties, generate discovery disputes, and invite g || unnecessary intervention by the court . . . unilateral redactions are inappropriate if they seek not to g || protect sensitive or protected information, but merely to keep non-responsive information out of 10 || anadversary’s hands.”). 1 Defendant does not explain why the protective order is not sufficient to protect its interests

. 2 in the redacted material. As Defendant has not shown a legal basis for its redactions based on 5 13 relevance and responsiveness, Plaintiffs’ motion is granted. Defendant shall produce unredacted

14 documents responsive to Plaintiff's requests within seven days of the date of this Order. DISTR 15 KEE I Py IT IS SO ORDERED. © ON 16 ay Dated: February 16, 2024 &y RED] : RDE [fir 3s 80° Z 18 Ty Don Yad, ag 19 TA eM [2 © Fudge Donne LS 20 PN AY □□ oN OY 21 & SY VB 0 ISTRIC 23 24 25 26 27 28