Micron Technology, Inc. v. Factory Mutual Insurance Company

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: January 28, 2022
• Docket: 3:18-cv-07689
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 San Francisco Division 11 MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC., et al., Case No. 18-cv-07689-LB

12 Plaintiffs, DISCOVERY ORDER 13 v. Re: ECF No. 206 14 FACTORY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, 15 Defendant. 16 17 INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT 18 The parties dispute whether the defendant, Factory Mutual, appropriately redacted certain 19 documents it produced in discovery.1 The plaintiffs contend that the redactions are improper 20 because “relevance” redactions are disfavored and are not justified here because the redactions 21 obscure the overall context of the documents.2 The plaintiffs argue that the redacted material 22 relates to the same type of equipment and same type of loss at issue in this insurance coverage 23 action and, thus, is relevant to defendant’s “risk appetite” and intent concerning coverage.3 The 24 defendant contends that the redacted material is not relevant because it does not relate to the “same 25

26 1 Joint Disc. Ltr. – ECF No. 206 at 1–5. Citations refer to material in the Electronic Case File (ECF); pinpoint citations are to the ECF-generated page numbers at the top of documents. 27 2 Id. at 1–2. 1 type of equipment” involved in the subject loss.4 The defendant also appears to object to 2 producing documents “containing slides on specific [Factory Mutual] client loss histories.”5 3 Because the subject documents are relevant and accepting the redactions would allow the 4 defendant to unilaterally determine relevancy, the court orders the production of the documents 5 without redaction. 6 7 ANALYSIS 8 So-called relevancy redactions are not prohibited but are generally disfavored outside of 9 certain limited circumstances. Kellman v. Whole Foods Mkt. California, Inc., No. 17-CV-06584- 10 LB, 2021 WL 4476779, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2021). For example, in Barnes v. Equinox 11 Group, the court permitted a class representative to redact non-responsive private information 12 from bank statements that otherwise contained relevant information concerning the class 13 representative’s “side business.” No. C 10-03586 LB, 2012 WL 13060044, at *3–4 (N.D. Cal. 14 June 14, 2012). On the other hand, in Francisco v. Emeritus Corp., the court disallowed relevancy 15 redactions to an employee handbook in a wage-and-hour action even though the defendant offered 16 to allow the plaintiff to identify relevant sections of the handbook by reference to a table of 17 contents because “[n]either Plaintiff nor the Court [could] say with confidence that the only 18 relevant portions of the handbook can be discerned from a review of a table of contents.” No. CV 19 17-2871 BRO (SSX), 2017 WL 11036693, at *6 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 5, 2017). 20 Here, the line that the defendant is attempting to draw between relevant and irrelevant is not so 21 clear cut. The data sheets at issue (meaning the prior versions of the data sheets and other 22 documents related to their development that defendant redacted) concern “loss prevention 23 recommendations for air separation processes.”6 This court has already stated that, “[t]he data 24 sheets . . . address the same type of loss and damage to the same type of equipment that Micron 25 26 4 Id. at 3–4. 27 5 Id. at 5. 1 alleges was damaged in this case, and the data sheets are thus relevant to show Factory Mutual’s 2 appetite for risk and intent regarding what Micron’s policy with them would cover.”’ The 3 || defendant’s argument that some sections are irrelevant because those sections address specific 4 || kinds of equipment that were not present at the subject facility is not persuasive. 5 Allowing the defendant’s unilateral redactions would — even considering the “Redaction 6 || Log” — force the plaintiffs and the court to accept the defendant’s view of relevancy. Courts have 7 || rejected relevancy redactions under similar circumstances. See Francisco v. Emeritus Corp., 2017 8 || WL 11036693, at *6. The repetitive and categorical statements in the defendant’s “Redaction 9 || Log” do not establish a basis to conclude that the redacted material is not relevant. For example, 10 || the defendant’s statements in the “Redaction Log” that ““‘the production of ultra-pure nitrogen is 11 not included in the scope of this data sheet’” and “[t]he redaction relates to the use of non 12 || combustible construction at air separation facilities[ |” are too broad to permit the court or parties 5 13 to evaluate relevancy, especially in view of the technical nature of the subject matter.® Further, the 14 || existing Protective Order should be sufficient to prevent unnecessary disclosure of sensitive 3 15 || commercial information.’ 16 CONCLUSION 3 17 The court orders Factory Mutual to produce the currently redacted documents (data sheets and

Z 18 || related emails) that are the subject of the parties Joint Discovery Letter (ECF No. 206) in an 19 || unredacted form within fourteen (14) days of the date of this order. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 Dated: January 28, 2022 LAE 22 73 LAUREL BEELER United States Magistrate Judge 24 25 26 || ’ Disc. Order — ECF No. 194 at 2. 7 8 Ex. B to Joint Disc. Ltr. — ECF No. 206-2 at 2. ° Order Granting Stip. Protective Order — ECF No. 106; Joint Disc. Ltr. — ECF No. 206 at 2 28 (referencing Protective Order).