Woldegiorgis v. NYK Ship Management

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: July 1, 2021
• Docket: 3:18-cv-07678
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 BEREKET WOLDEGIORGIS, Case No. 18-cv-07678-AGT

8 Plaintiff, ORDER RE: DISCOVERY DISPUTE v. 9 Re: Dkt. No. 70 10 NYK SHIP MANAGEMENT, Defendant. 11

12 Defendant has refused to produce the addresses and phone numbers of the crew members 13 who were aboard its vessel when plaintiff slipped and fell. This contact information may lead to the 14 discovery of relevant information, and defendant’s stated reason for withholding it—the need to 15 protect the crew members’ privacy rights—isn’t compelling. Addresses and phone numbers are 16 personal, but not on par with more sensitive information, such as medical and financial records. See 17 Belaire-W. Landscape, Inc. v. Superior Ct., 149 Cal. App. 4th 554, 561–62 (2007). Also, defendant 18 isn’t being asked to post the crew members’ contact information on the public docket; all that is 19 requested is that defendant provide this information to plaintiff so that he can conduct discovery. 20 Defendant’s privacy argument is based on distinguishable caselaw. In Planned Parenthood 21 Golden Gate v. Superior Court, 83 Cal. App. 4th 347, 359–63 (2000), there was concern that if 22 percipient witnesses’ contact information was disclosed during discovery, it would be used for 23 harassment. That concern was triggered by the highly charged context of the litigation, between an 24 abortion clinic and antiabortion protestors, and was also supported by the record. The same concern 25 and supporting evidence isn’t present here. As for the other two cases defendant relies on, United 26 States Department of Defense v. Federal Labor Relations Authority, 510 U.S. 487 (1994), and 27 Navigator Publishing LLC v. United States Department of Transportation, 146 F. Supp. 2d 68 (D. 1 are subject to federal privacy statutes that aren’t implicated in this maritime slip-and-fall negligence 2 case. 3 In support of its privacy argument, defendant also suggests that two foreign privacy laws 4 || may protect its crew members. See Dkt. 70 at 4-5 (referencing the European Union’s General Data 5 Protection Regulation and the Philippines’ Data Privacy Act of 2012). Defendant, however, hasn’t 6 || cited to any particular provision of those laws, let alone demonstrated that they apply to the contact 7 information in question. 8 To ensure that the crew members’ contact information is used only in this litigation and isn’t 9 disclosed publicly, the parties must agree to a protective order, and they are encouraged to stipulate 10 |] to this district’s model protective order.! If they don’t agree on the terms of the order, they should 11 bring their dispute to the Court. After a protective order is entered, defendant must produce the 12 || names, addresses, and phone numbers of the persons who were crew members aboard its vessel, the 13. || M/V NYK THESEUS, at the time of plaintiff's accident. IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 15 Dated: July 1, 2021 16

be ALEX G. TSE Z 18 United States Magistrate Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ! See https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/forms/model-protective-orders/.