Zeff v. Greystar California, Inc.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ZACHARY ZEFF, Case No. 20-cv-07122-EMC

8 Plaintiff, ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTE 9 v. Docket No. 60 10 GREYSTAR CALIFORNIA, INC., 11 Defendant.

12 13 14 The parties raise a dispute over the procedure to produce documents requested by Plaintiff 15 which are likely to include attachments containing third parties’ confidential information. Docket 16 No. 60 (“Letter Br.”) at 1. Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s requests seek disclosure of proprietary 17 information pertaining to third parties without first giving those parties a chance to challenge the 18 demand. Id. at 2. Defendant also argues that Plaintiff’s requests are overly burdensome. Id. 19 Plaintiff responds that the Defendant’s confidentiality concern is unfounded because the parties’ 20 protective order, Docket No. 36 § 9, applies and provides third parties with a process to object to 21 confidential production. Id. at 3. Plaintiff also notes that he can refine his request by narrowing 22 ESI search terms after the third-party confidentiality issue is addressed. Id. 23 The Court agrees with Plaintiff’s position. 24 “‘Confidentiality agreements do not bar discovery, and a general interest in protecting 25 confidentiality does not equate to privilege.’” See Valley Surgical Ctr. LLC. v. Cty. of Los 26 Angeles, No. CV1302265DDPAGRX, 2018 WL 2189458, at *4 (C.D. Cal. May 11, 2018) 27 (citation omitted); id. (collecting cases); Seegert v. Rexall Sundown, Inc., No. 1 persuasive case law holding that third-party confidentiality agreements, such as those here, should 2 not and do not necessarily preclude a party from producing otherwise permissible discovery.”); 3 Chevron Mining Inc. v. Skanska USA Civ. W. Rocky Mountain Dist., Inc., No. 19-CV-04144-LB, 4 2019 WL 11556844, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 13, 2019) (“[T]he fact that [a third party] and Skanska 5 might have decided amongst themselves to enter into a confidentiality agreement does not bar the 6 settlement from being discoverable under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in a litigation 7 where Skanska is a defendant.”). Defendant does not dispute that confidential information 8 produced in the course of discovery will be subject to the parties’ agreed-upon protective order, 9 and the “protective order . . . will . . . protect [that] information.” In Re: Vizio, Inc., Consumer 10 Privacy Litig., No. 8:16-ML-02693, Dkt. 260 at 14 (C.D. Cal. Feb 5. 2018). Thus, the Court finds 11 no basis to block production of Plaintiff’s request on this ground. Accordingly, per Plaintiff’s 12 position, the parties are instructed to continue to confer to address Defendant’s concerns about 13 proportionality, by discussing whether ESI search terms may be further narrowed. Letter Br. at 2- 14 3. 15 This order disposes of Docket No. 60. 16 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 19 Dated: May 5, 2022 20 21 ______________________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN 22 United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27