Miller v. Travel Guard Group, Inc. ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 TAMIKA MILLER, et al., 7 Case No. 21-cv-09751-TLT (JCS) Plaintiffs, 8 v. ORDER RE JOINT DISCOVERY 9 LETTER TRAVEL GUARD GROUP, INC., et al., 10 Re: Dkt. No. 74 Defendants. 11 12 13 The parties have submitted a joint discovery letter addressing a dispute about redactions in 14 Defendants’ March 31, 2023 production of documents, which Plaintiff contends are unjustified in 15 light of the protective order in this case. Plaintiff asks the Court to order that the documents be 16 produced without redactions. Defendants oppose Plaintiff’s request but propose as a compromise 17 the removal of redactions for financial information unrelated to Defendants’ assistance services. 18 The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request in part. 19 “Courts have recognized that relevance-based redactions are disfavored, because they 20 ‘breed suspicions, and they may deprive the reader of context.’” Wellin v. Wellin, No. 2:13-CV- 21 1831-DCN, 2015 WL 5781383, at *5 (D.S.C. Sept. 30, 2015) (quoting In re State St. Bank & 22 Trust Co. Fixed Income Funds Inv. Litig., 2009 WL 1026013, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 8, 2009)). 23 “Redactions are especially discouraged in cases where . . . a confidentiality order exists that 24 renders the redactions unnecessary.” Id. Courts have found, however, that while disfavored, 25 “redaction of irrelevant and non-responsive material that is highly sensitive and would result in 26 substantial irrevocable prejudice if revealed publicly or to a party’s competitors . . . can be 27 appropriate in some circumstances even with a protective order.” In Re Nat’l Football Leagues, 1 The Court finds that Defendants’ conclusory statements regarding the sensitivity of the 2 || redacted material are insufficient to establish that the protective order in this case will not 3 adequately protect them from the dangers of disclosure. Therefore, Defendants shall produce to 4 || Plaintiff all of the documents that are the subject of this dispute in unredacted form, with the 5 || following limitation: To the extent the redacted material is considered confidential by a third 6 || party and there is a contractual non-disclosure agreement between any defendant and a third party 7 that covers that material, redaction may be justified. Therefore, Defendants may redact such 8 material but shall provide a complete log of these redactions that identifies the specific contractual 9 || provision on which each redaction is based. This Order does not preclude Plaintiff from 10 || challenging any redaction claimed on this basis. The documents and redaction log shall be 11 produced to Plaintiff by May 19, 2023. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 |] Dated: May 12, 2023 ZZ “ae JQSEPH C. SPERO = 16 nited States Magistrate Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28