Palmer v. HSBC Bank, USA, N.A.

Filing 153

Discovery Order. In the attached order, the court addresses the discovery dispute in the letter brief at ECF No. 150. (lblc4, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/12/2022)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

San Francisco Division

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

LAWRENCE PALMER, et al.,

Case No. 22-cv-02178-VC (LB)

Plaintiffs,

12

DISCOVERY ORDER

v.

13

Re: ECF No. 150

14

HSBC BANK, USA, N.A.,
Defendant.

15
16

INTRODUCTION

17

The parties dispute whether the defendant must serve supplemental responses to the plaintiff’s

18
19

written discovery requests.1 The plaintiff argues that the defendant’s responses to the plaintiff’s (1)

20

Requests for Production Nos. 1–11, 13–26, 29–38 and (2) Interrogatories Nos. 1–33 are improper

21

or incomplete.2 The plaintiff also challenges the defendant’s failure to (1) provide a privilege log,

22

(2) verify the responses to the interrogatories “under oath,” and (3) produce unredacted copies of

23

responsive documents.3 The defendant counters that the material the plaintiff’s seeks is beyond the

24

scope of permissible discovery because (1) the only remaining claims are the plaintiff’s individual

25
Disc. Letter – ECF No. 150. Citations refer to material in the Electronic Case File (ECF); pinpoint
citations are to the ECF-generated page numbers at the top of documents.

26

1

27

2

Id. at 2–3.

28

3

Id. at 4.

ORDER – No. 22-cv-02178-VC (LB)

1

claims under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and (2) the defendant has produced all the

2

documents it has relating to the plaintiff’s “FCRA claims, including the firm offer of credit that

3

was mailed to [the plaintiff], a copy of the contract it entered into with Equifax to pull the credit of

4

individuals who met a set of preselection criteria, [the defendant’s] internal policies regarding

5

FCRA compliance, and evidence confirming that a majority of those consumers who were sent the

6

same firm offer of credit as [the plaintiff] were able to open credit cards with [the defendant].”4

7

The court denies the plaintiff’s request to compel further written discovery responses. Most of

8

the material and information sought in the plaintiff’s interrogatories and requests for production is

9

not relevant and proportional to the needs of this case, which now involves a single claim for an

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

individual FCRA violation.

11

STATEMENT

12

This case began as a putative class action against financial institutions where the plaintiff

13

asserted claims under state and federal law. The operative Third Amended Complaint includes the

14

following claims: (1) FCRA violations (negligent and intentional); (2) California Bus. & Prof.

15

Code § 17200 (UCL) violations; (3) California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act (Civil

16

Code § 1785 et seq.) violations; (4) California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA), Cal. Penal Code

17

§§ 630, violations; (5) Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act (CDAFA), Cal.

18

Penal Code § 502, violations; (6) Intrusion Upon Seclusion; and (7) Public Disclosure of Private

19

Facts.5

20

The original named plaintiff and proposed class representative, Lawrence Palmer, died in

21

September 2021.6 The plaintiff moved to substitute Mr. Palmer’s spouse, Jeanie Palmer, for Mr.

22

Palmer.7 The court found that Jeannie Palmer was not an adequate representative of the class and

23

was not properly substituted for purposes of the state-law claims and that joinder of the defendants

24
25
4

Id. at 5.

5

Third Am. Compl. – ECF No. 68 at 10–29 (¶¶ 74–194).

27

6

Suggestion of Death – ECF No. 117; Mot. to Substitute – ECF No. 119 at 4.

28

7

Mot. to Substitute – ECF No. 119.

26

ORDER – No. 22-cv-02178-VC (LB)

2

United States District Court
Northern District of California

1

named in the original case was not proper.8 In April 2022, the court severed the original case

2

(3:20-cv-06309-VC) into four separate actions (3:22-cv-02177-VC, 3:22-cv-02178-VC, 3:22-cv-

3

02179-VC, 3:22-cv-02180-VC ).9 The court also struck the class allegations and dismissed all of

4

the claims except Ms. Palmer’s individual federal claim.10

5

Given the trial court’s recent orders, the only pending claim is for alleged violations of the

6

FCRA. The defendant has moved for summary judgment on this claim on grounds that it did not

7

violate the FCRA because it gave the plaintiff’s husband, Lawrence Palmer, a “firm offer of

8

credit.”11 In this regard, 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(c)(1)(B)(i) provides that “[a] consumer reporting

9

agency may furnish a consumer report relating to any consumer pursuant to subparagraph (A) or

10

(C) of subsection (a)(3) in connection with any credit or insurance transaction that is not initiated

11

by the consumer only if . . . the transaction consists of a firm offer of credit or insurance.” See

12

Chavez v. Premier Bankcard, LLC, No. 1:11-cv-01101 LJO GSA, 2011 WL 5417107, at *3 (E.D.

13

Cal. Nov. 8, 2011) (“Congress amended the FCRA in 1996 to permit creditors to purchase

14

prescreened lists of consumers who meet the creditor’s specific criteria without the consumers’

15

consent as long as the purchaser intends to give the consumer a ‘firm offer of credit.’”). In

16

opposition to the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff states: “The issue in this

17

case is whether [the defendant] had a ‘permissible purpose’ to procure Plaintiff’s credit reports on

18

an inquiry basis.”12 In sum, the live claims and defenses are narrow and involve only whether the

19

defendant violated the FCRA by obtaining Mr. Palmer’s credit report.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26

8

Orders – ECF Nos. 125, 133.

9

Order – ECF No. 133.

10

Id. at 2.

27

11

Mot. for Summ. J. – ECF No. 144 at 13.

28

12

Opp’n – ECF No. 148 at 13.

ORDER – No. 22-cv-02178-VC (LB)

3

ANALYSIS

1
2

1. Relevancy
The court must first determine whether the information sought is relevant. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

3
4

26(b) (subject to the limitations imposed by Rule 26(b)(2)(C), “[p]arties may obtain discovery

5

regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and

6

proportional to the needs of the case”).
While the plaintiff made various claims about the sufficiency of the defendant’s discovery

7
8

responses, the plaintiff did not demonstrate that all information sought is relevant to the live

9

claims and defenses or proportional to the needs of the case. Some of the material sought is plainly

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

beyond the scope of permissible discovery given the narrow claim at issue.

11

For instance, Request for Production No. 6 asks for all communications between the defendant

12

and any person with whom the defendant shared the plaintiff’s personally identifiable information

13

during the class period relating to the sharing of that information.13 Interrogatory No. 10 asks for

14

the identity of all persons to whom the defendant transmitted class members’ personally

15

identifiable information and Interrogatory No. 13 asks for the purpose for which class members’

16

personally identifiable information was transmitted to any person.14
The material sought through these discovery requests primarily relates to the now-dismissed

17
18

class action privacy claims. It does not, in general, relate to the pending FCRA claim. The over

19

broad discovery requests are apparently based on a misconception about what issues are currently

20

live. In the discovery letter, the plaintiff mischaracterizes the scope of the case as it stands now

21

when she states that “[t]his is a privacy case that concerns the transmission and use of personally

22

identifiable information without authorization.”15
The plaintiff’s position does not account for the fact that only one individual claim for alleged

23
24

violations of the FCRA is currently pending. Only material that is relevant to this claim or the

25
26
13

Def.’s Resps. to Req. for Produc., Ex. 2 to Disc. Letter – ECF No. 150-1 at 25.

27

14

Def.’s Resps. to Interrog., Ex. 4 Disc. Letter – ECF No. 150-1 at 72, 74.

28

15

Disc. Letter – ECF No. 150 at 1.

ORDER – No. 22-cv-02178-VC (LB)

4

1

defendant’s defenses and “proportional to the needs of the case” is discoverable. The plaintiff has

2

made no effort to show that any of the material sought meets this threshold.

3

While the material sought does not, in general, relate to the pending FCRA claim, there are

4

exceptions. For example, Request for Production No. 30 asks for “any firm offer of credit [the

5

defendant] claim[s] to have sent to [the plaintiff], if any.”16 Any document responsive to this

6

request should be produced without redaction. Similarly, Interrogatory No. 8 asks for the identity

7

of “the director, employee or officer at [the defendant’s] company who is most responsible for

8

compliance with the FCRA.”17 This information may be relevant. The problem is the plaintiff has

9

not specifically explained why the material is discoverable given the narrow claim at issue.
Furthermore, the documents that the defendant has already produced, including “the firm offer

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10
11

of credit that was mailed to [the plaintiff], [and] a copy of the contract it entered into with

12

Equifax,” appear to be sufficient to evaluate the plaintiff’s individual FCRA claim and the

13

defendant’s contention that it complied with the FCRA.18 Although these responses were served

14

before the court dismissed the state-law claims, they were based on Judge Corley’s order limiting

15

discovery “to material necessary to adjudicate Plaintiff’s individual FCRA claims.”19

16

In short, the plaintiff’s request to compel the defendant to provide further responses to

17

Requests for Production Nos. 1–11, 13–26, 29–38 and Interrogatories Nos. 1–33 is unjustified

18

because most of the material and information sought is not within the scope of permissible

19

discovery. Therefore, the plaintiff’s request to compel supplemental discovery responses is denied

20

without prejudice. In any further discovery letter, the parties must (1) specifically identify each

21

disputed request for production or interrogatory and (2) provide each party’s view on why the

22

information sought in each request is or is not discoverable.

23
24

16

Def.’s Resps. to Req. for Produc., Ex. 2 to Disc. Letter – ECF No. 150-1 at 41.

25

17

Def.’s Resps. to Interrog., Ex. 4 Disc. Letter – ECF No. 150-1 at 71.

18

Disc. Letter – ECF No. 150 at 5.

26

Id. (“Mindful of the narrow scope of discovery set by Judge Corley and the narrow scope of the
issues raised in HSBC’s motion . . . .”); Order – ECF No. 64; Def.’s Resps. to Interrog., Ex. 4 Disc.
Letter – ECF No. 150-1 at 88–89; Def.’s Resps. to Req. for Produc., Ex. 2 to Disc. Letter – ECF No.
150-1 at 47.
19

27
28

ORDER – No. 22-cv-02178-VC (LB)

5

1
2

2. Other Issues
The plaintiff raised several other issues: (1) the lack of a privilege log, (2) verification “on

3
4

information and belief,” and (3) relevancy redactions.20 Regarding the privilege log, if the

5

defendant is withholding any documents based solely on a claim of privilege, it should “produce a

6

privilege log that is sufficiently detailed for the opposing party to assess whether the assertion of

7

privilege is justified.” Prado v. Equifax Info. Servs. LLC, No. 18-cv-02405-PJH (LB), 2019 WL

8

88140, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 3, 2019). Because the defendant appears to primarily rely on other

9

objections to the defendant’s discovery requests (e.g., relevancy, proportionality), it need not

10

produce a privilege log at this time.
On the verification issue, it is not necessarily improper to include “information and belief”

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

language in the verification of interrogatory responses. See Bona Fide Conglomerate, Inc. v.

13

SourceAmerica, No. 3:14-cv-00751-GPC-AGS, 2017 WL 3149578, at *7 (S.D. Cal. July 24,

14

2017) (holding that verification statement that included the phrase “I am informed and believe”

15

satisfied Rule 33 because “[n]one of the actual answers to the interrogatories [were] stated on

16

information and belief, and all of interrogatory answers were verified . . . under penalty of perjury

17

to be true and correct.”). Because the individual interrogatory responses are not made on

18

information and belief, the defendant’s verification statement complies with the oath requirement

19

in Rule 33(b)(3).
Concerning relevancy redactions, so-called relevancy redactions are not prohibited but are

20
21

generally disfavored outside of certain limited circumstances. Kellman v. Whole Foods Mkt.

22

California, Inc., No. 17-cv-06584-LB, 2021 WL 4476779, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2021). For

23

example, in Barnes v. Equinox Group, the court permitted a class representative to redact non-

24

responsive private information from bank statements that otherwise contained relevant information

25

concerning the class representative’s “side business.” No. C 10-03586 LB, 2012 WL 13060044, at

26

*3–4 (N.D. Cal. June 14, 2012). But in Francisco v. Emeritus Corp., the court disallowed

27
28

20

Disc. Letter – ECF No. 150 at 4.

ORDER – No. 22-cv-02178-VC (LB)

6

1

relevancy redactions to an employee handbook in a wage-and-hour action even though the

2

defendant offered to allow the plaintiff to identify relevant sections of the handbook by reference

3

to a table of contents because “[n]either Plaintiff nor the Court [could] say with confidence that the

4

only relevant portions of the handbook [could] be discerned from a review of a table of contents.”

5

No. CV 17-2871 BRO (SSX), 2017 WL 11036693, at *6 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 5, 2017).
The plaintiff argues that the defendant “has improperly produced documents that are wholly

6
7

redacted,” but has not provided any other details to help the court evaluate whether the redactions

8

are justified or not.21 Thus, the court declines to order the defendant to produce unredacted

9

versions of all documents it has produced.

10
CONCLUSION

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

The plaintiff’s request to compel supplemental responses to its interrogatories and requests for

12
13

production is denied without prejudice.

14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15

Dated: August 12, 2022
______________________________________
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

21

Id.

ORDER – No. 22-cv-02178-VC (LB)

7