Simi Management Corporation v. Bank of America Corporation

Filing 65

Order by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu granting in part and denying in part 47 Discovery Letter Brief.(dmrlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/16/2013)

Case4:11-cv-05573-DMR Document63 Filed01/15/13 Page1 of 2

1
2
3

DONALD J. PUTTERMAN (BAR NO. 90822)
WILLIAM A. LOGAN, JR. (BAR NO. 115042)
ANTHONY D. GILES (BAR NO. 178876)
PUTTERMAN LOGAN & GILES LLP
580 California Street, 16th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104

4
5

Mail service address:
2175 N. California Blvd, Suite 805
Walnut Creek, California 94596

6
7

Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]

8
9

Attorneys for Plaintiff
Simi Management Corporation

10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12
13

SIMI MANAGEMENT CORPORATION,
dba CONNELL AUTO CENTER,

No. 4:11-cv-05573-DMR

14

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING
IN PART MOTION TO COMPEL
OF PLAINTIFF SIMI
MANAGEMENT CORP AND
ORDERING FURTHER MEET
AND CONFER

Plaintiff,
15
v.
16
BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION,
17
18

Defendant.

Date: January 10, 2013
Time: 11:00 a.m.

19

Before the Honorable Donna M. Ryu

20
21

Pursuant to this Court’s Standing Order revised as of July 3, 2012, the Motion of Plaintiff

22

Simi Management Corp., dba Connell Auto Center (“Connell Auto”) to Compel Production of

23

Documents by defendant Bank of America, N.A. (“BofA”) was submitted pursuant to a Joint Letter

24

filed December 21, 2012. Pursuant to this Court’s order issued January 4, 2013, a hearing was held

25

on January 10, 2013, at 11:00 a.m., with lead trial counsel for each of the parties appearing. Neither

26

of the parties requested further briefing and following oral argument, the Court announced the

27

following rulings:

28
1
4:11-CV-05573-DMR ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTION TO COMPEL

Case4:11-cv-05573-DMR Document63 Filed01/15/13 Page2 of 2

1

1.

Connell Auto’s motion was granted as to Request Numbers 1 – 3 except that they are

2

limited to the period of November 1, 2001, to and including August 2007. The Court rejected BofA’s

3

argument that any of the responsive materials are subject to the privilege for Suspicious Activity

4

Reports;

5

2.

The Court ruled that the documents requested by Request Numbers 4 – 27 are relevant

6

for the period of November 1, 2001, to and including the present, yet the Court is also sensitive to the

7

potential burden on BofA in searching for responsive documents. Accordingly, the Court orders

8

counsel for the parties to further meet and confer regarding these requests in order to determine ways

9

that the requests could be reframed and/or limited so as to minimize the burden on BofA and report

10
11

back to the Court in a further joint letter on or before Friday, January 18, 2013;
3.

Connell Auto’s motion was granted as to Request Numbers 28 – 31 and the Court

12

overruled BofA’s blanket objection based on the privilege for Suspicious Activity Reports. BofA

13

shall produce all documents responsive to Request Number 28 – 31, subject to only the following

14

exceptions: (a) Suspicious Activity Reports; (b) drafts of Suspicious Activity Reports; and

15

(c) references in any other documents to Suspicious Activity Reports, said documents to be produced

16

subject with redactions for only references to a Suspicious Activity Report or the absence of a

17

Suspicious Activity Report.

18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19
20

January 16, 2013
Dated: _________________________

________________________________
DONNA M. RYU
United States Magistrate Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

4:11-CV-05573-DMR ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTION TO COMPEL