Chiquita Fresh North America L.L.C. v. Green Transport Company et al

Filing 88

ORDER TO RE-FILE REDACTED INVOICES. Plaintiff is ordered to redo the redactions to 75 and re-file the redacted invoices by Monday, September 30, 2013. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu on 09/24/13. (dmrlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/24/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
CHIQUITA FRESH,

12
13

Plaintiff(s),

No. C-11-06683 DMR
ORDER TO RE-FILE REDACTED
INVOICES

v.

14

GREENE TRANSPORT,

15

Defendant(s).
___________________________________/

16
17

On September 20, 2013, this court ordered Plaintiff to lodge unredacted copies of the

18

invoices presented in Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Motion for Breach of

19

Contract Damages [Docket No. 75] with the court for in camera review. [Docket No. 87.] The court

20

advised Plaintiff that if the redactions to the invoices are not narrowly tailored to their claims of

21

privilege, Plaintiff may be required to redo the redactions and re-file the invoices.

22

Upon review, it appears that Plaintiff’s redactions are not narrowly tailored to their claims of

23

privilege, e.g., nearly all of the billing entries from a November 20, 2011 invoice from the Fisher,

24

Rushmer law firm are redacted. Plaintiff is therefore ordered to redo the redactions to Docket No.

25

75 and re-file the redacted invoices by Monday, September 30, 2013. The redactions should be

26

narrowly tailored to the claims of privilege such that Defendants can still determine the general

27

nature of the task performed. For example, only the bracketed selections should be redacted from

28

the following sample billing entries: “Receive and review [X, Y, and Z documents]”; “Attend case

1

strategy conference [regarding X, Y, and Z]”; “Research Florida case law on various issues, include

2

[X, Y, and Z subject matters]”; “Receive and review suit correspondence and answer from defense

3

counsel.” Plaintiff is advised that its costs associated with reviewing, redacting, and re-filing the

4

invoices may not be included in Plaintiff’s request for contract damages.

5

The court believes it is unlikely that additional briefing on Plaintiff’s motion for breach of

6

contract damages is necessary in light of the edited redactions ordered by this court. However, if

7

Defendants believe supplemental briefing is necessary, they must file a short letter requesting and

8

explaining the need for supplemental briefing, with specific examples from the re-filed redactions,

9

by Wednesday, October 2, 2013. The court will then consider the letter and, if appropriate, issue

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

an order and schedule for supplemental briefing.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 24, 2013

13
DONNA M. RYU
United States Magistrate Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2