Brinker v. Normandin's

Filing 69

Order on Discovery Dispute Joint Report 2 61 by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd. (hrllc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/19/2015)

Download PDF
E-Filed 11/19/15 1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ALAN BRINKER, Case No. 14-cv-03007-EJD (HRL) Plaintiff, 8 v. ORDER ON DISCOVERY DISPUTE JOINT REPORT 2 9 10 NORMANDIN'S, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 61 Defendants. United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 Alan Brinker (“Brinker”) sues Normandin d/b/a Normandin Chrysler Jeep Dodge Ram 13 (“Normandin”) and OneCommand, Inc. (“OneCommand”) in this class-action for alleged 14 violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. §§ 227 et seq. Normandin 15 requested an amendment to the stipulated protective order that governs this case. Brinker rejected 16 that request and ultimately the parties filed discovery dispute joint report (“DDJR”) 2. 17 Normandin claims it may become liable under the privacy requirements of the Gramm- 18 Leach-Bliley Act (“GLBA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 6801 et seq., unless the protective order is amended to 19 require consent from all parties and from the court before any party may contact one of 20 Normandin’s current or former customers. Dkt. No. 61 at 5-6. OneCommand does not take a 21 position in DDJR 2. Dkt. No. 61 at 5. Brinker argues an amendment is unnecessary because the 22 GLBA’s privacy requirements do not apply when information is disclosed in response “to judicial 23 process[.]” Dkt. No. 61 at 3-4. 24 Brinker is clearly correct. The GLBA’s privacy requirements contain exceptions for 25 disclosures that comply with the requirements of other “[f]ederal . . . laws” and for disclosures 26 responsive to “judicial process[.]” 15 U.S.C. § 6801(e)(8). Disclosures made in the course of 27 federal civil discovery are both required by federal law and responsive to judicial process. Accord 28 Sohal v. Federal Home Loan Mortg. Corp., No. C 11-1941 JSW, 2012 WL 4113721 at 3 (N.D. 1 Cal. Sept. 18, 2012) (rejecting the argument that GLBA’s privacy requirements apply in the 2 context of court proceedings). The onerous protective order amendment requested by Normandin 3 would therefore serve no valid purpose. 4 The request for amendment of the protective order is denied. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 Dated: 11/19/15 7 ________________________ HOWARD R. LLOYD United States Magistrate Judge 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?