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)

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