Monterey Bay Military Housing, LLC et al v. Pinnacle Monterey LLC et al

Filing 94

ORDER Re 78 Discovery Dispute Joint Report #4. Signed by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd on 1/16/2015. (hrllc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/16/2015)

1

*E-Filed: January 16, 2015*

2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

SAN JOSE DIVISION
11
12
13
14
15

MONTEREY BAY MILITARY HOUSING,
LLC, CLARK PINNACLE MONTEREY
BAY LLC, CLARK MONTEREY PRESIDIO
LLC, CALIFORNIA MILITARY
COMMUNITIES LLC, CLARK PINNACLE
CALIFORNIA MILITARY COMMUNITIES
LLC and CLARK IRWIN, LLC,

Case No. 14-CV-03953 BLF (HRL)
ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTE
JOINT REPORT NO. 4

[Re Docket No. 78]
16

Plaintiffs,

17

v.

18

PINNACLE MONTEREY LLC, PINNACLE
IRWIN LLC, AMERICAN MANAGEMENT
SERVICES CALIFORNIA INC.,
AMERICAN MANAGEMENT SERVICES
LLC D/B/A PINNACLE, GOODMAN REAL
ESTATE, INC., GOODMAN FINANCIAL
SERVICES, INC., STANLEY HARRELSON
and JOHN GOODMAN,

19
20
21
22
23

Defendants.

24
25

Plaintiffs sue defendants for “a series of systematic frauds” relating to defendants’

26

management of military housing projects at the Presidio of Monterey and Fort Irwin. Fourth

27

Amended Complaint, Dkt. No. 1-23, at 2. In Discovery Dispute Joint Report (“DDJR”) #4

28

defendants seek production of unredacted responsive documents related to plaintiffs’ insurance.
ORDER RE: DDJR NO. 4
Case No 14-CV-03953

-1-

1

During the course of prior litigations between the parties, prior court orders determined that

2

“information pertaining to [plaintiffs’] construction, builder’s risk, auto, or pollution insurance” is not

3

relevant to the parties’ disputes. Id. Plaintiff has produced responsive documents with this non-relevant

4

information redacted.

5

Plaintiffs’ position is that because the information is highly commercially sensitive and not

6

relevant (as established by court order), plaintiff may redact it. Defendants’ position is that the

7

plaintiff cannot unilaterally redact information from responsive documents, and the prior court

8

orders do not address redactions within responsive documents. Both parties agree that the redacted

9

information is not relevant, but defendants question the propriety of the redactions. Id. at 6.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Accordingly, to balance the plaintiffs’ concern that the irrelevant information will be

11

disclosed to their competitors, and defendants’ concern that plaintiffs are over-redacting, the court

12

orders plaintiffs to produce the unredacted, responsive documents subject to an attorneys-eyes only

13

designation, at plaintiffs’ counsels’ office (or similar mutually agreed on location) for review by

14

defendants’ attorneys. The unredacted documents shall include highlighting or a similar indication

15

to allow defendants’ attorneys to readily identify the redacted information. See also Civ. L. R. 79-

16

5(d)(1)(D). The documents shall not be removed from the reviewing location. The purpose of the

17

review is limited to allowing defendants’ attorneys to confirm that the redactions are limited to

18

“information pertaining to construction, builder’s risk, auto, or pollution insurance” only.

19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20
21

Dated: January 16, 2015

_________________________________
Howard R. Lloyd
United States Magistrate Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER RE: DDJR NO. 4
Case No 14-CV-03953

-2-