Ramirez v. Petsmart, Inc.

Filing 27


Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 VANESSA RAMIREZ, Plaintiff, 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 Case No. 16-cv-06552-EJD (SVK) v. PETSMART, INC., Defendant. ORDER ON DISCOVERY LETTER BRIEF REGARDING RECORDS REQUESTED FROM EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Re: Dkt. No. 25 Defendant PetSmart, Inc. submitted a discovery letter brief requesting an order compelling 13 plaintiff Vanessa Ramirez to sign an authorization permitting the release of her records by the 14 Employment Development Department (“EDD”). ECF 25. PetSmart states that it subpoenaed the 15 records from EDD and Plaintiff did not object to the subpoena, but EDD has refused to release the 16 records without a signed authorization from Plaintiff. Id. at 1. PetSmart represents that it made 17 four requests to Plaintiff’s counsel for a signed authorization, but Plaintiff refused. Id. PetSmart 18 also states that it provided a draft of a joint discovery letter brief to Plaintiff’s counsel, as required 19 by this Court’s standing order on discovery disputes, but Plaintiff did not respond and that 20 PetSmart was therefore forced to file the letter brief independently. Id. at 2. Following receipt of 21 PetSmart’s letter brief, the Court gave Plaintiff an additional opportunity to submit any objection 22 to the requested relief by May 16, 2017. ECF 26. Plaintiff has not filed any response to 23 PetSmart’s letter brief. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court concludes that the issue 24 presented is appropriate for determination without oral argument. 25 PetSmart argues that the EDD records it is seeking are relevant to Plaintiff’s claims in this 26 case. Plaintiff has not demonstrated that the information is not discoverable. PetSmart’s letter 27 brief indicates that Plaintiff has argued to PetSmart that the information sought from the EDD is 28 privileged (ECF 25 at 2), although Plaintiff has not made such an argument to the Court. In any 1 event, although the EDD may have a privilege not to disclose the information sought by PetSmart, 2 Plaintiff does not have standing to raise the EDD’s privilege. See Lewis v. Home Depot U.S.A., 3 Inc., No. C-12-6354 EMC (ECF 40) (ordering plaintiff to execute authorization forms permitting 4 the release of information from EDD). 5 Accordingly, PetSmart’s request is GRANTED. Within seven (7) calendar days of the 6 date of this order, Plaintiff is ordered to execute an authorization form permitting the release of 7 information from the Employment Development Department concerning Plaintiff’s application for 8 unemployment benefits. Nothing in this order bars EDD from raising any privilege against 9 production of the documents sought by PetSmart or rules on the merits of such a claim of 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 privilege. SO ORDERED. Dated: May 18, 2017 13 14 SUSAN VAN KEULEN United States Magistrate Judge 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?