Ramirez v. Petsmart, Inc.
Filing
27
ORDER ON 25 DISCOVERY LETTER BRIEF REGARDING RECORDS REQUESTED FROM EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. Signed by Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen on 5/18/2017. (ofr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/18/2017)
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?