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