Bryntensen et al v. Camp Automotive, Inc. et al

Filing 41

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER. IT IS ORDERED: Defendants shall send a letter in the form set forth above to all customers who entered into a BVA with store nos. 51, 52, or 109 from 5/1/2013 to 7/1/2013. If a customer voluntarily chooses to partake in an interview with one or both of the attorneys for the parties, information obtained through any interview shall be subject to the discovery rules, and the parties shall be required to seasonably supplement any and all discovery pertaining to that customers' statements, per the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (st)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
CASEY BRYNTESEN, et. al.,
Case No. 2:13-cv-00491-BLW
Plaintiffs,

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER

v.
CAMP AUTOMOTIVE, INC., et. al.,
Defendants.

INTRODUCTION
Pursuant to the Court’s CMO, the parties reached out to the Law Clerk assigned to
this case for assistance in resolving some discovery disputes. Counsel diligently
participated in two informal conference calls with the Law Clerk. During those calls, the
parties resolved the majority of their differences. Only one minor discovery issue remains
– the manner in which counsel may contact customers who entered into a borrowed
vehicle agreement (“BVA”). The parties have filed short briefs on the issue, and the
matter is now ripe for the Court to resolve.
ANALYSIS
This Court has often recognized significant privacy concerns for third parties who
have no involvement in a case. “Federal Courts ordinarily recognize a constitutionallybased right of privacy that can be raised in response to discovery requests.” Soto v. City
of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 616 (N.D.Cal.1995) (citing Breed v. United States Dist. Ct.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 1

for Northern District, 542 F.2d 1114, 1116 (9th Cir.1976). Resolution of a privacy
objection requires a balancing of the need for the information sought against the privacy
right asserted. Id., 162 F.R.D. at 616.
Here, customers who entered into a BVA with Camp Automotive have a privacy
interest in that information. Although on its face there is nothing particularly concerning
about a customer having his/her BVA made public, there is a privacy interest
nonetheless. Accordingly, the Court must balance that privacy interest with Plaintiffs’
need for the information.
Plaintiffs suggest they need to communicate with other customers who entered
into BVAs to show that Camp Automotive had a “broken process.” Only customers who
have complaints or other issues with the BVA process would potentially have relevant
information. That is why, as discussed at the informal mediation, a letter to the customers
offering them the opportunity to contact counsel if they would like to discuss the matter
is sufficient. The only question is how much to tell the customers in the letter, and the
process for having them contact counsel.
The Court finds that Camp Automotive’s letter, with some modifications, will
adequately protect the privacy interest of the customers while giving the customer an
opportunity to discuss their BVA with counsel. However, the Court agrees with Plaintiffs
that some context needs to be provided to the customer so they can intelligently decide
whether they have any information which may bear upon the subject of the lawsuit. In
addition, it appears to the Court that the customer may wish to speak to only the attorney

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 2

for the Plaintiffs or only the attorney for Camp Automotive, or both. Although the Court
understands Defendants’ concerns here, the Court finds that not giving the customers that
option may chill their willingness to talk with anyone. Accordingly, the Court approves
the following letter, which is largely based upon Camp Automotive’s proposed letter:
A lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court of Idaho against
Camp Automotive involving the dealership’s loan of a car to a customer in
May of 2013 while the customer’s vehicle was being repaired. The loan of
the car was done pursuant to a Borrowed Vehicle Agreement. The lawsuit
is based on the dealership’s alleged misfiling of paperwork regarding the
loaned vehicle and the vehicle being incorrectly reported as stolen.
You have been identified as a customer that entered into a Borrowed
Vehicle Agreement at a Camp Automotive dealership between May 1, 2013
and July 1, 2013. You are not a party to this lawsuit.
You are under no obligation to do so, but if you would like to discuss your
experience in borrowing a car under the Borrowed Vehicle Agreement with
Plaintiffs’ attorney please call 208-666-4107. If you would like to discuss
your experience in borrowing a car under the Borrowed Vehicle Agreement
with Defendants’’ attorney please call ***-***-****.1 If you would like to
discuss your experience in borrowing a car under the Borrowed Vehicle
Agreement with the attorneys for both parties together please call 206-6234100 and ask for Jennifer Hickman. Ms. Hickman will arrange a mutually
convenient time for you to discuss this matter with the appropriate
attorneys on the telephone.
Your participation in this discussion is purely voluntary. Should you not
desire to participate in such a discussion, you need not do anything.

1

Counsel should insert defense counsel’s telephone number here.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 3

With regard to whether the letter should go only to store no. 52 customers (the
store where Plaintiffs entered into a BVA) or store nos. 51 and 109 as well, the Court
finds that it should go to all of them. First, the Court notes that we are only dealing with a
short window of time – the two month period between May 1, 2013 and July 1, 2013.
Thus, the number of customers is limited. Moreover, although Plaintiffs did not enter into
a BVA with the other two stores, the close connection between the stores is enough to
make any customer complaints about a BVA potentially relevant. “Relevant information
need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead
to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED:
1. Defendants shall send a letter in the form set forth above to all customers who
entered into a BVA with store nos. 51, 52, or 109 from May 1, 2013 to July 1,
2013. If a customer voluntarily chooses to partake in an interview with one or
both of the attorneys for the parties, information obtained through any
interview shall be subject to the discovery rules, and the parties shall be
required to seasonably supplement any and all discovery pertaining to that
customers’ statements, per the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 4

DATED: July 11, 2014

_________________________
B. Lynn Winmill
Chief Judge
United States District Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 5