UnifySCC v. Cody

[3] 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [6] 7 TOM DAVIS, et al., Case No. 22-cv-01019-BLF (SVK) 8 Plaintiffs, 9 v. ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTE Re: Dkt. No. 206 10 SARA H. CODY, et al., 11 Defendants. 12 The Court is in receipt of the Parties’ joint discovery statement regarding production of 13 || Plaintiffs’ financial data. Dkt. 206. The Court has reviewed the Parties’ submission and the 14 || relevant law and determines this matter may be resolved without oral argument. Civil L.R. 7-1(b). 3 15 || The Court’s rulings are attached hereto in Attachment A. 17 SO ORDERED. Z 18 || Dated: September 24, 2025 [19] 20 Sets verKul SUSAN VAN KEULEN 21 United States Magistrate Judge [28] Case 5:22-cv-01019-BLF Document 208 Filed 09/24/25 Page 2 of 6 ATTACHMENT A County’s Requests Plaintiffs’ Responses Parties’ Proposals Court Order RPD No. 48: Plaintiffs incorporate each of their General Plaintiffs propose to limit production Plaintiffs’ objections are overruled All DOCUMENTS sufficient to Objections. Plaintiffs further object on the to the period beginning when each in part and sustained in part. identify and describe all grounds that such information is irrelevant Plaintiff went on leave and ending personal property, real estate and not proportional to the needs of the case. when they resumed any work, Plaintiffs claim emotional distress holdings, land, financial Plaintiffs further object as the question is including non-County employment— arising from financial stress caused accounts, investments, or other meant to harass and is overly invasive. meaning in some cases the period by the County putting them on significant assets owned in Plaintiffs object as the question is overly would be shorter than the actual unpaid leave, and therefore whole or in part by YOU from burdensome. Plaintiffs have already leave. Plaintiffs also propose to Plaintiffs have put their financial January 1, 2021 to the present, disclosed their incomes during the period at redact all transactional details from condition at issue. Moreover, the including but not limited to issue, and this request is highly invasive, those records. particulars of Plaintiffs’ deeds, titles, account inappropriate, and entirely out of proportion expenditures, for example whether statements, or appraisals. with Defendant’s needs in this case. The County seeks responsive, debts were incurred due to living or Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 requires unredacted documents from January discretionary expenses is relevant to that discovery must be proportional to the 1, 2021 to the end of their leave or Plaintiffs’ claims and the County’s needs of the case. Plaintiffs have a October 31, 2022. defenses. Therefore, Plaintiffs’ constitutionally-based right of privacy. See objections as to relevance, Keith H. v. Long Beach Unified School Dist., proportionality and privacy are 228 F.R.D. 652, 657 (2005). Discovery of overruled, except as noted below. Plaintiffs’ bank accounts, retirement accounts, and other highly private information is not proportional to the needs Plaintiffs’ objections as to of this case given that this information is not overbreadth are sustained in part. relevant to any claims or defenses, including The County’s requests seeking mitigation. Whether Plaintiffs had any Plaintiff’s financial data from particular assets has no relevance to whether January, 2021, until dates of Plaintiffs suffered emotional distress from reinstatement are overbroad and not losing their primary source of income. The proportional to the needs of the interest in maintaining Plaintiffs’ privacy far litigation. The relevant and outweighs any alleged need by Defendant. proportional time frame is thirty days prior to the start of a Plaintiff’s leave (which is sufficient to give the County an understanding of a Plaintiff’s financial situation as of the start of the leave period) until the date that the Plaintiff claims the [1] Case 5:22-cv-01019-BLF Document 208 Filed 09/24/25 Page 3 of 6 financial anxiety caused by the layoffs ended. Accordingly, Plaintiff Davis is to produce responsive documents from October 1, 2021 – May 31, 2022; Plaintiff Baluyut is to produce responsive documents from January 1, 2022 through October 1, 2022; Plaintiff Ramirez is to produce documents from October 1, 2021March 31, 2022. All documents to be produced and verified responses served no later than October 3, 2025 under the highest level of protection under the Protective Order. This Order is without prejudice to Plaintiffs moving to exclude financial data at trial RPD No. 49: Plaintiffs incorporate each of their General Plaintiffs propose to limit production All DOCUMENTS sufficient to Objections. Plaintiffs further object on the to the period beginning when each See Court Order above, identify and describe any debts, grounds that such information is irrelevant Plaintiff went on leave and ending incorporated herein. liabilities, or other financial and not proportional to the needs of the case. when they resumed any work, obligations owed by YOU from Plaintiffs further object as the question is including non-County employment— January 1, 2021, to the present, meant to harass and is overly invasive. meaning in some cases the period including but not limited to loan Plaintiffs object as the question is overly would be shorter than the actual agreements, promissory notes, burdensome. Plaintiffs have already leave. Plaintiffs also propose to mortgages, credit card disclosed their incomes during the period at redact all transactional details from statements, lines of credit, liens, issue, and this request is highly invasive, those records. judgments, or collection inappropriate, and entirely out of proportion notices. with Defendant’s needs. The County seeks responsive, Federal Rule 26 requires that discovery must unredacted documents from January be proportional to the needs of the case. 1, 2021 to the end of their leave or Plaintiffs have a constitutionally based right October 31, 2022. of privacy. See Keith H. v. Long Beach [2] Case 5:22-cv-01019-BLF Document 208 Filed 09/24/25 Page 4 of 6 Unified School Dist., 228 F.R.D. 652, 657 (2005). Requesting documents concerning debts, liabilities, financial obligations, and other highly private information is not proportional to the needs of the case. Plaintiffs’ financial assets are irrelevant. Plaintiffs’ debts, liabilities, and financial capabilities are highly private. “[C]onfidential financial information given to a bank by its customers is protected by the right to privacy” under the California Constitution. Fortunato v. Super. Ct., 114 Cal. App. 4th 475, 480 (2003). Defendant’s attempt to discover this information is only meant to intimidate Plaintiffs by forcing them to produce detailed, intimate, and embarrassing information about their personal lives. Accordingly, the interest in maintaining Plaintiffs’ privacy in this matter far outweighs any alleged need by Defendant. RPD No. 50 Plaintiffs incorporate each of their General Plaintiffs propose to limit production All monthly bank/credit union Objections. Plaintiffs further object on the to the period beginning when each See Court Order above, statements, investment account grounds that such information is irrelevant Plaintiff went on leave and ending incorporated herein. statements, and retirement and not proportional to the needs of the case. when they resumed any work, account statements in YOUR Plaintiffs further object as the question is including non-County employment— name or under YOUR control meant to harass and is overly invasive. meaning in some cases the period from August 1, 2021 to the Plaintiffs object as the question is overly would be shorter than the actual present, including but not burdensome. Plaintiffs have already leave. Plaintiffs also propose to limited to checking accounts, disclosed their incomes during the period at redact all transactional details from savings accounts, money issue, and this request is highly invasive, those records. market accounts, IRAs, inappropriate, and entirely out of proportion 401(k)s, brokerage accounts, with Defendant’s needs in this case. The County seeks responsive, and cryptocurrency wallets. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 requires unredacted documents from January that discovery must be proportional to the 1, 2021 to the end of their leave or needs of the case. Plaintiffs have a October 31, 2022. constitutionally-based right of privacy. See Keith H. v. Long Beach Unified School Dist., 228 F.R.D. 652, 657 (2005). Discovery of [3] Case 5:22-cv-01019-BLF Document 208 Filed 09/24/25 Page 5 of 6 Plaintiffs’ the requested documents is not proportional to the needs of this case given that this information is not relevant to any claims or defenses, including mitigation. Whether Plaintiffs had any particular assets has no relevance to whether Plaintiffs suffered emotional distress from losing their primary source of income. The interest in maintaining Plaintiffs’ privacy far outweighs any alleged need by Defendant. RPD No. 51 Plaintiffs incorporate each of their General Plaintiffs propose to limit production All DOCUMENTS related to Objections. Plaintiffs further object on the to the period beginning when each See Court Order above, any sale, transfer, or grounds that such information is irrelevant Plaintiff went on leave and ending incorporated herein. encumbrance of real or personal and not proportional to the needs of the case. when they resumed any work, property or financial assets Plaintiffs further object as the question is including non-County employment— made by YOU from January 1, meant to harass and is overly invasive. meaning in some cases the period 2021 to the present. Plaintiffs object as the question is overly would be shorter than the actual burdensome. Plaintiffs have already leave. Plaintiffs also propose to disclosed their incomes during the period at redact all transactional details from issue, and this request is highly invasive, those records. inappropriate, and entirely out of proportion with Defendant’s needs in this case. The County seeks responsive, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 requires unredacted documents from January that discovery must be proportional to the 1, 2021 to the end of their leave, or needs of the case. Plaintiffs have a October 31, 2022. constitutionally-based right of privacy. See Keith H. v. Long Beach Unified School Dist., 228 F.R.D. 652, 657 (2005). Discovery of Plaintiffs’ the requested documents is not proportional to the needs of this case given that this information is not relevant to any claims or defenses, including mitigation. Whether Plaintiffs had any particular assets has no relevance to whether Plaintiffs suffered emotional distress from losing their primary source of income. The interest in maintaining Plaintiffs’ privacy far outweighs any alleged need by Defendant. [4] Case 5:22-cv-01019-BLF Document 208 Filed 09/24/25 Page 6 of 6 Interrogatory No. 23 Plaintiffs incorporate each of their General Plaintiffs propose to limit its response Identify all property and assets Objections. Plaintiffs further object to this to the period beginning when each See Court Order above, YOU own or partially own request on the grounds that it seeks irrelevant Plaintiff went on leave and ending incorporated herein. from January 1, 2021 to the information and is not proportional to the when they resumed any work, present, including but not needs of the case. Plaintiffs further object to including non-County employment— limited to real property the request as harassing, overly invasive, and meaning in some cases the period (including land and real estate), inappropriate. Plaintiffs also object that the would be shorter than the actual significant personal property request is overly burdensome. Plaintiffs leave. Plaintiffs also propose to assets (including vehicles, further object on the basis that the request is exclude all transactional details from investment accounts, vague as to the meaning of the phrase its response. businesses, and collectibles), “significant personal property assets.” and savings and retirement Federal Rule 26 requires that discovery must The County seeks responsive, accounts (including checking, be proportional to the needs of the case. unredacted information from January savings, money market, Federal courts have recognized a 1, 2021 to the end of their leave or CalPERS, 401(k), 403(b), constitutionally based right of privacy that October 31, 2022. IRAs, Roth IRAs). For each, can be raised in response to discovery state (a) the asset/account type; request. See Keith H. v. Long Beach Unified (b) the custodian or institution; School Dist., 228 F.R.D. 652, 657 (2005). (c) whether any withdrawals or Plaintiffs’ bank account information, assets loans have been taken since information, and information otherwise August 5, 2021; and (d) the describing their financial capabilities is approximate account balance as highly private. “[C]onfidential financial of the date YOU were placed on information given to a bank by its customers administrative leave and is protected by the right to privacy” under the currently. California Constitution. Fortunato v. Super. Ct., 114 Cal. App. 4th 475, 480 (2003). Discovery into Plaintiffs’ bank accounts, retirement accounts, and other highly private information is not proportional to the needs of the case. Whether Plaintiffs had any particular asset has no relevance to the claims or defenses in this case.