Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-02676/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-02676-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 15:1 Antitrust Litigation

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PAMELA BRENNAN et al,

Plaintiffs,

v

CONCORD EFS, INC et al,

Defendants. /

No C-04-2676 VRW

ORDER

On September 21, 2005, plaintiffs informed the court by

letter about a discovery dispute over plaintiffs’ requests for

production of documents from defendant Bank of America Corporation

(“BAC”) and its wholly-owned subsidiary Bank of America, NA

(“BANA”). Doc #198. Plaintiffs assert that Ninth Circuit law

requires BAC to provide these documents on behalf of BANA, which

plaintiffs claim BAC has not done. Id. In a response letter filed

on September 22, 2005, BAC contends that because BANA is not a

defendant in the present suit, BAC does not have to comply with

plaintiffs’ requests for BANA’s documents. Doc #199. In their

reply letter filed on September 27, 2005, plaintiffs assert that

BANA’s party status in this suit is irrelevant -- all that matters

Case 3:04-cv-02676-CRB Document 204 Filed 10/27/05 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

is whether plaintiffs are entitled to discovery from BANA. Doc

#200.

The court is somewhat puzzled. On the one hand, the

cases cited by plaintiffs suggest that as owner of BANA, BAC must

comply with plaintiffs’ requests for BANA’s documents. See United

States v Int’l Union of Petroleum and Indus Workers, 870 F2d 1450,

1452 (9th Cir 1989). On the other hand, if BAC is actually the

entity that has the relationship with the Star network -- which is

what plaintiffs allege -- then why do plaintiffs seek discovery

from BANA at all? Alternatively, if BANA has a relationship to the

Star network, then why is it not a party in this case?

In any case, the court declines to decide this issue at

this time, given that the record is thin concerning the extent of

BAC’s control over BANA. Nonetheless, if the parties cannot reach

an agreement on this dispute, they must contact Chief Magistrate

Judge Larson so that it is resolved no later than February 28,

2006.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

VAUGHN R WALKER

United States District Chief Judge

Case 3:04-cv-02676-CRB Document 204 Filed 10/27/05 Page 2 of 2