Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-04749/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-04749-16/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Insurance Contract

---

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 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

HONG-NGOC T DAO, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

LIBERTY LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY 

OF BOSTON, 

Defendant. 

Case No. 14-cv-04749-SI (EDL) 

ORDER FOR IN CAMERA REVIEW 

Re: Dkt. No. 151 

This is a lawsuit regarding the denial of benefits under a long term disability policy issued 

to Plaintiff Hong-Ngoc Dao by Defendant Liberty Life Assurance Company of Boston. The case 

has been referred to this Court for discovery, and on July 30, 2015, this Court granted in part 

Plaintiff’s motion to quash or modify subpoenas and for a protective order in which the Court 

ordered Plaintiff to produce psychotherapy notes but allowed for redactions. On March 10, 2016, 

the parties filed a joint letter in which they dispute whether the Court’s prior Order limited 

permissible redactions to Plaintiff’s own personal traumatic experiences, or whether redactions 

relating to third parties could also be appropriate. The parties jointly request that the Court review 

in camera the psychotherapy records that Plaintiff previously produced in redacted form to 

determine whether Plaintiff’s redactions are appropriate or overbroad. 

The Court’s prior Order was not intended to strictly limit redactions to Plaintiff’s own 

personal trauma, and limited redaction of private information relating to third parties may also be 

appropriate. The Court will review in camera the documents Bates numbered 304, 313, 316, 317, 

Case 3:14-cv-04749-SI Document 154 Filed 03/14/16 Page 1 of 2
2 

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 

Northern District of Californi

a

375, 384, 390, 393, 394, 396, 402, 406, 407, 412, and 419 that, according to the log attached to the 

joint letter, were redacted to remove information relating to third parties. Within one week of the 

date of this Order, Plaintiff shall lodge directly with chambers both a redacted and unredacted 

copy of these documents. The parties do not appear to dispute that redactions of the other 

documents listed on the log are appropriate so the Court need not consider these documents in 

camera. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 14, 2016 

 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE 

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 3:14-cv-04749-SI Document 154 Filed 03/14/16 Page 2 of 2