Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-03953/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-03953-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Racketeering (RICO) Act

---

ORDER RE: DDJR NO. 4

Case No 14-CV-03953 - 1 -

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

*E-Filed: January 16, 2015*

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

MONTEREY BAY MILITARY HOUSING,

LLC, CLARK PINNACLE MONTEREY 

BAY LLC, CLARK MONTEREY PRESIDIO 

LLC, CALIFORNIA MILITARY 

COMMUNITIES LLC, CLARK PINNACLE 

CALIFORNIA MILITARY COMMUNITIES 

LLC and CLARK IRWIN, LLC,

 Plaintiffs,

v.

PINNACLE MONTEREY LLC, PINNACLE

IRWIN LLC, AMERICAN MANAGEMENT

SERVICES CALIFORNIA INC., 

AMERICAN MANAGEMENT SERVICES 

LLC D/B/A PINNACLE, GOODMAN REAL 

ESTATE, INC., GOODMAN FINANCIAL 

SERVICES, INC., STANLEY HARRELSON 

and JOHN GOODMAN,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-CV-03953 BLF (HRL)

ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTE 

JOINT REPORT NO. 4

[Re Docket No. 78]

Plaintiffs sue defendants for “a series of systematic frauds” relating to defendants’ 

management of military housing projects at the Presidio of Monterey and Fort Irwin. Fourth 

Amended Complaint, Dkt. No. 1-23, at 2. In Discovery Dispute Joint Report (“DDJR”) #4

defendants seek production of unredacted responsive documents related to plaintiffs’ insurance. 

Case 5:14-cv-03953-BLF Document 94 Filed 01/16/15 Page 1 of 2
ORDER RE: DDJR NO. 4

Case No 14-CV-03953 - 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

For the Northern District of California

During the course of prior litigations between the parties, prior court orders determined that 

“information pertaining to [plaintiffs’] construction, builder’s risk, auto, or pollution insurance” is not 

relevant to the parties’ disputes. Id. Plaintiff has produced responsive documents with this non-relevant 

information redacted.

Plaintiffs’ position is that because the information is highly commercially sensitive and not 

relevant (as established by court order), plaintiff may redact it. Defendants’ position is that the 

plaintiff cannot unilaterally redact information from responsive documents, and the prior court 

orders do not address redactions within responsive documents. Both parties agree that the redacted 

information is not relevant, but defendants question the propriety of the redactions. Id. at 6.

Accordingly, to balance the plaintiffs’ concern that the irrelevant information will be 

disclosed to their competitors, and defendants’ concern that plaintiffs are over-redacting, the court 

orders plaintiffs to produce the unredacted, responsive documents subject to an attorneys-eyes only 

designation, at plaintiffs’ counsels’ office (or similar mutually agreed on location) for review by 

defendants’ attorneys. The unredacted documents shall include highlighting or a similar indication 

to allow defendants’ attorneys to readily identify the redacted information. See also Civ. L. R. 79-

5(d)(1)(D). The documents shall not be removed from the reviewing location. The purpose of the 

review is limited to allowing defendants’ attorneys to confirm that the redactions are limited to 

“information pertaining to construction, builder’s risk, auto, or pollution insurance” only.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 16, 2015 _________________________________

Howard R. Lloyd

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:14-cv-03953-BLF Document 94 Filed 01/16/15 Page 2 of 2