Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-01878/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-01878-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1343 Violation of Civil Rights

---

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 California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JACOB BENJAMIN STERNBERG, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

TOWN OF DANVILLE, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-01878-SI 

ORDER ON DISCOVERY DISPUTE

Re: Dkt. No. 56

Now before the Court is a discovery letter submitted by the parties. Dkt. 56. Plaintiffs 

seek an order compelling production of a third-party witness’s date of birth (excluding birth year) 

and driver’s license number. Id. at 1. Plaintiffs contend that they have been unable to confirm this 

witness’s place of residence for purposes of service of a subpoena, and this information would 

allow them to “enlist the appropriate resources or data bases employed by investigators to 

confirm” the witness’s address. Id. Plaintiffs allege that defendants have not met their burden to 

demonstrate that good cause exists to deny the request. Id. at 3-4.

Defendants object on the grounds that this information is confidential and plaintiffs already 

have the witness’s current address and cellular telephone number on the redacted police report in 

this case. Id. at 4. Defendants allege that they have repeatedly offered to produce the information 

at issue pursuant to a protective order. Id. Defendants assert that the release of such information 

could result in future financial harm to the witness. Id.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26, parties may obtain discovery regarding 

any non-privileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

26(b)(1). The court may sua sponte limit the extent of discovery otherwise allowed by these rules 

if it determines that the discovery sought can be obtained from some other source that is more 

Case 3:15-cv-01878-SI Document 58 Filed 12/21/15 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 California

convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(i). Further, Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2 provides that, “Unless the court orders otherwise, in an electronic or 

paper filing with the court that contains an individual’s . . . birth date, . . . a party or nonparty 

making the filing may include only . . . the year of the individual’s birth.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

5.2(a)(2) (emphasis added). 

The Court finds that the information sought is private and the address and contact 

information of the witness can be obtained by a less burdensome means or from some other 

source. The Court is not persuaded that the information sought will confirm the whereabouts of 

the witness. Rule 5.2 presumptively allows a party to file an individual’s year of birth precisely 

because courts are wary of providing the public with more specific identifying information. 

The Court thus DENIES plaintiffs’ discovery request as currently presented. Should 

plaintiffs seek the information pursuant to a protective order, the Court would entertain such a 

request.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 21, 2015

______________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-01878-SI Document 58 Filed 12/21/15 Page 2 of 2