Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-02989/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-02989-17/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:2301 Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act

---

Case No. 14-cv-02989 LHK (NC) 

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

WILLIAM PHILIPS, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

FORD MOTOR COMPANY,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-cv-02989 LHK (NC)

ORDER TO DEFENDANT TO 

REPRODUCE DOCUMENTS IN AN 

UNREDACTED FORM

Re: Dkt. No. 122

In this putative class action alleging defective electronic power assisted steering, the 

parties’ discovery dispute is whether Ford Motor Company of North America (Ford) must 

reproduce approximately 3,100 documents in unredacted form that Ford obtained from its

wholly-owned German subsidiary, Ford Werke GmbH (Ford Germany). The dispute 

presents two issues: (1) whether Ford has the power to dictate that Ford Germany produce 

unredacted documents relevant to this litigation, and (2) what consequences Ford Germany

could face under German privacy law if it releases unredacted documents.

The Court conducted a hearing on April 27, 2016, and ordered both parties to 

submit further briefing. Dkt. No. 131. The Court held a second hearing on May 25, 2016. 

Dkt. No. 147. Because the Court finds that Ford has control over this set of documents and 

has not established that production would violate German privacy law, it GRANTS 

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel Ford to reproduce the documents in an unredacted form.

Case 5:14-cv-02989-LHK Document 155 Filed 06/10/16 Page 1 of 8
Case No. 14-cv-02989 LHK (NC) 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

I. JUDICIAL NOTICE

Ford asks the Court to take judicial notice of its attached Exhibits A and B, which 

contain the EU Directive on Data Protection, 95/46/EC, 1995 O.J. (L 281), the German 

Federal Data Protection Act (BDSG), and a decision by the European Court of Justice on 

October 6, 2015, Maximillian Schrems v. Data Protection Commissioner/Digital Rights 

Ireland Ltd., No. C-362/14. Dkt. No. 138 at 2. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

44.1, “[i]n determining foreign law, the court may consider any relevant material or 

source, including testimony, whether or not submitted by a party or admissible under the 

Federal Rules of Evidence.” See also McGhee v. Arabian Am. Oil Co., 871 F.2d 1412, 

1424 n.10 (9th Cir. 1989) (court may take judicial notice of authoritative statement of 

foreign law); Securities and Exch. Commission v. Nevatia, No. 14-cv-05273 JCS, 2015 

WL 6912006, at *4 n.4 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2015) (taking judicial notice of translation 

found on foreign ministry’s official site). The Court accordingly takes notice of the 

documents.

II. LEGAL CONTROL

The first question presented is whether Ford has the power to dictate that Ford 

Germany produce unredacted documents relevant to this litigation.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34, Ford’s obligation to produce unredacted 

versions of the documents sought by Plaintiffs turns on whether the documents are in 

Ford’s “possession, custody, or control.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a) (“A party may serve on 

any other party a request within the scope of Rule 26(b) to produce . . . items in the 

responding party’s possession, custody, or control.”). Here, Ford identified ten custodians 

located in Germany who possess documents related to the Ford Fusion and Ford Focus and 

produced redacted documents in the custodians’ possession, collected from Ford Germany, 

in Germany. Therefore, the question is whether Ford “controls” the documents requested.

Under the Ninth Circuit’s “legal control” test, “control” means “the legal right to 

obtain documents upon demand.” In re Citric Acid Litig., 191 F.3d 1090, 1107 (9th Cir. 

1999). In adopting the “legal control” test, the Ninth Circuit has declined “to define 

Case 5:14-cv-02989-LHK Document 155 Filed 06/10/16 Page 2 of 8
Case No. 14-cv-02989 LHK (NC) 3

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

‘control’ in a manner that focuses on the party’s practical ability to obtain the requested 

documents.” Id. Documents are not discoverable under Rule 34 if the entity that holds 

them “could legally—and without breaching any contract—continue to refuse to turn over 

such documents.” Id. at 1107-08.

On October 22, 2015, Ford represented to District Court Judge Lucy Koh in a joint 

case management statement that it had “begun collection efforts related to the Focus 

vehicles included in the subject class” and that “the lead steering engineers for Focus are 

located in Europe. Accordingly, Ford also expects that it will locate responsive Focusrelated documents in Europe.” Dkt. 83 at 5.

At a case management conference on October 29, 2015, when Judge Koh asked 

Ford why it had not gathered and produced the documents before a ruling by the European 

High Court removing a safe harbor provision in European privacy laws, Ford admitted that 

although it knew its lead engineer was in Germany throughout the discovery period, its 

“primary reason” for delay was that it “very strongly believe[d] that the Focus should not 

be in the class.” Id. at 5-6. Ford’s counsel represented to Judge Koh that it had “initiated 

the preservation obligations soon after this litigation was filed.” Id. at 8. Ford would not 

be able to represent to Judge Koh that it had the power to preserve this set of documents if 

they were out of Ford’s control. Ford stated at the case management conference that it 

“was just the one isolated [privacy] issue that we’re having with the folks that are in 

Europe.” Id. at 18-19. It did not state that it did not have possession, custody, or control 

of the documents.

On February 18, 2016, Ford stated in a joint case management statement that 

“Ford’s collection, review, and production of documents from European custodians has 

been incredibly time consuming and costly, partly because the EU and Germany in 

particular have very strict laws and regulations that require Ford to redact the documents,”

but did not claim that it did not have control over the documents or access to them. Dkt. 

No. 104 at 5.

As such, Ford has demonstrated control over its ten selected custodians and the 

Case 5:14-cv-02989-LHK Document 155 Filed 06/10/16 Page 3 of 8
Case No. 14-cv-02989 LHK (NC) 4

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

disputed body of documents that they possess. Ford represented to Judge Koh repeatedly 

that it would produce these documents, and did indeed produce them. However, the 

production was inadequate, leading to the present dispute. This Court finds that in the 

circumstances, Ford has shown control over the documents such that it can be ordered to 

produce them again, this time without redactions.

III. GERMAN DATA-PRIVACY LAWS

The second issue presented is what consequences, if any, Ford Germany faces under 

German law if it releases unredacted documents, and whether a protective order is 

sufficient to protect its privacy interests. 

In determining whether the documents at issue are protected from disclosure under 

German and European Union law, “[t]he party relying on foreign law has the burden of 

showing such law bars production [of documents].” In re Air Crash at Taipei, Taiwan on 

Oct. 31, 2000, 211 F.R.D. 374, 377 (C.D. Cal. 2002) (internal citations omitted). Even if a 

party identifies such a law, “it is well settled that such [foreign] statutes do not deprive an 

American court of the power to order a party subject to its jurisdiction to produce evidence 

even though the act of production may violate that statute.” Societe Nationale Industrielle 

Aerospatiale v. U.S. District Court, 482 U.S. 522, 544 n. 29 (1987). Courts apply a multifactor balancing test to evaluate the interests of the United States and the party seeking the 

discovery against the foreign state’s interest in secrecy. Aerospatiale, 482 U.S. at 543-44 

n. 28. The relevant factors include:

(1) the importance to the . . . litigation of the documents or 

other information requested; (2) the degree of specificity of the 

request; (3) whether the information originated in the United 

States; (4) the availability of alternative means of securing the 

information; and (5) the extent to which noncompliance with 

the request would undermine important interests of the United 

States, or compliance with the request would undermine 

important interests of the state where the information is 

located.

Id. This list of factors is not exhaustive, and includes “the extent and the nature of 

the hardship that inconsistent enforcement would impose upon the person, . . . [and] the 

extent to which enforcement by action of either state can reasonably be expected to 

Case 5:14-cv-02989-LHK Document 155 Filed 06/10/16 Page 4 of 8
Case No. 14-cv-02989 LHK (NC) 5

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

achieve compliance with the rule prescribed by that state.” Richmark Corp. v. Timber 

Falling Consultants, 959 F.2d 1468, 1475 (9th Cir. 1992) (internal citations and quotations 

omitted).

A. Importance to the Litigation

Under the first factor, the Court finds that the documents are relevant to the 

litigation and, as documents in the possession of custodians that Ford selected, weigh in 

favor of production.

B. Specificity of the Request

The second factor considers “how burdensome it will be to respond to th[e] request. 

Generalized searches for information, the disclosure of which is prohibited under foreign 

law, are discouraged.” Richmark Corp., 959 F.2d at 1475. Here, the request is sufficiently 

narrow under the second factor because it seeks reproduction of a set of documents Ford 

has already produced.

C. Whether the Information Originated In The United States

With regard to the third factor, “[t]he fact that all the information to be disclosed 

(and the people who will . . . produce the documents) are located in a foreign country 

weighs against disclosure, since those people and documents are subject to the law of that 

country in the ordinary course of business.” Richmark Corp., 959 F.2d at 1475. Here, 

Plaintiffs argue that the engineering work in Germany was done “at the request of and for 

the benefit of Ford’s North American market,” resulted in the design of vehicles sold in 

North America, and did not “remain” in Germany because it was shared with Ford 

employees around the globe. Dkt. No. 144 at 5. Plaintiffs argue that because Ford has 

“freely disseminated” the data in its course of business, it cannot characterize it as solely in 

Germany in the context of this litigation. Id. On the other hand, Ford asserts that the 

information sought originated and remains in Germany, and that therefore this factor 

weighs against disclosure because the documents are subject to the law of country in which 

they were made “in the ordinary course of business.” Dkt. No. 138 at 3-4. The Court finds 

that the documents are in Germany at Ford Germany and therefore this factor, while not 

Case 5:14-cv-02989-LHK Document 155 Filed 06/10/16 Page 5 of 8
Case No. 14-cv-02989 LHK (NC) 6

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

dispositive, weighs against ordering disclosure. See BrightEdge Techs., Inc. v. 

Searchmetrics, GmbH., No. 14-cv-01009 MEJ, 2014 WL 3965062, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 

13, 2014) (“To the extent that the database is maintained in Germany, this factor weighs in 

favor of not ordering disclosure, although it is not determinative.”).

D. Availability of Alternative Means

Plaintiffs argue that there is no practicable means of discovering the redacted names 

of the custodians, authors, recipients, and cc’d individuals. Ford argues that Plaintiffs can 

obtain this information elsewhere; “[f]or example, to the extent they seek the names of 

employees who participated in Focus design decisions, that information likely is already in 

the 90,000+ unredacted documents Ford has produced.” Dkt. No. 138 at 4. However, 

Ford’s argument implies that the information Ford has redacted is duplicative of produced

information and therefore is not private. It also means that Ford has access to the 

information and can produce it without violating German data-protection laws. This factor 

weighs in favor of requiring production.

E. Balancing of National Interests

The United States has a substantial interest in “vindicating the rights of American 

plaintiffs.” In re Air Crash at Taipei, 211 F.R.D. at 379 (citing Richmark Corp., 959 F.2d 

at 1477). Ford argues that “[t]his case is distinguishable from BrightEdge Technologies, in 

which the court undervalued the strong German interest embodied in the BDSG.” Dkt. 

No. 138 at 3. In BrightEdge, the court held the BDSG was entitled to “less deference” 

because it is not a substantive rule of law, “but rather one whose primary purpose is to 

protect its citizens from discovery obligations in foreign courts.” BrightEdge, No. 14-cv01009 MEJ, 2014 WL 3965062 at *5. The Court finds the reasoning of BrightEdge

persuasive and considers this factor to weigh in favor of disclosure.

F. Hardship And Likelihood of Compliance

“If a foreign company is likely to face criminal prosecution in a foreign country for 

complying with a United States court order, that is a weighty excuse for nonproduction.” 

BrightEdge, No. 14-cv-01009 MEJ, 2014 WL 3965062, at *5 (citing Aerospatiale, 357 

Case 5:14-cv-02989-LHK Document 155 Filed 06/10/16 Page 6 of 8
Case No. 14-cv-02989 LHK (NC) 7

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

U.S. at 211).

Confronting the same German data-protection statute at issue here, the BrightEdge

court found that the BDSG does not prohibit the disclosure of protected information 

because Part 1 § 4(c) allows for production of personal information for “establishment, 

exercise or defense of legal claims.” Id. at *2-3.

Ford argues that BrightEdge is inapplicable in the analysis of this factor because

this safe harbor was invalidated by the European Union in October 2015. Plaintiffs’

position is that “Ford’s discovery responses were due long before that time and Ford 

should not be rewarded for intentionally dragging its feet in discovery.” Dkt. No. 144 at 4-

5. At the case management conference on October 29, 2015, Judge Koh asked Ford why, 

given that the case was reassigned to her on July 1, 2014, Ford had not produced the 

documents prior to October. Dkt. No. 144-2 at 5. Ford assured her that it would produce 

these documents and that it had been preserving and collecting them. Id.

The BrightEdge court also noted that because the party opposing production “has 

not provided any argument as to whether parties in its position have been fined or 

prosecuted for disclosing personal data under similar circumstances, this factor weighs in 

favor of compliance.” BrightEdge, No. 14-cv-01009 MEJ, 2014 WL 3965062 at *5. 

Likewise here, although Ford has submitted a declaration by Timothy C. Smith describing 

the BDSG and its potential penalties, his declaration does not provide any examples of 

parties in Ford Germany’s position that have been fined or prosecuted under the law. See

Dkt. No. 138-1.

Further, the documents will be filed subject to a protective order that will provide 

German individuals protection from a violation of their privacy rights. This factor weighs 

in favor of production.

IV. CONCLUSION

Finding that Ford has control over the documents for purposes of discovery 

production, and having weighed the relevant factors, the Court orders Ford to reproduce 

the documents to Plaintiffs in an unredacted form within 14 days of this order. Either 

Case 5:14-cv-02989-LHK Document 155 Filed 06/10/16 Page 7 of 8
Case No. 14-cv-02989 LHK (NC) 8

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

party may object to this order within fourteen days. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 10, 2016 _____________________________________

NATHANAEL M. COUSINS

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:14-cv-02989-LHK Document 155 Filed 06/10/16 Page 8 of 8