Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-03007/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-03007-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 47:227 Telephone Consumer Protection Act

---

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

E-Filed 11/19/15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALAN BRINKER,

Plaintiff,

v.

NORMANDIN'S, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-03007-EJD (HRL)

ORDER ON DISCOVERY DISPUTE 

JOINT REPORT 2

Re: Dkt. No. 61

Alan Brinker (“Brinker”) sues Normandin d/b/a Normandin Chrysler Jeep Dodge Ram 

(“Normandin”) and OneCommand, Inc. (“OneCommand”) in this class-action for alleged 

violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. §§ 227 et seq. Normandin 

requested an amendment to the stipulated protective order that governs this case. Brinker rejected 

that request and ultimately the parties filed discovery dispute joint report (“DDJR”) 2. 

Normandin claims it may become liable under the privacy requirements of the GrammLeach-Bliley Act (“GLBA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 6801 et seq., unless the protective order is amended to 

require consent from all parties and from the court before any party may contact one of 

Normandin’s current or former customers. Dkt. No. 61 at 5-6. OneCommand does not take a 

position in DDJR 2. Dkt. No. 61 at 5. Brinker argues an amendment is unnecessary because the 

GLBA’s privacy requirements do not apply when information is disclosed in response “to judicial 

process[.]” Dkt. No. 61 at 3-4.

Brinker is clearly correct. The GLBA’s privacy requirements contain exceptions for 

disclosures that comply with the requirements of other “[f]ederal . . . laws” and for disclosures 

responsive to “judicial process[.]” 15 U.S.C. § 6801(e)(8). Disclosures made in the course of 

federal civil discovery are both required by federal law and responsive to judicial process. Accord

Sohal v. Federal Home Loan Mortg. Corp., No. C 11-1941 JSW, 2012 WL 4113721 at 3 (N.D. 

Case 5:14-cv-03007-EJD Document 69 Filed 11/19/15 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

Cal. Sept. 18, 2012) (rejecting the argument that GLBA’s privacy requirements apply in the 

context of court proceedings). The onerous protective order amendment requested by Normandin 

would therefore serve no valid purpose.

The request for amendment of the protective order is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 11/19/15

________________________

HOWARD R. LLOYD

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:14-cv-03007-EJD Document 69 Filed 11/19/15 Page 2 of 2