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 

MITZIE PEREZ, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., 

Defendant. 

Case No.17-cv-00454-MMC (EDL) 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' 

MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT'S 

PRODUCTION OF UNREDACTED 

DOCUMENTS 

Re: Dkt. No. 237 

For the second time in this case, Plaintiffs have moved the Court to order Defendant Wells 

Fargo to re-produce documents without relevancy redactions. The first time the issue was before 

the Court it unequivocally ruled that “Defendant may not redact documents based on relevance.” 

Dkt. No. 120, December 27, 2017 discovery order. 

Notwithstanding this Court’s prior ruling, Defendant contends that their decision to redact 

nearly 400 documents to remove information regarding its mortgage and auto lines of business 

from documents that were otherwise related to Defendant’s credit card, student loan, Business 

Direct, and personal loan lines of business was made pursuant to Judge Chesney’s orders dated 

August 15, 2018. In one order, Judge Chesney dismissed Plaintiffs’ claims about the mortgage 

and auto lines but allowed their claims as to the credit card, student loan, Business Direct, and 

personal loan lines to go forward. Dkt. No. 227. In a separate order, Judge Chesney ruled that in 

light of her decision to dismiss the claims regarding the mortgage and auto lines Defendant “need 

not provide discovery as to its mortgage loan and automobile loan practices.” Dkt. No. 228. 

The Court reads Judge Chesney’s order to relieve Defendant of any obligation to respond 

to discovery requests specifically directed to information about the mortgage or auto loan lines or 

to produce documents that only concern those two lines. The August 15, 2018 order does not give 

Defendant license to redact any reference to the mortgage or auto loan lines that could be found in 

Case 3:17-cv-00454-MMC Document 240 Filed 01/08/19 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

a document that was otherwise responsive to a request for information about the lines of business 

that remain in the case. The delay and distrust caused by Defendant’s decision to redact this 

recent batch of documents are the precise reasons why relevancy redactions are ill advised. The 

parties’ protective order is sufficient to protect the confidentiality of information associated with 

these other lines of business. The Court need not speculate as to Plaintiffs’ interest in the 

redactions as there are ample legitimate reasons why the redactions are not allowed. 

Plaintiffs request an award of their attorneys’ fees and costs in bringing this motion. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 provides that if a party “fails to obey an order to provide or 

permit discovery, including an order under Rule 26(f), 35, or 37(a), the court where the action is 

pending may issue further just orders.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A). The Court may issue an order 

awarding the moving party’s reasonable expenses, unless the failure to comply with a discovery 

order was “substantially justified or other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.” Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(C). Defendant did not comply with the Court’s order prohibiting relevancy 

redactions, so Rule 37(b) applies. However, while a close question, the Court will not impose 

sanctions at this time because Defendant’s interpretation of Judge Chesney’s order was not wholly 

untenable. 

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion to compel is GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to reproduce the documents in unredacted form within 7 days of this order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 8, 2019 

 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE 

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 3:17-cv-00454-MMC Document 240 Filed 01/08/19 Page 2 of 2