Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Sept. 11, 2020

Chang v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

Judge
Haywood Gilliam
Docket
4:19-cv-01973
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
DiscoveryCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Chang v. Wells Fargo, Judge Gilliam denied Wells Fargo’s motion under Florida law and ordered production under the federal discovery rules.

Who this affects

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. must produce documents under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure without relying on Florida Statute § 655.059; the order concerns records involving third-party accountholders and does not decide whether the plaintiffs’ requests are properly scoped.

What happened

In Chang v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Wells Fargo asked the court for permission to produce certain confidential bank records involving non-parties under a Florida confidentiality law. The parties had notified the affected account holders and reported on whether they consented to disclosure.

The court denied the motion to the extent it sought an order under that Florida law. It ruled that the law applies to a bank producing records as a non-party under subpoena, not to Wells Fargo as a defendant responding to discovery requests. Wells Fargo must produce documents as required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the court did not decide whether the plaintiffs’ requests were properly limited or otherwise valid under those rules.

Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. issued the order on September 11, 2020.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Chang v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. · No. 4:19-cv-01973
Judge
Haywood Gilliam
Date
Sept. 11, 2020

Background

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. moved for an order governing disclosure of confidential non-party bank records under Florida Statute § 655.059. Wells Fargo sought permission to produce certain documents and records to the plaintiffs under that statute. The court held status conferences, and the parties reported on efforts to notify third-party accountholders that the plaintiffs had requested records from Wells Fargo and to determine whether those accountholders consented to production. The plaintiffs later filed a supplemental brief.

Legal Rule and Analysis

Florida Statute § 655.059 generally makes a financial institution’s books and records confidential, while allowing disclosure in specified circumstances. One listed circumstance involves production compelled by a court through a subpoena issued under the Florida or Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court read the subpoena requirement as applying when a financial institution is a non-party required to produce records in a dispute between other parties. Wells Fargo, however, was a defendant and therefore a party to this case. As a party, it had independent obligations to respond to the plaintiffs’ discovery requests under Rules 26 and 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court concluded that § 655.059 did not apply to Wells Fargo in that role.

Disposition

The court denied the motion to the extent it sought an order “pursuant to” Florida Statute § 655.059. It ordered Wells Fargo to produce documents consistent with and as required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, without regard to the Florida statute. The court expressly did not decide whether the plaintiffs’ document requests were properly scoped or otherwise proper under the federal rules. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. signed the order.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.