Camenisch v. Umpqua Bank
- Alex Tse
- 5:20-cv-05905
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Camenisch v. Umpqua Bank, Judge Tse ruled the SAR privilege protects 12 of 136 documents but does not protect the others.
The order affects the plaintiffs’ discovery of documents from Umpqua Bank and Umpqua’s ability to withhold those documents based on the suspicious activity report privilege.
What happened
Camenisch v. Umpqua Bank involved Umpqua Bank’s withholding of 136 documents submitted for the court’s private review during discovery. The bank claimed that some documents were protected by the privilege for suspicious activity reports, which are reports banks may have to file about suspected illegal activity.
The court held that the privilege applies to documents that directly or indirectly reveal whether a suspicious activity report was filed. It applies to 12 documents—numbers 1–9, 20, 22, and 32—but not to the other listed documents, which mainly compiled account information or recorded investigative work. The court also noted that Umpqua had apparently raised other objections to some documents, but those objections were not before the court.
The court ordered Umpqua to withhold the 12 protected documents and directed the parties to meet and discuss the bank’s remaining objections concerning the other documents. Judge Alex G. Tse issued the discovery order.
The detailed version
- Camenisch v. Umpqua Bank · No. 5:20-cv-05905
- Alex Tse
- Sept. 14, 2021
Background
Umpqua Bank submitted 136 documents for in camera review, meaning the court reviewed them privately to decide whether they were protected from discovery. The dispute concerned the suspicious activity report (SAR) privilege. Federal regulations provide that a SAR, and information that would reveal whether a SAR exists, must remain confidential.
Umpqua apparently asserted additional grounds for withholding some documents, but the court was not asked to decide those objections. The court therefore did not sustain or overrule them and did not order production of the affected documents at that time.
Legal Standard
The court adopted the approach described by the First Circuit in In re JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. The key question is whether a document suggests, directly or indirectly, that a SAR was or was not filed. The privilege does not automatically cover every document created during a bank’s investigation of suspicious activity. Documents that merely compile account or transaction information, flag activity for further investigation, or describe investigative steps are not necessarily protected.
Application
The court found that the SAR privilege applies to document numbers 1–9, 20, 22, and 32. These were Umpqua-prepared spreadsheets, investigation worksheets, related writings, and emails that were evaluative and suggested, directly or indirectly, whether a SAR was filed.
The court found that the SAR privilege does not apply to document numbers 10–17, 19, 21, 23–31, or 33–136. These documents included reports, emails, and screenshots of Umpqua’s banking system that compiled account information or reflected due-diligence efforts without indicating whether a SAR was filed. Document number 18 was a spreadsheet identifying alerts generated by an automated system; Umpqua did not claim that it was protected by the SAR privilege and represented that it had already produced a copy.
Disposition
The court concluded that the SAR privilege applies to 12 of the 136 documents. Umpqua must withhold document numbers 1–9, 20, 22, and 32. For the other documents, the parties must meet and confer about Umpqua’s remaining objections. Judge Alex G. Tse issued the order as a discovery order.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.