In re California Gasoline Spot Market Antitrust Litigation

Background

The court addressed a joint letter about the plaintiffs’ subpoena for cell-phone records. The records involved phones that, according to the plaintiffs and without dispute from defendants, defendants furnished and subsidized. The plaintiffs sought records potentially relevant to their price-fixing antitrust claims.

The court recognized that people generally do not have a legitimate privacy interest in the telephone numbers called from or to their cell phones. It also recognized that complete call and text records may reveal private and irrelevant information.

Ruling

The court adopted a partial-redaction process. Defendants had to identify presumptively personal phone numbers, such as numbers belonging to family members, friends, or personal service providers. Defendants could redact information about calls involving those numbers and the contents of personal texts, but they could not redact the dates and times of those calls or messages.

The court held that calls and texts related to Vitol and SK’s business were not personal, even if defendants believed they were irrelevant. Those business-related numbers and messages could not be redacted without a showing of privilege. The court rejected defendants’ proposal to disclose only numbers and texts tied to people the plaintiffs first identified, finding no comparable privilege and noting evidence that the phones were used for relevant business communications.

The court ordered production of everything else under the protective order. If plaintiffs had reason to believe that a redacted call or message was work-related—for example, because a work-related email immediately preceded it—the parties had to meet and confer and, if necessary, submit the records to the court for review. The court ruled on the discovery dispute without oral argument.