Zeff v. Greystar California, Inc.
- Edward Chen
- 3:20-cv-07122
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Zeff v. Greystar California, Inc., Judge Chen ruled that confidentiality concerns did not block discovery and ordered further discussion of search terms.
Zachary Zeff and Greystar California, Inc.; the order also concerns third parties whose confidential information may appear in the requested documents.
What happened
In Zeff v. Greystar California, Inc., the parties disputed how Greystar California, Inc. should produce documents that might contain third parties’ confidential information. Greystar also argued that the requests were too burdensome.
Zachary Zeff responded that the parties’ protective order addressed confidentiality concerns and that he could narrow the electronic-search terms after those concerns were resolved. The court agreed with Zeff, explaining that confidentiality agreements generally do not prevent otherwise permitted discovery.
Judge Edward M. Chen found no basis to block the requested production on confidentiality grounds. He instructed the parties to keep discussing whether the search terms could be narrowed to address proportionality concerns, and the order disposed of the discovery dispute docket entry.
The detailed version
- Zeff v. Greystar California, Inc. · No. 3:20-cv-07122
- Edward Chen
- May 5, 2022
Background
The parties raised a discovery dispute about the procedure for producing documents requested by Zachary Zeff. The documents were likely to include attachments containing confidential information belonging to third parties. Greystar California, Inc. argued that Zeff’s requests sought proprietary third-party information without first giving those parties an opportunity to challenge the disclosure. Greystar also argued that the requests were overly burdensome.
Parties’ Positions
Zeff responded that the confidentiality concern was unfounded because the parties’ protective order applied and gave third parties a process for objecting to confidential production. He also said he could refine the requests by narrowing the search terms for electronically stored information after the third-party confidentiality issue was addressed.
Court’s Analysis
The court agreed with Zeff’s position. It explained that confidentiality agreements do not generally bar discovery and that an interest in protecting confidential information is not the same as a legally protected privilege. The court also noted that Greystar did not dispute that confidential information produced in discovery would be covered by the parties’ protective order.
Ruling
The court found no basis to block production of the requested documents on the confidentiality ground. Consistent with Zeff’s position, it instructed the parties to continue conferring about proportionality, including whether the electronically stored information search terms could be narrowed. The order disposed of Docket No. 60.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.