Palmer v. HSBC Bank, USA, N.A.

Background

The plaintiffs sought an order compelling HSBC Bank, USA, N.A. to provide supplemental responses to Requests for Production Nos. 1–11, 13–26, and 29–38, and Interrogatories Nos. 1–33. They also challenged HSBC’s failure to provide a privilege log, its verification of interrogatory responses using “information and belief” language, and its production of redacted documents.

The case originally included putative class claims under federal and California law. After Lawrence Palmer died, the court addressed substitution and class-representation issues, severed the original case into four actions, struck the class allegations, and dismissed all claims except Jeanie Palmer’s individual federal claim. The remaining claim alleges a violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. HSBC had moved for summary judgment, arguing that it did not violate the Act because it gave Lawrence Palmer a firm offer of credit. The opinion describes the remaining dispute as whether HSBC had a permissible purpose to obtain his credit report.

Relevance and proportionality

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b), discovery may concern nonprivileged information relevant to a claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case. The court held that most of the requested information did not meet that standard because it concerned the dismissed class-action privacy claims rather than the remaining individual Fair Credit Reporting Act claim.

The court cited requests seeking communications about sharing personally identifiable information during the class period, the identities of people who received class members’ information, and the purposes for those transmissions. It found that these requests were generally outside the scope of permissible discovery because only one individual claim remained. The court also said the plaintiffs had not specifically shown why the requested information was relevant and proportional to that claim.

The court identified some potentially relevant requests. Request for Production No. 30 sought any firm offer of credit HSBC claimed to have sent to the plaintiff, and the court said any responsive document should be produced without redaction. Interrogatory No. 8 sought the identity of the HSBC director, employee, or officer most responsible for Fair Credit Reporting Act compliance, and the court said that information might be relevant. But the plaintiffs had not specifically explained why those materials were discoverable given the narrow claim. The court also said materials already produced, including the firm offer of credit and HSBC’s contract with Equifax, appeared sufficient to evaluate the claim and HSBC’s position that it complied with the Act.

Other discovery issues

The court said HSBC would need to produce a sufficiently detailed privilege log if it withheld documents solely on the basis of privilege. Because HSBC appeared to rely primarily on objections based on relevance and proportionality, however, the court held that it did not need to produce a privilege log at that time.

The court found that HSBC’s verification of the interrogatory responses complied with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(b)(3). The individual answers were not made on information and belief, and the verification stated under penalty of perjury that the answers were true and correct.

The court explained that relevance-based redactions are not prohibited but are generally disfavored in limited circumstances. Because the plaintiffs provided no details allowing the court to evaluate whether HSBC’s redactions were justified, the court declined to order HSBC to produce unredacted versions of all documents.

Disposition

The court denied without prejudice the plaintiffs’ request to compel supplemental responses to the specified interrogatories and requests for production. The court instructed that any later discovery letter must identify each disputed request separately and state each party’s position on whether the requested information is discoverable. The order was signed by Laurel Beeler, United States Magistrate Judge.