Camenisch

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SHELA CAMENISCH, et al., Case No. 20-cv-05905-RS (AGT)

Plaintiffs,

DISCOVERY ORDER

v. 9 Re: Dkt. No. 47 UMPQUA BANK, Defendant.

The suspicious activity report (SAR) privilege applies to only some of the 136 documents that Umpqua Bank submitted for in camera review. Umpqua has apparently objected to producing some of the 136 documents based on additional, non-SAR-privilege grounds. See Dkt. 47 at 3. The Court wasn’t asked to consider those objections, and so won’t overrule or sustain them or order Umpqua to produce the withheld documents at this time. The bank, however, can no longer withhold certain documents based on the SAR privilege. A. Relevant Legal Principles If a bank detects money laundering or other illegal conduct, it typically must file a SAR with the appropriate federal authorities. See 12 C.F.R. § 21.11(a), (c). As relevant here, “[a] SAR, and any information that would reveal the existence of a SAR, are confidential, and…