Camenisch

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SHELA CAMENISCH, et al., Case No. 20-cv-05905-RS (AGT)

Plaintiffs,

DISCOVERY ORDER

v. 8 Re: Dkt. Nos. 68, 74 UMPQUA BANK, Defendant.

1. For the 152 Actimize alerts pertaining to PFI, Umpqua must produce the associated ac- count numbers and transaction details. Those facts will help contextualize each alert, and the alerts are relevant. Umpqua reports that Actimize doesn’t have “an export function for alert information or details,” Dkt. 68 at 5, but the bank can manually extract this data. The extraction may be tedious, but the benefit here outweighs the burden. As for the analyst notes accompanying each alert, the Court previously concluded that they were protected by the suspicious activity report privilege. See Dkt. 59 at 2–3 (document no. 20). Umpqua need not produce them. Umpqua also needn’t allow the plaintiffs to inspect the Actimize system, which contains privileged information that would be difficult to safeguard. 2. Umpqua doesn’t dispute that the…