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. No. 113 UMPQUA BANK, Defendant.

Having reviewed in camera various messages exchanged on Facebook between the named plaintiffs and the proposed class members, the Court concludes, for the reasons stated below, that the messages’ authors didn’t have “a reasonable expectation” that what they wrote would “remain confidential.” Seahaus La Jolla Owners Assn. v. Superior Ct., 224 Cal. App. 4th 754, 770 (2014). Their messages, as a result, aren’t protected by the attorney-client privilege and must be produced. * * * Most of the messages were posted in Facebook groups. The groups weren’t open to the pub- lic, but group administrators warned group members that people who weren’t investors in PFI or PISF (i.e., people who weren’t proposed class members) could be present in the groups. “We cannot guarantee that all people in the group are investors,” the…