DiGiacinto
DiGiacinto v. RB Health (US) LLC
Opinion
trial_court Opinion
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 JOSEPH DIGIACINTO, Case No. 22-cv-04690-DMR
8 Plaintiff,
ORDER ON JOINT DISCOVERY
9 v. LETTER
10 RB HEALTH (US) LLC, Re: Dkt. No. 83 11 Defendant.
12 The parties filed a joint discovery letter in which Plaintiff Joseph DiGiacinto challenges 13 redactions in Defendant RB Health (US) LLC’s document production and moves to compel 14 production of unredacted documents. [Docket No. 83.] Defendant argues that “all of the 15 redactions cover information” that is non-responsive to Plaintiff’s discovery requests and not 16 relevant to the litigation. Id. at 3. 17 As a general matter, it is improper to redact portions of otherwise responsive documents on 18 the grounds that those portions are not relevant or responsive. Doe v. Trump, 329 F.R.D. 262, 275 19 (W.D. Wash. 2018); see In re High-Tech Emp. Antitrust Litig., No. 11-CV-2509-LHK, 2013 WL 20 12230960, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2013) (“The Court will not permit Defendants to redact 21 …