Camenisch v. Umpqua Bank

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 SHELA CAMENISCH, et al., Case No. 20-cv-05905-RS (AGT) 8 Plaintiffs, DISCOVERY ORDER v. 9 Re: Dkt. No. 47 10 UMPQUA BANK, Defendant. 11 12 The suspicious activity report (SAR) privilege applies to only some of the 136 documents 13 that Umpqua Bank submitted for in camera review. Umpqua has apparently objected to producing 14 some of the 136 documents based on additional, non-SAR-privilege grounds. See Dkt. 47 at 3. The 15 Court wasn’t asked to consider those objections, and so won’t overrule or sustain them or order 16…