360 N. Rodeo Drive, LP v. Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, 1:22-cv-00767

Plaintiff 360 N. Rodeo Drive, LP owned Luxe Rodeo Drive Hotel and had a $38 million loan serviced by Midland Loan Services.
During the COVID-19 shutdowns plaintiff discussed closing the hotel with Midland employee Chris Valencia, who assured plaintiff the closure would not constitute a default; Midland subsequently communicated the same position orally and in writing.
Approximately a year later Midland reversed course, asserted plaintiff breached the loan, and sought roughly $9.5 million in interest and penalties; plaintiff alleges it relied on Midland’s prior representations and asserts, among other claims, fraud (dismissed without prejudice but relevant to discovery of intent).
Plaintiff served requests for production seeking personnel files and employment-related documents for Midland employees Chris Valencia and Derek Stephens; Midland objected as vague, irrelevant, privileged, overbroad, and unduly burdensome, and refused production after meet-and-confer discussions.
Plaintiff moved for a discovery conference seeking production; plaintiff argued the employees’ actions, competency, incentives, training, evaluations, and discipline are relevant to intent, recklessness, and motive and that privacy can be addressed by a protective order.
The Court (Subramanian, J.) granted the motion, ordered production of the personnel files, allowed redaction of sensitive information provided a log describing redacted categories, and closed the motion docket entry.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether personnel files of Midland employees who communicated with plaintiff are discoverable	Files are relevant to intent, motive, competence, training, incentives, and rebut defendant's denial that modifying statements were made	Files are vague, irrelevant, privileged, overbroad, and unduly burdensome	Court: Discoverable; employees' characters and files are relevant and defendant failed to show burden
Whether privacy concerns/barriers require withholding or limit production	Privacy can be addressed by confidentiality/protective order; targeted categories (performance, discipline, compensation, training) are probative	Emphasizes confidentiality and seeks to avoid disclosure	Court: Permitted redactions of sensitive info but required a log describing redactions; ordered production subject to those limits

Barella v. Village of Freeport, 296 F.R.D. 102 (E.D.N.Y. 2013) (personnel records can be discoverable and privacy concerns addressed by confidentiality orders)
Compuware Corp. v. Moody's Investors Servs., 222 F.R.D. 124 (E.D. Mich. 2004) (personnel file entries showing habitual recklessness or misrepresentation may be discoverable)
In re Hawaiian Airlines, Inc., 88 F.R.D. 518 (D. Haw. 1980) (personnel files may show qualifications, competence, or instances of negligence)
Rosen v. Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co., 308 F.R.D. 670 (N.D. Ala. 2015) (compensation and incentive structures and documents tracking employee performance are discoverable; privacy addressed by confidentiality)