ABN Corporation et al v. Groupe Pelm International Corporation et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ABN CORPORATION, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
GROUPE PELM INTERNATIONAL
CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 23-cv-00004-RFL (LJC)
ORDER REGARDING DISCOVERY
LETTER BRIEF AND IN CAMERA
REVIEW
Re: Dkt. Nos. 190, 194
The Court previously held that Defendants Victoria Brieant and her law office
(collectively, Brieant) may only withhold communications with Defendant Christian Pellegrini
based on attorney-client privilege to the extent that such communications specifically seek or
convey legal advice. ECF No. 184; see also ECF No. 188 (denying relief from that Order).
Brieant produced a transcript of her messages with Pellegrini with redactions based on privilege
and relevance. ECF No. 190-1. At Brieant’s suggestion, the Court directed her to lodge an
unredacted version of the transcript for in camera review, ECF No. 193, which she has now done.
Brieant also filed a letter regarding her in camera submission, but did not present any
particularized argument as to why any messages are privileged. See ECF No. 194. The Court has
reviewed the transcript and identified no messages that seek or convey legal advice.1 Redactions
for relevance are disfavored2 and not warranted here, when the nature of Brieant’s relationship
1 Brieant notes in the parties’ joint letter that Plaintiffs quoted an exchange of messages that she
had clawed back as privileged. ECF No. 190 at 5. Plaintiffs use of those messages after Brieant
clawed them back appears to have been improper, and potentially risked sanctions. But no basis
for Brieant’s assertion of privilege is apparent, even after the Court invited her to submit a brief
explaining any such assertions. See ECF Nos. 193, 194. The Court declines to take further action
regarding Plaintiffs’ potential misconduct in this instance.
2 See, e.g., In re Uber Techs., Inc., Passenger Sexual Assault Litig., No. 23md-03084-CRB (LJC),
2024 WL 3639593, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 1, 2024).
Case 3:23-cv-00004-RFL Document 195 Filed 12/08/25 Page 1 of 3

2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
with Pellegrini may be highly relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims against Brieant. Brieant is therefore
ORDERED to produce the unredacted Whatsapp transcript no later than December 15, 2025.
The parties dispute whether Brieant has sufficiently produced files that appear to have been
exchanged through that Whatsapp conversation. The Court understands Brieant’s position to be
that those files no longer exist. If that is incorrect, and Brieant has withheld such attachments
based on relevance, perceived privilege, or any other reason, Brieant must produce them by the
same deadline.
Brieant also lodged two invoices to Pellegrini and an email to Pellegrini regarding
preparation of an invoice. Those documents do not appear on her privilege log. ECF No. 190-3.
Nor do they appear on their face to fall within the scope of the Court’s prior Order regarding
privilege. Brieant shall produce those documents no later than December 15, 2025.3
Finally, Brieant lodged calendars for October, November, and December of 2022. The
Court has reviewed those calendars and agrees that they do not on their face relate to Pellegrini,
the subject transaction, or any other issue in this case. Brieant need not produce the calendars that
she has lodged. The Court notes, however, that a calendar lodged with the filename “ABN
Corporation v Groupe PELM Calendar - Victoria Brieant - Outlook January 2023” in fact contains
entries for December 2022 and appears to be substantively identical to a calendar she lodged for
that month. It appears that Brieant may have submitted the wrong document. In an abundance of
caution, if Brieant has an equivalent calendar for January 2023, she is directed to lodge that with
the Court for in camera review no later than December 15, 2025. If Brieant does not have a
calendar for that month, she must file notice to that effect by the same deadline.
Plaintiffs also seek to compel production of documents that Brieant claims are not (or no
longer) within her custody or control, as well as further interrogatory responses. The parties’
relationship in discovery thus far has been characterized by dysfunction. The parties have
consistently failed to compromise in discovery or narrow their disputes to a scope that can
3 Brieant may redact her bank account number, except for the last four digits. Cf. Fed. R. Civ. P.
5.2(a)(4). This Order is without prejudice to Plaintiffs later seeking the full bank account number
upon a showing of relevance.
Case 3:23-cv-00004-RFL Document 195 Filed 12/08/25 Page 2 of 3

3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
reasonably be presented for resolution. See, e.g., ECF No. 190 at 1, 5 (incorporating by reference
prior wide-ranging disputes regarding interrogatory responses, without citation to any particular
docket entry or discussion of any particular interrogatory). Both sides have contributed to that
dysfunction—though this Order should not be construed as suggesting that their contributions are
equal, as otherwise allocating blame more specifically, or as resolving the propriety of Plaintiffs’
discovery requests. Under the present circumstances, further litigation over written discovery does
not appear to be proportional to the needs of the case at this time. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). A
deposition of Brieant may be a more effective and efficient method to cut to the issues that matter
most in the case and to get answers to Plaintiffs’ questions, such as the potential loss of documents
and possible discrepancies between Brieant’s document production and her Whatsapp messages.
It is not clear whether Plaintiffs noticed Brieant’s deposition before the October 17, 2025
deadline to notice depositions or the November 21, 2025 close of fact discovery. See ECF No.
149. If they did not, the Court now authorizes a belated deposition notice as a resolution—at least
in part—to the parties’ remaining discovery disputes. Brieant must sit for a deposition no later
than December 22, 2025.
Plaintiffs’ remaining requests in the November 21, 2025 joint letter are DENIED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE to renewing them after Brieant is deposed. If Brieant’s deposition
testimony is evasive, reveals further deficiencies in her production, or otherwise fails to resolve
Plaintiffs’ legitimate needs for discovery, the Court would consider ordering further document
production, further interrogatory responses, and/or further deposition testimony after such further
written discovery has been produced. Any such dispute must be raised by joint letter no later than
December 29, 2025.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 8, 2025
LISA J. CISNEROS
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 3:23-cv-00004-RFL Document 195 Filed 12/08/25 Page 3 of 3