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

1
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
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RELIEF FROM NON-DISPOSITIVE
PRETRIAL ORDER OF
MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Re: Dkt. No. 196
Magistrate Judge Cisneros recently compelled Defendants Victoria Brieant and her law
office (collectively, “Brieant”) to produce certain documents. (See Dkt. No. 195 (the “MJ
Order”).) Judge Cisneros also authorized Plaintiffs to depose Brieant. Brieant now moves to
vacate the MJ Order. (See Dkt. No. 196 (the “Motion”).) Having reviewed the record and
Brieant’s in camera submission of the documents in question, the Court DENIES the Motion.
Brieant’s role in the documents at issue appears consistent with her overall role as a
business agent conveying Pellegrini’s position to counterparties. The documents do not appear
to involve seeking or providing legal advice, and Brieant introduces no evidence showing
additional context to support such a finding. As such, the MJ order properly concluded that the
documents ordered produced are not privileged. Moreover, given the relevance of the overall
nature of Brieant’s relationship with Pellegrini and her role in the subject transaction and similar
ones, the documents were appropriately ordered produced in non-redacted form. As for
Brieant’s deposition, there was no error in permitting Plaintiffs to notice a deposition (without
requiring them to do so) in lieu of continuing with the written discovery previously sought from
Brieant, due to the parties’ inability to effectively meet and confer to narrow their written
Case 3:23-cv-00004-RFL Document 199 Filed 12/22/25 Page 1 of 2

2
discovery disputes. Because that deposition was permitted as a substitute for a narrow category
of written discovery, it does not make sense to reopen discovery generally. Finally, the dispute,
if any, regarding the location of Brieant’s deposition is not properly within the scope of the
Motion, as it is not clear if the parties are unable to agree on that issue after meeting and
conferring on the topic, and Judge Cisneros did not rule on any such dispute in the MJ Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 22, 2025
RITA F. LIN
United States District Judge
Case 3:23-cv-00004-RFL Document 199 Filed 12/22/25 Page 2 of 2