Greenwood v. Compucredit Corporation et al

Filing 270

ORDER by Judge Laporte granting 245 Motion to Compel; granting in part and denying in part 246 Motion for Protective Order; granting in part and denying in part 249 Motion to Compel (edllc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/15/2010)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Three discovery motions came on for hearing on June 15, 2010: (1) Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Responses to Plaintiffs' Second Set of RFPs; (2) Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Responses to Plaintiffs' Third Set of RFPs; and (3) Defendant's Motion for Protective Order. For the reasons stated during the hearing, the Court hereby Orders as follows: 1. Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Responses to Plaintiffs' Second Set of RFPs is GRANTED, v. COMPUCREDIT CORPORATION, Defendant. / WANDA GREENWOOD, et al., Plaintiffs, No. C-08-04878 CW (EDL) ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO SECOND SET OF RFPs; PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO THIRD SET OF RFPs; DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

subject to a protective order prohibiting the use of this potentially confidential information outside of this lawsuit. Defendant shall produce responsive documents within one week of the date of this Order. Plaintiff's request for fees and costs incurred in connection with this motion is DENIED. 2. Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Further Responses from Compucredit to Plaintiffs' Third Set of

RFPs is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The Court finds that Defendant has waived objections to the RFPs by failing to timely respond to the requests. With respect to the merits of the motion, the RFPs at issue are: 2, 8, 23, 27, 29, 35 and 36 and the Court Orders as follows with respect to these requests: a. RFP No. 2 (Selection Criteria): Plaintiffs' Motion is GRANTED. Defendant shall

produce responsive documents regarding the criteria (but not necessarily mathematical algorithms) as discussed within 14 days of the date of this Order, subject to a protective order.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3.

b. c.

RFP No. 8 (Daily Receivables Purchase Price): Plaintiffs' Motion is DENIED. RFP No. 23 (Class Member Transactions) and RFP No. 29 (Customer Complaints):

Plaintiffs' Motion is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Defendant is Ordered to produce documents relating to the approximately 35 individuals who made complaints, as well documents relating to 15 additional individuals selected by Plaintiffs in consultation with Defendant. The parties are Ordered to meet and confer immediately to determine the selection of the additional 15. Defendant shall produce documents relating to the complaints by the end of this week, and shall produce documents relating to the transaction histories within 14 days of the date of this Order. d. RFP No. 27 (Business Plan Model): Plaintiffs' Motion is DENIED based on

Plaintiff's concession that this information is not needed in light of the other documents the Court is Order be produced. f. RFP Nos. 35 and 36 (Restitution): Plaintiffs' Motion is GRANTED. Defendant shall

produce responsive documents within 14 days of the date of this Order. Plaintiffs' request for fees and costs incurred in connection with this motion is DENIED. Defendant's Motion for Protective Order is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.

The Court finds that each of the topics listed would be better suited as an interrogatory and/or request for admission, and Orders Plaintiffs to re-serve this discovery in the form of interrogatories and/or requests for admission to the extent that it does not obtain responsive information at the upcoming deposition(s) later this month. Defendant's request for fees and costs incurred in connection with this motion is DENIED. The parties are referred to the record of the June 15, 2010 hearing before this Court in which each of these issues was discussed in detail.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 15, 2010

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE United States Magistrate Judge

2