Elena Del Campo v. American Corrective Counseling

Filing 1180

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL by Judge Paul S. Grewal granting 1166 Motion to Compel (psglc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/24/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11
12
13
14
15
16
17

ELENA DEL CAMPO, ET AL.,

)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
v.
)
)
)
AMERICAN CORRECTIVE
)
COUNSELING SERVICES, INC., ET AL., )
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________ )

Case No.: C 01-21151 PSG
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION TO COMPEL
(Docket No. 1166)

Plaintiffs Elena Del Campo, Ashorina Medina and Lisa Johnston, on behalf of themselves

18

and others similarly situated, move to compel production of documents. (collectively “Plaintiffs”).

19

Defendants Don Mealing and Lynn Hasney oppose the motion. (collectively “Defendants”). On

20

May 24, 2011, the parties appeared for hearing. Having reviewed the papers and considered the

21

arguments of counsel, Plaintiffs’ motion to compel is GRANTED.

22

I. BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION

23

Plaintiffs move to compel Defendants to produce documents responsive to certain requests

24

for production of documents served on February 22, 2011. The documents requests are as follows:

25

40.

All agreements between any defendant and Leeside Management Group, Ltd.

26

41.

All agreements between any defendant and SJP.

27

42.

All communications with any defendant and Leeside Management Group, Ltd.

28

43.

All communications with any defendant and SJP.
ORDER, page 1

1

44.

All payments from SJP to any defendant.

2

45.

All agreements between adventfs, and any of the following: (1) SJP, (3) [sic.] Leeside
Management Group, Ltd.; or (3) any defendant.

46.

Any promotional materials used by SJP in connection with any Check Restitution
Program.

47.

All documents reflecting or relating to any activity by any defendant or by Leeside
Management Group, Ltd., on behalf of either SJP or adventfs.

3
4
5
6
7

Because injunctive and declaratory relief remain at issue in the case, Plaintiffs argue that documents

8

that reflect whether Mealing and Hasney are currently engaged in the check collection business are

9

relevant. While Mealing and Hasney have denied any further involvement in such a business,

10

Plaintiffs contend that they have unearthed specific evidence showing that they are involved in bad

11

check restitution programs and indeed, may be working to expand their business. Specifically,

12

Plaintiffs have learned that an entity known as Strategic Justice Partners (“SJC”) was formed in

13

January 2010 in Nevada and currently engages in “successful intervention and diversion programs

14

for courts and prosecuting attorneys across the United States.” Hasney is listed as a managing

15

member of SJC with the Nevada Secretary of State and another managing member known as Leeside

16

Management, Inc. lists the same address as that of Mealing’s home. To date, Plaintiffs state that

17

neither Mealing nor Hasney have not responded whatsoever to their document requests.

18

Defendants argue that further discovery is not warranted because a trial was held and has

19

concluded, and Chief Judge Ware has yet to delineate the extent and scope of any post-trial

20

discovery.1 Defendants also point out that this court previously ruled that “there appears little

21

reason for any further discovery to proceed until Judge Ware has ruled on the propriety of any

22

restitution proceeding that, as Plaintiffs’ counsel conceded at oral argument, would provide the only

23

justification for the discovery sought.”

24
25

On May 20, 2011, Judge Ware issued an order addressing the parties’ post-trial motions.2 In
that order, the court granted Defendants’ motion for a jury trial on the issue of liability and further

26
27
28

1

See Docket No. 1119. Judge Ware has set a further case management conference on July

11, 2011.
2

See Docket No. 1177.
ORDER, page 2

1

ordered a proposed schedule for trial on both liability and damages. As a result, the discovery

2

sought is no longer, as Defendants continue to characterize it, “post-trial” at all, rendering moot any

3

concerns about permitting post-trial discovery that might otherwise apply. In addition, as this court

4

previously noted, based on Judge Ware’s February 7, 2011 Order, discovery has yet to be

5

foreclosed.3 Finally, Defendants do not dispute the relevance of the documents sought and have not

6

identified any undue burden. In light of each of each of these considerations, the court must

7

conclude that the requested discovery is warranted and that completing such discovery before the

8

next case management conference serves the interests of all in finally bringing this decade-old case

9

to a close.4 Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion to compel is GRANTED.

10

II. CONCLUSION

11

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel is GRANTED. Defendants shall produce all documents

12

responsive to Plaintiffs’ Request for Production of Documents Nos. 41-47 no later than June 10,

13

2011.

14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

May 24, 2011

16
PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

3

See Docket No. 1152. At oral argument, counsel for Defendants concluded that no
previous scheduling order set a date closing all discovery in this matter.
4

28

In this same spirit, the court respectfully urges that all outstanding discovery be
completed in advance of the July 11 conference, and that any requests for court-ordered discovery after
July 11 will not be viewed favorably.
ORDER, page 3