Basich v. Patenaude and Felix, APC et al

Filing 65

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd re 59 Discovery Dispute Joint Report #5. (hrllc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/1/2012)

1
2

*E-FILED: June 1, 2012*

3
4
5
6
NOT FOR CITATION

8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

7

12
13

No. C11-04406 EJD (HRL)

MARY BASICH,

ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTE
JOINT REPORT #5

Plaintiff,
v.

[Re: Docket No. 59]
14
15

PATENAUDE & FELIX, APC. and CAPITAL
ONE BANK, (USA), N.A.; DOES 1-10,
inclusive,

16

Defendants.
/

17
18

Plaintiff Mary Basich sues for alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices

19

Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692, et seq., the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681, et seq., and the

20

California Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 1788, et seq. She

21

claims that defendants improperly attempted to collect a debt from her with respect to a Capital

22

One credit card and invaded her privacy by obtaining her credit report without her permission.

23

Plaintiff says that this is a case of mistaken identity and that she is not the debtor. Reportedly,

24

the debt is owed by one Mary Ryals, who used the alias “Mary Basich.” Plaintiff initially

25

thought Ryals had stolen her identity, but plaintiff says that she no longer believes that to be the

26

case.

27
28

Now before this court is the parties’ Discovery Dispute Joint Report (DDJR) #5 in
which defendants seek an order compelling plaintiff to produce documents responsive to

1

Request for Production Nos. 3-4, 6-7, and 9-11. In sum, these requests seek documents

2

supporting or relating to the allegations of the complaint, plaintiff’s credit history, and

3

plaintiff’s claimed actual damages. The matter is deemed appropriate for determination without

4

oral argument. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). Having considered the parties’ respective positions, the court

5

grants defendants’ request.

6

In her discovery responses, plaintiff asserted several objections, but nevertheless agreed

7

to produce all responsive documents in her possession, custody, or control. No privileges were

8

asserted. Plaintiff does not offer any argument as to why she should not be required to produce

9

documents responsive to the requests at issue.1 And, although plaintiff initially balked at
producing responsive bank statements, she now tells this court that she will do so. Accordingly,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

within 7 calendar days from the date of this order, and to the extent she has not already done so,

12

plaintiff shall produce all documents in her possession, custody, or control responsive to

13

Request Nos. 3-4, 6-7, and 9-11.

14

SO ORDERED.

15

Dated: June 1, 2012

16
HOWARD R. LLOYD
17

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1
Curiously, plaintiff devotes her efforts in DDJR #5 to an explanation as to
why she has not produced documents responsive to Request for Production No. 8, which
seeks documents reflecting the credit history of Mary Ryals. Defendants having confirmed
that they are not moving to compel documents responsive to that request, this court will not
address it.

2

1

5:11-cv-04406-EJD Notice has been electronically mailed to:

2

Balam Osberto Letona

3

Candice Lynn Fields [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail]

[e-mail]

4
Danielle Renee Teeters

[e-mail], [e-mail]

5
June D. Coleman

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

6
Lucius Wallace

[e-mail], [e-mail]

7
Robert David Humphreys

[e-mail], [e-mail]

8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3