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)

Download PDF
1 2 *E-FILED: June 1, 2012* 3 4 5 6 NOT FOR CITATION 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SAN JOSE DIVISION 11 For the Northern District of California United States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,,, 4 Danielle Renee Teeters, 5 June D. Coleman,, 6 Lucius Wallace, 7 Robert David Humphreys, 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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?