Garcia v. Fortis Capital IV et al

Filing 43

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL by Judge Paul S. Grewal denying 31 Motion to Compel (psglc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/23/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

ANGELICA GARCIA,

12

Plaintiff,
FORTIS CAPITAL IV, LLC et al,

16

18

(Re: Docket No. 31)

Defendants.

15

17

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION TO COMPEL

v.

13
14

Case No.: 5:12-CV-06491-PSG

In this arising under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), Plaintiff Angelica
Garcia (“Plaintiff”) seeks an order compelling Defendants Fortis Capital IV, LLC (“Fortis
Capital”), Curtis O. Barnes (“Barnes”), and Tafoya Doe (“Tafoya”) (collectively, “Defendants”) to

19
20

produce the addresses and telephone numbers of individuals stated in initial disclosures as likely to

21

have discoverable information, and also an order to show cause for discovery sanctions. Having

22

carefully considered both parties’ papers, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.

23

Some brief background is in order. Plaintiff Garcia incurred a consumer obligation to a

24

primary lender, Beneficial California Inc. (“Beneficial”).1 This debt was sold to Defendant Fortis

25

Capital.2 Plaintiff claims that from September 10 to September 25, 2012, Defendants unlawfully

26
27

1

See Docket No. 1 at 4.

28

2

See Docket No. 1 at 5.
1

Case No.: 5:12-CV-06491-PSG
ORDER

1
2

attempted to collect her debt and infringed her privacy rights.3 On December 21, 2012, Plaintiff
filed suit seeking damages for severe emotional distress.4
In its initial disclosures, Defendants identified several employees who had worked on

3
4

Plaintiff’s file, including Tafoya. Defendants did not provide their personal contact information,

5

but instead stated that those individuals could be contacted for deposition or other discovery

6
7
8

matters through Defendants’ counsel. Unsatisfied, Plaintiff filed this motion to compel disclosure
of the individuals’ personal contact information.5
Parties may obtain discovery regarding any non-privileged matter that may be used to

9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

support their relevant claims or defenses.6 Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(i) requires parties, without awaiting

11

discovery requests, to disclose to other parties “the name and, if known, the address and telephone

12

number of each individual likely to have discoverable information.”7

13
14

Defendants’ counsel has represented that they will represent the individuals for their
participation in this case. Because Plaintiff has not shown any other purpose or need for the

15
16

requested personal information, Defendants’ counsel’s representation is sufficient to satisfy the

17

requirements of Rule 26. Absent a demonstrated need, no party entitled to compel the personal

18

information of a party that is represented by counsel.

19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20

Dated: August 23, 2013

_________________________________

21

PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge

22
23
24

3

See id. at 5, 11.

25

4

See id.

26

5

See Docket No. 31.

27

6

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a).

28

7

Id. at section (a)(1)(A)(i).
2

Case No.: 5:12-CV-06491-PSG
ORDER