Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02167/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02167-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEVIN TIERNEY,

Plaintiff,

 v.

GENESIS FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS INC., et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 06-02167 SI

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO COMPEL; GRANTING

DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR LIMITED

STAY OF DISCOVERY 

Plaintiff has filed a motion to compel regarding defendants’ responses to plaintiff’s request for

production of documents Nos. 1-15. Although plaintiff’s letter brief raises a number of issues,

defendants are correct that plaintiff only raised two issues in the meet and confer process: whether

defendants were required under Rule 34 to label the documents to correspond with categories in

plaintiff’s request, and whether defendants’ document responses were verified by counsel. The latter

issue was resolved through the meet and confer process, as defendants’ responses were indeed verified

by counsel. 

With respect to labeling documents, the Court agrees with defendants that Rule 34 permits a

party to produce documents “as they are kept in the usual course of business.” Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 34(b)

(“A party who produces documents for inspection shall produce them as they are kept in the usual

course of business or shall organize and label them to correspond with the categories in the request.”)

(emphasis added). Plaintiff has not articulated any persuasive reason to require defendant to organize

and label the 27 pages of documents produced.

To the extent plaintiff’s motion to compel raises other issues, such as the preparation of a

privilege log or defendants’ general objections, plaintiff is ordered to engage in a meaningful meet and

Case 3:06-cv-02167-SI Document 36 Filed 09/05/06 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

confer with defendants. If disputes remain after the meet and confer, plaintiff may seek relief by filing

an letter brief.

Finally, defendants request a brief stay on discovery pending the outcome of the parties’

upcoming mediation on September 12, 2006. In light of the brief period of time at issue, and in the

interest of minimizing all parties’ costs in the event the September 12, 2006 mediation is successful, the

Court hereby GRANTS defendants’ request as follows: discovery is stayed through September 12,

2006, with the exception that the above-described meet and confer process may commence immediately.

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES plaintiff’s motion to compel and GRANTS

defendants’ request for a stay. (Docket Nos. 24-34).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 1, 2006 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-02167-SI Document 36 Filed 09/05/06 Page 2 of 2