Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-00478/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-00478-8/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RITA CAMACHO,

Plaintiff(s),

 vs.

BRIDGEPORT FINANCIAL, INC.,

Defendant(s). /

No. C 04-0478 CRB (MEJ)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S

REQUEST TO COMPEL DISCOVERY

RE: ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS

The Court is in receipt of the parties' joint discovery dispute letters, filed November 15, 2006

(Docs. ## 117-19). In the letters, the parties dispute whether defendant Bridgeport Financial, Inc.

must produce discovery related to the amount of time and money expended by its attorneys in this

litigation. Plaintiff Rita Camacho argues that this information is relevant to the fees and costs her

counsel can seek in a forthcoming motion.

Upon review of the parties' letters and relevant legal authority, the Court finds that this case

does not require additional discovery for the purpose of deciding a motion for attorneys' fees. 

Rather, if Camacho's counsel files a motion and Bridgeport Financial contends that any item or

project was excessive, it is Bridgeport's duty to explain why in its opposition. Based on all briefing

and arguments submitted by the parties, the District Court can then determine what is reasonable. 

The parties essentially agreed to this process in their settlement agreement, in which they agreed that

Case 3:04-cv-00478-CRB Document 123 Filed 11/17/06 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

Bridgeport will pay Camacho's reasonable attorneys' fees and costs as determined by the Court,

absent an agreement by the parties. (Doc. #122, ¶G.) As the parties are unable to reach an

agreement on this issue, any discovery would add unnecessary expense and burden.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 17, 2006 

MARIA-ELENA JAMES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:04-cv-00478-CRB Document 123 Filed 11/17/06 Page 2 of 2