Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-00940/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-00940-7/pdf.json

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

---

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

- 1 - 05cv0940

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANDREW T. THOMASSON, REBECCA J.

THOMASSON, MACDONALD P.

TAYLOR JR., and CHENOA R. TAYLOR,

on behalf of themselves and all others

similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 05cv0940-LAB (CAB)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS'

EX PARTE APPLICATION TO

FILE SUPPLEMENTAL POINTS

AND AUTHORITIES AND

EVIDENCE IN OPPOSITION TO

DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

[Dkt No. 178]

vs.

GC SERVICES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,

and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive,

Defendants.

This matter is before the court on plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application For Leave To File

Supplemental Memorandum Of Points And Authorities And Evidence In Support Of Opposition To

Defendant's Motion For Summary Judgment ("Application"). Defendant's Motion For Summary

Judgment ("Motion") in this putative class action -- alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collections

Practices Act and state invasion of privacy laws -- was fully, contentiously, and voluminously briefed,

then taken under submission for decision on the papers in late November 2006. The Application relies

on the history of the parties' acrimonious discovery disputes, delays in obtaining material evidence

allegedly due to the discovery disputes, and two depositions taken after the Motion briefing was

completed to argue, on rather unextraordinary or inappropriate grounds, for the extraordinary relief.

Case 3:05-cv-00940-JAH-KSC Document 183 Filed 02/21/07 Page 1 of 4
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 - 05cv0940

 In particular, plaintiffs seek leave: (1) to provide the court with selected portions of transcripts

of the new depositions as additional evidentiary support for their Motion opposition; (2) to submit a

supplemental memorandum of points and authorities explaining their analysis of "these newly

discovered facts in light of the arguments made on summary judgment" (Appl. ¶ 5); (2) to have the

court consider a November 2006 decision by a judge from this District Court, Capicchionio v.

Americredit Fin. Servs., Case No. 06cv0014-IEG(NLS), Dkt No. 29, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81778

(S.D.Cal. 2006), discussing the Kearney case also pertinent to this litigation which plaintiffs here

would have this court interpret in the same fashion; (3) to permit them "to argue points consistent with

Capicchionio in a supplemental memorandum in opposition to Defendant's motion for summary

judgment" (Appl. ¶ 6); (4) to have the court consider a new Declaration purportedly providing "further

evidence the Defendant still records telephone calls with unsuspecting individuals" (Appl. ¶ 7); and

(5) in light of the conduct of this litigation, particularly as it relates to discovery disputes and the new

evidence purportedly cinching defendant's liability, the court should "sua sponte enter judgment for

plaintiffs" (P&As In Support Of Ex Parte Application 12:5-7). 

In addition, counsel's Declaration in support of the Application indicates plaintiffs expect to

approach the court "piece meal" with similar requests to update their opposition documentation and

argument as long as the Motion remains under submission, in inexplicable disregard for the rules and

procedures associated with motion practice in this court. Schroth Decl. ¶ 14 (providing an "alert" to

the Court "there may be still more information belatedly provided by the Defendant which is relevant

to the Plaintiff's opposition to summary judgment in this case," and as "[o]bviously, Plaintiffs are

unable to include such information or documentation unless and until it has first been produced by the

Defendant," and "[b]ecause that still has not yet occurred, Plaintiffs cannot say for certain that this will

be the last time they are forced to apply to this Court for extraordinary relief"). "Relevant" evidence

may still be evolving in this case, but it ought to be saved for the fact-finder, if this matter survives

summary judgment under the analytical framework and standards applicable to summary

adjudications. Motions for summary judgment do not entail any findings of fact. 

GC Services opposes the Application on grounds it is procedurally improper, reopens old

discovery disputes, represents another in a line of plaintiffs' alleged misuse of ex parte procedures in

Case 3:05-cv-00940-JAH-KSC Document 183 Filed 02/21/07 Page 2 of 4
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

- 3 - 05cv0940

this litigation, and plaintiffs fail to make any showing of necessity or emergency requiring the court's

immediate attention. In addition, GC Services contends the Capicchioni case became commercially

available through the Lexis-Nexis data base days prior to plaintiffs' deadline to file Opposition to the

pending Motion For Summary Judgment, defeating any suggestion it is authority only newly available.

Moreover, that opinion is not binding on this court, and the Capicchioni ruling, in any event, was

based on the issue of standing rather than the merits of any analogous claim alleged here. GC Services

argues plaintiffs' proposed new materials are "pointlessly cumulative of a record already established,"

and the docket reflects the court has twice found plaintiffs were not diligent in pursuing discovery or

in examining information in their possession. See Docket Nos. 162, 163. 

 The court finds plaintiffs have not made any showing adequate to warrant the extraordinary

relief requested or to reopen the briefing of a motion fully briefed and under submission in the normal

course on an already voluminous record. The Motion will be decided under the appropriate standards

of review applied to the extensive submissions as they existed when the matter was taken under

submission. The Application is DENIED.

Plaintiffs'ExParteApplication has multiplied the proceedings unnecessarily, in a matter where

the parties have already demonstrated a pattern of unusual and disruptive recourse to the court to

advance (or delay) through interventions the prosecution or defense of this action. Defendant requests

recovery of its attorneys' fees incurred to oppose this Application. The court will consider a properly

supported Application for that relief.

Plaintiffs' accompanying Ex Parte Application To File Documents Under Seal and the parties'

Joint Motion To Allow Documents And Memoranda To Be File Under Seal are DENIED AS MOOT,

although the court has considered defendant's Points And Authorities presented in opposition to the

Ex Parte Application in arriving at this ruling. The parties shall delegate someone to make

arrangements to pick up the materials both sides presented to chambers under seal.

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. The briefing of defendant's pending Motion For Summary Judgment is definitively

closed, and no requests to reopen that briefing with supplemental argument, evidence, or other than

controlling and dispositive legal authority will be entertained.

Case 3:05-cv-00940-JAH-KSC Document 183 Filed 02/21/07 Page 3 of 4
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

- 4 - 05cv0940

2. Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application to augment the Motion briefing at this late date is

DENIED, and any future attempts to do so will be deemed a violation of court rules and this Order,

with attendant consequences.

3. The parties' motions to file documents associated with this Application under seal are

DENIED AS MOOT.

4. On or before March 5, 2007, defendant may submit a properly supported Application

For Attorneys' Fees And Costs incurred to oppose this Ex Parte Application, not to exceed eight pages

in total length. On or before March 16, 2007, plaintiffs may file a response to the Fee Application,

not to exceed five pages in total length. There should be no need for requests to seal documents

associated with the Fee Application or response. The court will take that matter under submission

when the time for a response has passed, without further briefing or argument.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 21, 2007

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-00940-JAH-KSC Document 183 Filed 02/21/07 Page 4 of 4