Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00671/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00671-15/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 371
Nature of Suit: Truth in Lending
Cause of Action: 15:1601 Truth in Lending

---

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

DAVID VAN SLYKE, FRANKLIN CHAN

and THOMAS E. BROWNING, on behalf of

themselves and all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

CAPITAL ONE BANK, CAPITAL ONE

FINANCIAL CORPORATION, and

DOES 1–100, inclusive,

Defendants. /

No. C 07-00671 WHA

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

The Court has read the July 31 letter of Ms. Mottek concerning the protective order. 

Assuming arguendo that the letter is a fair description of the problem, the Court is inclined to

allow Expert Manning access to all Capital One documents without specification so long as he

signs on to the protective order first. By 10:00 A.M. ON FRIDAY, AUGUST 3, defense counsel

must show cause why this should not occur. The Court will be absent all of next week and will

try to rule on this tomorrow (August 3). 

Also assuming the truth of the allegation that 92 percent of the documents (including

cardholder agreements) have been marked “highly confidential,” the Court is inclined to refer to

a magistrate judge a document-by-document review to determine which ones truly deserve such

handling. Both sides may respond to this aspect of the July 31 letter by AUGUST 10, AT NOON. 

Case 3:07-cv-00671-WHA Document 130 Filed 08/02/07 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

With respect to the August 1 letter, this order RE-AFFIRMS a prior order dated July 24

concerning the 360 boxes. When a party declines to do a search itself to isolate and to produce

specific categories of documents and instead, offers the requesting party an opportunity to

search the relevant universe (here the 360 boxes), the requesting party is free to select and to

copy anything of relevance to the action and is not limited to the narrow category that provoked

the scenario (the one exception being privileged materials which should be handled as per the

July 24 order). The reason is obvious — as long as requesting counsel is forced to do the

review (rather than, as usual, the producing party), then requesting counsel may select anything

of true relevance to the action in order to avoid the expense (to both sides) of having to go

through the same universe yet again later on in search of some other category. That is why the

July 24 order stated plaintiffs’ counsel could “select material relevant to the case for

copying . . . .” This was clear. If defendant did not want to open up the 360 boxes for such a

review, then it should never have made the offer in the first place and it should have reviewed

the 360 boxes itself and plucked out the materials requested. It is too late to go back to that

plan, the order having already been issued. This paragraph should have been and in the Court’s

view was very plain in the July 24 order. Further briefing on this point is unnecessary. As to

any other point in the August 1 letter, defense counsel must respond by 10:00 A.M. ON FRIDAY,

AUGUST 3, 2007.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 2, 2007. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:07-cv-00671-WHA Document 130 Filed 08/02/07 Page 2 of 2