Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-02280/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-02280-11/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

RICHARD L. CARRIZOSA, et al., 

Plaintiffs,

 v.

PAUL R. STASSINOS, et al.,

Defendants. /

NO. C 05-2280 RMW (RS)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART

AND DENYING IN PART

MOTION TO COMPEL

I. INTRODUCTION

This is an action asserting violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and related

claims. Plaintiffs seek to compel further written discovery responses and production of documents

from defendant Paul Stasssinos. The motion was heard on August 16, 2006. For the reasons set

forth below, the motion to compel will be granted in part, and denied in part. 

 II. BACKGROUND

As described in prior orders, plaintiffs contend that Stasssinos is engaged in a state-wide

business of collecting on dishonored checks in concert with the other defendants. The complaint in

this action, and the complaint in a related action, Palmer v. Stassinos, C 04 03026 RMW (RS), are

both pleaded as class actions, but no class has ever been certified in either case. The named

plaintiffs’ individual claims in this action arise from collection letters they received on Stassinos’s

letterhead demanding payment for several checks written by plaintiffs to PW Supermarkets that were

*E-FILED 8/31/06*

Case 5:05-cv-02280-RMW Document 110 Filed 08/31/06 Page 1 of 7
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

returned unpaid. 

IV. DISCUSSION

A. Appropriate Scope of Discovery 

As an initial matter, Stassinos contends that because a class has never been certified in this

action or the companion case, discovery should be limited to matters directly relating to the named

plaintiffs’ claims. Stassinos asserts that this Court previously applied such a limitation with respect

to discovery from other defendants and that the same limitation should apply to him. In the abstract,

Stassinos’s request that discovery be limited to matters arising from the named plaintiffs’ claims is

reasonable. Doing so, however, does not narrow Stassinos’s obligations to respond to the extent that

he suggests. Part of the named plaintiffs’ theory is that the nature of Stassinos’s operations and the

volume of collection proceedings he institutes is such that he cannot and does not provide a

meaningful level of legal services, with the purported result that there is a statutory violation when

collection letters are transmitted on his letterhead. Thus, even if discovery is limited to matters

related to the named plaintiffs’ individual claims, information as to Stassinos’s procedures in general

(including information regarding the volume of unpaid checks he processes and collection letters

that go out under his name) is relevant and discoverable.

Stassinos’s argument that he is entitled to the same limitations on discovery that were

imposed with respect to defendant Legal Recovery Services of Central California, Inc. (“Central”)

fails to recognize that he is in a different position than Central. The named plaintiffs have no direct,

individual, claims against Central; it will remain a defendant in this case only if plaintiffs prevail on 

their theory of joint enterprise liability (or, possibly, if a class were certified that includes individuals

who have direct claims against Central). Accordingly, in light of the presiding judge’s interim

ruling on Central’s pending motion for summary judgment, this Court found it appropriate to limit

discovery to matters that “bear on plaintiffs’ theory of a joint business enterprise partly owned and

controlled by Central.” See Order filed June 6, 2006 at 4:7-12. The posture of the case against

Stassinos is not the same. The named plaintiffs’ claims against him do not depend on the existence

Case 5:05-cv-02280-RMW Document 110 Filed 08/31/06 Page 2 of 7
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

1

 The response states that Stassinos suspended or stopped collection on “one” of plaintiffs’

checks but then lists six check numbers.

2

 The possibility exists, of course, that a collection letter was sent out prior to the time

Stassinos reviewed the check at issue, and that his response is therefore accurate. Plaintiffs

presumably would consider such a procedure to be a violation of the law. The Court does not reach

or decide that question. Instead, the Court construes this interrogatory consistently with how

plaintiffs described it at the hearing: plaintiffs seek information regarding instances where, as a

result of Stassinos’s review of the unpaid checks, no collection letters were issued.

3

of a “joint enterprise” and he will remain a defendant in the action regardless of whether a class is

ever certified. 

Moreover, as noted above, discovery regarding how Stassinos processes checks in general is

relevant to the named plaintiffs’ claims even assuming no class is ever certified. The discovery

requests in dispute in this motion are all directed at obtaining information that is relevant to the

named plaintiffs’ individual claims. Thus, while it might be appropriate to limit discovery at this

juncture to matters relating to the named plaintiffs, any such limitation would not affect the

discovery disputes raised by this motion.

B. Specific Requests

Interrogatory No. 8 seeks a detailed explanation regarding the circumstances surrounding

each and every instance that collection efforts were “suspended or stopped” after Stassinos reviewed

an unpaid check. Stassinos takes the position that he will not respond with respect to any such

instances involving check writers other than the named plaintiffs. As to the named plaintiffs,

Stassinos has responded that collection efforts were discontinued on at least one occasion after he

reviewed the check, but he claims work product protection against disclosing any additional

information.1

Plaintiffs suggest that Stassinos may have misunderstood this interrogatory because they

claim they did receive collection letters regarding the checks identified in Stassinos’s responses, but

that the interrogatory only seeks information regarding instances where Stassinos’s review of a

check resulted in no collection letter going out.2

 

Stassinos’s claim of work product protection was the subject of the motion heard in the

companion case at the same time as this motion. For the reasons discussed in the order issued in the

Case 5:05-cv-02280-RMW Document 110 Filed 08/31/06 Page 3 of 7
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

4

companion case on August 18, 2006, Stassinos’s objection based on work product protection is

overruled. Stassinos shall provide a further and complete response to interrogatory number 8 with

respect to any instance where no collection letter was sent out, as a result of his review of a check or

check written by the named plaintiffs. Regardless of whether any such instances occurred, Stassinos

shall provide a further response explaining the circumstances surrounding the six check numbers

identified in his original response to this interrogatory.

As to instances involving check writers other than the named plaintiffs, Stassinos suggests

that responding to this interrogatory also would impose an undue burden. Plaintiffs respond that it

should be a simple matter to conduct a computer search for any instances where a collection matter

was opened, but no collection letters were ever sent out. On the present record, it is not possible to

evaluate the burden the request entails. It is unclear whether a simple database search can be

constructed that would return the basic information as to when such instances occurred, and it is

unclear whether there would be many such instances or only a few. Stassinos has failed to show,

however, that it would cause undue burden to require him to compile basic information regarding

any instances where no collection letters were generated after his initial review of an unpaid check.

Accordingly, Stassinos shall provide a further response to this interrogatory with respect to

check writers other than the named plaintiffs as follows: Stassinos shall identify the total number of

instances in which collection files were opened but no collection letters were ever generated, and

shall identify each such instance by date or by a file number or by some other identifying feature,

but Stassinos need not provide a detailed explanation of the circumstances of such instances at this

time. This ruling is without prejudice to plaintiffs’ ability to seek further information regarding any

such instances through follow up discovery.

Document Requests Nos. 11-13 seek documents related to Stassinos’s initial review of

dishonored checks referred to him for collection. After this motion was filed, Stassinos served a

supplemental response clarifying that no responsive documents exist. On reply, plaintiffs complain

that the supplemental response is ambiguous as to whether Stassinos is limiting the response to the

named plaintiffs.

In light of the discussion above, Stassinos shall serve a further response clarifying that no

Case 5:05-cv-02280-RMW Document 110 Filed 08/31/06 Page 4 of 7
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

5

responsive documents exist with respect to any check-writers, not just the named plaintiffs. If that is

not the case, responsive documents related to other check-writers shall be produced.

Interrogatory No. 3 and Document Request No. 1 involve agreements between Stassinos

and other defendants. Stassinos contends that these include privileged attorney-client agreements,

and that plaintiffs have already obtained copies of the agreements from the other defendants. 

Under Ninth Circuit law, fee agreements generally fall outside the scope of the attorneyclient privilege. See, e.g., In re Osterhoudt, 722 F.2d 591 (9th Cir. 1983); In re Horn, 976 F.2d 1315

(9th Cir. 1992). Furthermore, Stassinos has described the substance of the agreements in his

declaration, and if Stassinos’s copies of the agreements are identical to those already produced, there

can be no arguably privileged information remaining to protect. If, for some reason, Stassinos’s

copies differ from those previously produced, this order is sufficient to relieve him of any liability

for producing his copies, which was the primary basis of his refusal to produce the documents. 

Accordingly, the motion will be granted as to these requests.

Document Request No. 5 seeks documents relating to Stassinos’s decision whether or not

to seek prejudgment interest when requesting default judgments in his collection matters. Stassinos

has served supplemental responses clarifying that no responsive documents exist. Plaintiffs may

seek further clarification at deposition as to whether responsive documents previously existed; no

further written response will be compelled.

Document Request No. 3 seeks documents regarding any case where a court denied

Stassinos’s request for prejudgment interest. Stassinos has agreed to produce any responsive

documents, and the motion will be granted on that basis. If Stassinos contends any responsive

documents are privileged, he shall identify them on a privilege log. This ruling is without prejudice

to plaintiffs’ ability to contend that any privilege has been waived.

Document Request No. 8 seeks notes of any communications between defendants regarding

this action or the related suit. In a supplemental response served after this motion was filed,

Stassinos states that he has no responsive documents. On reply, plaintiffs complain that the

supplemental response is suspicious, given prior representations made during meet and confer

discussions that responsive documents would be produced or identified in a privilege log. Plaintiffs

Case 5:05-cv-02280-RMW Document 110 Filed 08/31/06 Page 5 of 7
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 ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO COMPEL 

C 05-2280 RMW (RS) 

6

may seek further clarification at deposition as to whether responsive documents previously existed;

no further written response will be compelled.

Document Request Nos. 9 and 10 and Interrogatory No. 10 all seek information regarding

when Stassinos was present at, or absent from, his various offices. In response, Stassinos refused to

produce any documents, but apparently went through his personal date book to provide a list of dates

on which he was present in his Modesto or Bakersfield offices. 

Stassinos’s various objections to these requests are overruled except as reflected in the

following order: Stassinos shall produce a copy of his daily planner for July 1, 2003 to the date this

action was instituted. Stassinos may redact any information in which he claims a right of privacy or

that is otherwise not responsive to these requests; any redactions, however, shall not withhold from

disclosure the amount of time spent on private or non-responsive activities but shall only withhold

other information regarding those activities.

V. CONCLUSION

The motion to compel is granted to the extent specified above, and is otherwise denied. 

Supplemental responses and production of documents shall be served within 20 days of the date of

this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 

RICHARD SEEBORG

United States Magistrate Judge

August 31, 2006

Case 5:05-cv-02280-RMW Document 110 Filed 08/31/06 Page 6 of 7
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 ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO COMPEL 

C 05-2280 RMW (RS) 

7

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT NOTICE OF THIS ORDER HAS BEEN GIVEN TO:

Paul Arons lopa@rockisland.com

O. Randolph Bragg rand@horwitzlaw.com, shannon@horwitzlaw.com

June D. Coleman jcoleman@mpbf.com, mellis@mpbf.com; fwilson@mpbf.com;

npruitt@mpbf.com

Mark Ewell Ellis mellis@mpbf.com, lmiller@mpbf.com; npruitt@mpbf.com

Candace M. Pagliero cpagliero@paglierolaw.com

James Raymond Pagliero jpagliero@paglierolaw.com

Frederick William Schwinn cand_cmecf@sjconsumerlaw.com,

fred.schwinn@sjconsumerlaw.com; fschwinn@gmail.com

Thomas Mark Smith msmith@clifford-brownlaw.com, bpowers@clifford-brownlaw.com

Ronald Wilcox ronaldwilcox@post.harvard.edu

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not

registered for e-filing under the Court's CM/ECF program. 

Dated: 8/31/06 Chambers of Judge Richard Seeborg

By: /s/ BAK 

Case 5:05-cv-02280-RMW Document 110 Filed 08/31/06 Page 7 of 7