Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01807/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01807-24/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROYLENE RAY, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

BLUEHIPPO FUNDING, LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

No. C-06-1807 JSW (EMC)

ORDER REQUIRING FURTHER MEET

AND CONFER RE PLAINTIFFS’

MOTION TO COMPEL; GRANTING

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR

PROTECTIVE ORDER; AND

GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION

FOR EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION

(Docket Nos. 149, 152, 156)

The Court held a telephonic conference call on August 8, 2008, during which it made rulings

on Plaintiffs’ motion to compel (Docket No. 149); Defendants’ motion for a protective order

(Docket No. 152); and Plaintiffs’ motion to strike Defendants’ motion for a protective order or, in

the alternative, for expedited consideration thereof (Docket No. 156). This order memorializes the

Court’s rulings and provides additional explanation where necessary.

I. DISCUSSION

A. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel

1. Document Request No. 24

The Court rejects BlueHippo’s position that no documents should be produced because they

are privileged. “Neither the U.S. Supreme Court nor the Ninth Circuit have recognized a blanket

settlement privilege as a matter of federal common law.” United States v. Union Pacific R.R. Co.,

No. CIV 06-1740 FCD KJM, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40178, at *15-16 (E.D. Cal. May 23, 2007);

Case 3:06-cv-01807-JSW Document 160 Filed 08/11/08 Page 1 of 5
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

see also Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Mediatek, Inc., No. C-05-3148 MMC (JCS), 2007 U.S. Dist.

LEXIS 27437, at *15, 20 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2007) (noting that “courts have reached widely

divergent conclusions about whether or not a federal settlement privilege exists”; ultimately

“conclud[ing] that a federal settlement privilege should not be implied” under Federal Rule of

Evidence 501). BlueHippo argues that, even if there is no privilege, the Court could rely on Federal

Rule of Evidence 408 to limit what settlement communications should be produced during

discovery, see Union Pacific, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40178, at *18 (adopting this approach), but

admissibility and discoverability are two different issues.

The Court, however, agrees with BlueHippo that Document Request No. 24 is overbroad. 

Although BlueHippo’s business practices may have been nationwide, it is likely that some of the

information provided by BlueHippo to FTC and the non-California states is either completely

irrelevant or marginally relevant -- e.g., financial information about non-California customers, who

are not part of the potential class in the instant case. During the conference call, Plaintiffs claimed

that BlueHippo had failed to produce specific types of documents (e.g., internal memoranda, emails) and documents concerning certain subject matters (e.g., documents related to why and when

BlueHippo changed its business models). If these are the documents that Plaintiffs seek, Document

Request No. 24 is an inefficient and ineffective way to obtain them and is grossly overbroad as

written. The parties should discuss meaningful ways of narrowing the documents at issue. The

Court therefore orders the parties to further meet and confer. During the meet and confer, Plaintiffs

must articulate with specificity what kinds of documents it seeks (whether pursuant to Document

Request No. 24 or another request). The Court emphasizes, as it did during the conference call, that

counsel with full and complete authority on discovery matters (and a client representative if needed

to authorize resolution) must participate in the meet and confer and that, if either party continues to

maintain an extreme position, the Court may well impose sanctions if that position is not

substantially justified. Thus far, the meet and confer process has been inadequate. Neither side has

described any effort to compromise and relinquish their respective absolutist positions.

Case 3:06-cv-01807-JSW Document 160 Filed 08/11/08 Page 2 of 5
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

3

The parties shall file a joint letter no later than August 15, 2008, to report back on their meet

and confer efforts and to inform the Court what, if any, discovery dispute remains. The joint letter

shall be no longer than two single-spaced pages.

2. Production Deadline

The documents in question shall be produced at least 14 days in advance of the deposition to

which they may pertain to permit review and resolution of any disputes over the production prior to

the deposition.

3. Interrogatory No. 17

The Court agrees with BlueHippo that the interrogatory is overbroad since it seeks

information about all of BlueHippo’s California customers, regardless of whether they are members

of the putative class. However, even if the interrogatory were narrowed to only members of the

putative class, BlueHippo argues that the undertaking to respond to the interrogatory would be

unduly burdensome. According to BlueHippo, “the putative class alone . . . potentially has almost

40,000 members.” Burcham Decl. ¶ 3. BlueHippo estimates that, because of the size of the class

and the need for human review of database information, it would take approximately 2,000 hours to

respond to the interrogatory. See id. ¶¶ 4-8. BlueHippo notes that, even if it were to respond to the

interrogatory based on a sampling -- e.g., 10% -- that would still take some 200 hours.

In order to better evaluate the alleged burden, the Court orders BlueHippo to provide a

declaration as to the number of hours BlueHippo spent creating the chart provided in the Florida

proceedings. See Docket No. 149 (Ex. 4). The declaration shall also address (1) what categories of

information are maintained on BlueHippo’s databases (e.g., is there information comparable or

similar to what is sought in the interrogatory) or (2) what exactly would be involved with the human

review of data extracted from the databases and why such review is necessary. The declaration shall

be filed no later than August 15, 2008.

///

///

///

///

Case 3:06-cv-01807-JSW Document 160 Filed 08/11/08 Page 3 of 5
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

B. Defendants’ Motion for Protective Order and Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike or, in the

Alternative, for Expedited Consideration

Both BlueHippo Defendants move for a protective order to prevent a 30(b)(6) deposition

from proceeding on August 12, 2008. Plaintiffs move to strike Defendants’ motion or, in the

alternative, ask the Court to consider Defendants’ motion on shortened time.

In light of the noticed deposition date of August 12, the Court grants Plaintiffs’ request for

shortened time. Turning to the merits of Defendants’ motion, the Court is at a loss as to why this

discovery dispute was not resolved by the parties without the need for judicial intervention. Finding

a mutually agreeable deposition date should not be beyond the parties’ abilities. Presenting this

issue for the Court’s resolution is a waste of judicial resources not to mention the parties’. Given the

unavailability of counsel for Gateway on August 12, and the lack of prejudice to any party by having

the deposition held on September 5, 2008, when all parties appear to be available, the Court grants

the motion for a protective order. The 30(b)(6) deposition shall be held on September 5, 2008.

Although no motion for a protective order has yet been filed with respect to the deposition of

Joseph Rensin, currently scheduled for August 14, 2008, the Court notes that, given the

unavailability of counsel for Gateway on that date, the deposition shall not proceed on August 14. 

The Court is not prejudging whether the deposition should in fact go forward at all and if so on what

other date. Defendants are advised to file their motion for a protective order with respect to the

Rensin deposition promptly. Once filed, Plaintiffs shall have three court days to file an opposition. 

II. CONCLUSION

 For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders a further meet and confer with respect to

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel, grants Plaintiffs’ motion for expedited consideration of Defendants’

motion for a protective order, and grants Defendants’ motion for a protective order.

///

///

///

///

///

Case 3:06-cv-01807-JSW Document 160 Filed 08/11/08 Page 4 of 5
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

If these disputes are not resolved through meet and confer, the Court will order personal

attendance of lead trial counsel at a further meet and confer at a place and time to be ordered by the

Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 11, 2008

_________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-01807-JSW Document 160 Filed 08/11/08 Page 5 of 5