Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00671/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00671-14/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 RE DISCOVERY

DISPUTES SET FORTH IN

CORRESPONDENCE

COMMENCING JULY 13

AND JULY 17, 2007

1. All Rule 30(b)(6) depositions must go forward on the restated deposition topics

referenced in the second paragraph of page 2 of the July 24 letter and be completed by

August 10. By July 26, defense counsel must send a letter to plaintiffs’ counsel stating the

deponent’s name and the date of availability within that time frame. No exceptions. Plaintiffs’

counsel must attend on the stated date. All depositions shall be at the city of witness’ residence

(unless both sides otherwise agree in writing). This will be without prejudice to retaking the

same witnesses’ depositions later for good cause, including if documents relevant to the

deponent are produced later. This is also without prejudice to further Rule 30(b)(6) depositions

upon application to the Court which shall be generously granted if the new “matters” are

reasonably discrete. 

Case 3:07-cv-00671-WHA Document 109 Filed 07/24/07 Page 1 of 3
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

2. With respect to the 360 boxes, all 360 original boxes must be produced for

inspection by plaintiffs’ counsel, who shall then review all 360 boxes and select materials

relevant to the case for copying. In the Court’s view, little of the 360 boxes will likely need to

be copied (less than five percent) so a genuine review of the originals must be concluded by

plaintiffs’ counsel (in Virginia). No privilege shall be waived by this procedure. A duplicate

copy shall be provided to defense counsel who shall have ten calendar days (from receipt of the

duplicate copy) to ask for the return of any privileged material, which shall then be returned or

provided to the Court for review, with no other use being made of it in the meantime. This

procedure will obviate the need for defense counsel to be present during plaintiff counsel’s

review. This procedure and review must be completed by August 3 and the copying completed

by August 10. 

3. No further exemplars need be produced other than as ordered in the June 26

order. 

4. No further training materials need be produced at this time.

5. If Ms. Mottek desires an extension of the August 30 date to file the class

certification motion, then a proper motion should be filed by July 31, with opposition by August

6, and reply by August 10 and hearing on AUGUST 16, AT 11:00 A.M. Do not take an extension

for granted; keep working on the present schedule pending any relief from the case management

order. 

6. With respect to the fee information referenced in the July 13 letter, relief is

GRANTED as follows — the information should be supplied in camera to the Court by JULY 30,

AT NOON and otherwise need not be produced, provided that each fee in the relevant period is

identified, the amount(s) of each fee (per transaction) is identified (including changes in

amount) and the circumstances under which each fee has been imposed are identified, with

respect to the maximum period open under the statute of limitations. This information is to be

supplied under oath by August 3, 2007. The Court will decide how much and when any

revenue information shall be revealed after reviewing it in camera. 

Case 3:07-cv-00671-WHA Document 109 Filed 07/24/07 Page 2 of 3
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

7. In the future, please use the proper font size. Given the inability of counsel to

work cooperatively on discovery issues, the Court asks both sides to submit a joint statement by

July 30 stating whether a magistrate judge should be appointed to supervise discovery in this

case. Do not withhold compliance with discovery objections in the hopes of getting another

judge. 

8. All other relief is DENIED at this time with respect to both letter motions. 

9. With respect to the new Rules 12 and 56 motions, plaintiffs must respond as

normal to the motions. If they lack merit, they will be denied and possibly sanctions imposed. 

If the briefing burden on these motions places pressure on the class certification process, then

include this ground in any motion to extend the deadline for moving to certify. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 24, 2007. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:07-cv-00671-WHA Document 109 Filed 07/24/07 Page 3 of 3