Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_01-cv-21151/USCOURTS-cand-3_01-cv-21151-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
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

The holding of this court is limited to the facts and particular circumstances underlying the

present motion.

 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

ELENA DEL CAMPO, MIRIAM CAMPOS,

LISA JOHNSTON and ASHORINA MEDINA

Plaintiffs,

 v.

GEORGE KENNEDY, AMERICAN

CORRECTIVE COUNSELING SERVICES,

INC., DON R. MEALING, BRUCE D. RAYE,

LYNN R. HANSEY aka R.D. DAVIS,

Defendants.

 

No. C-01-21151 JW (PVT)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT

MEALING’S MOTION TO COMPEL

RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORY

AND DOCUMENT REQUESTS

I. INTRODUCTION

On December 11, 2001, Plaintiff Elena Del Campo filed a complaint alleging, inter alia,

violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Ac, 15 U.S.C. §1692 et seq. (“FDCPA”).1

 The case

was stayed from October 8, 2002 through September 15, 2005 based on a potential global class

settlement. The stay was lifted when the settlement was disapproved. On February 1, 2006, the Del

Campo lawsuit was consolidated with Medina v. Mealing, C-03-2611, brought by Plaintiffs Miriam

Campos, Lisa Johnston and Ashorina Medina. On May 1, 2006, Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated

Case 3:01-cv-21151-SI Document 267 Filed 11/17/06 Page 1 of 6
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

Complaint. Defendant George Kennedy is the District Attorney of Santa Clara County. Defendant

American Corrective Counseling Services, Inc. ("ACCS") is a private company that operates a Bad

Check Restitution Program under contracts with district attorneys in California. The program is

designed to return lost monies to the victim and provide rehabilitation for the offender. Defendant

Don Mealing (for purposes of this motion “Defendant”) is the founder and former CEO and

President of ACCS. Plaintiffs allege that ACCS unlawfully threatens to prosecute program

participants and attempts to collect fees not allowed under the statute.

 Defendant’s Motion to Compel information about, and production of, Plaintiffs’ bank

records for the past ten years is currently before the court. By Order dated November 14, 2006, the

Court vacated the hearing date for this motion, finding it suitable for determination without oral

argument. For the following reasons, the motion is granted in part and denied in part as described

herein.

II. DISCUSSION

Specifically at issue are: 1) a single interrogatory seeking the account number and other

information about all checking accounts Plaintiff has held for the past 10 years; and 2) three

document requests seeking, for the last 10 years: a) all bank records; b) all Bank statements; and c)

all documents relating to bad checks. (Reese Decl. Exhs. A, B.) Defendant claims the documents

are relevant to show the notice Plaintiffs received prior to being placed in the diversion program and

that Plaintiffs’ histories of writing bad checks are relevant to show whether the checks were written

with intent to defraud. Plaintiffs object to the discovery on the grounds that it violates their right to

privacy by seeking financial information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of

admissible evidence. Plaintiffs also object that ten years is overbroad.

A. Relevance

Discovery is relevant if it “appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of

admissible evidence” relating to the claims or defenses of any party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). 

“Relevance for purposes of discovery is defined very broadly.” Garneau v. City of Seattle, 147 F.3d

802, 812 (9th Cir. 1998). Under the liberal discovery principles of the Federal Rules, those opposing

discovery are required to carry a heavy burden of showing why discovery should be denied. 

Case 3:01-cv-21151-SI Document 267 Filed 11/17/06 Page 2 of 6
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

The Court expresses no opinion as to the ultimate admissibility of later acquired evidence of

Plaintiffs’ check writing habits. The court merely notes that Defendants claims the evidence is relevant

and Plaintiffs dispute that claim.

3

Blankenship v. Hearst Corp., 519 F. 2d 418 ( 9th Cir. 1975); Gray v. First Winthrop Corp., 133

F.R.D. 39 (N.D. Cal. 1990). 

In their Opposition, Plaintiffs point out many issues to which Plaintiff’s bank records are not

relevant. Defendant, however, need only assert a single claim or defense to which the records are

relevant. Defendant asserts three defenses to which the records are potentially relevant.

Defendant first asserts that Plaintiffs’ check writing habits are relevant to refute the

allegations in the complaint that ACCS falsely represented that Plaintiffs had committed a crime and

falsely stated that they could be prosecuted. Defendant argues that if Plaintiffs have histories of

writing bad checks, it is relevant to show the intent to defraud necessary to commit the crime. 

Additionally, a history of bounced checks could support the statement that a bad check writer could

be prosecuted. Plaintiffs argue that later acquired evidence of intent is irrelevant because the

violation of the FDCPA is judged based on the knowledge the debt collector has at the time the letter

was sent. Plaintiffs cite Gradisher v. Check Enforcement Unit, 201 F.Supp.2d 907, 917 (W.D Mich.

2002.) While Plaintiff is free to argue that any later acquired evidence should be excluded, their

expectation of winning that argument is not sufficient to defeat Defendant’s broad rights to

discovery.2

 

Defendant also argues that the bank records are relevant to show whether Plaintiff received

notice of the bad check and the amount of time Plaintiff had to make good on the debt before being

contacted by ACCS. This is relevant to Plaintiff’s argument that ACCS deprived her of property

(the course fees) without due process and sufficient notice.

Finally, Defendant also argues the records are relevant to the defense that the Bad Check

Restitution Program should be exempt from the FDCPA. Defendant argues that if Plaintiffs were

recidivist bad check writers prior to entrance in the program, then they are appropriate subjects for

the program. Similarly, if Plaintiffs did not write any bad checks after the program, it would be

evidence that the program is effective. Accordingly, evidence of recidivism could support

Case 3:01-cv-21151-SI Document 267 Filed 11/17/06 Page 3 of 6
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

Defendant’s argument that the Bad Check Restitution Program ought, as a public policy matter, to be

exempt from the FDCPA. 

Because the discovery sought is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible

evidence relating to Defendant’s defenses to this litigation, it is relevant.

B. Privacy

Plaintiffs object to the discovery, claiming it violated their privacy. Federal courts

adjudicating federal questions apply Federal common law, as opposed to state privilege, to resolve

evidentiary questions. A. Farber and Partners, Inc. v. Garber, 234 F.R.D. 186, 190 (C.D. Cal.

2006). State privileges are not applied, even when state and federal claims are presented together. 

Id., citing Religious Tech. Ctr. v. Wollersheim, 971 F.2d 364, 367 n. 10 (9th Cir. 1992). Although

there is no federal common law privilege akin to the right of privacy, federal courts generally treat

financial information as private. Charles O. Bradley Trust v. Zenith Capital LLC, 2006 WL 798991

(N.D. Cal. Mar 24, 2006); Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 616 (N.D. Cal. 1995) ("Federal

courts ordinarily recognize a constitutionally-based right of privacy that can be raised in response to

discovery requests."). However, given that this lawsuit is about bad checks, any privacy concern is

outweighed. Moreover, any intrusion can be limited by production under strict orders not to

disclose the information to anyone or use the information as necessary to defend this lawsuit. See A.

Farber and Partners, Inc., 234 F.R.D. at 191.

C. Breadth

Defendant seeks bank records from July 1996 to the present. Plaintiffs challenge the

relevance of the ten years worth of bank records for a case that involves checks written between

2001 and 2003. Defendant asserts that the 5 years before and the 3 years after are relevant to show

Plaintiffs’ habits and to show whether the program is effective and therefore should be exempt from

the FDCPA.

Ten years is overbroad. Defendant’s interest in showing an intent to defraud can be met with

a single year prior to the lawsuit date. Similarly, a lack of recidivism can be shown with the two

years after the relevant time period. This time frame balances the Defendant’s need for information

with the Plaintiffs’ right to privacy by protecting their current banking information. Accordingly,

Case 3:01-cv-21151-SI Document 267 Filed 11/17/06 Page 4 of 6
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

After Defendant receives the bank records from 2000 to 2005, upon a showing of good cause,

Defendant can move for bank records covering a greater time period. Defendant is cautioned, however,

that a specific showing of good cause will be necessary to further invade Plaintiffs’ privacy.

5

the motion is granted as to records from 2000 through the end of 2005.3

D. Waiver of Objections to Requests for Production of Documents

Defendant asserts that Plaintiffs’ failure to either provide documents or objections in a timely

manner waived their right to make any objections to the document requests. The document requests

were served on July 25, 2006, making responses due August 28, 2006. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)

(responses due 30 days plus 3 days for mail.) Plaintiffs did not serve any response until August 30,

2006. Plaintiffs claim the delay was due to a calendaring error. As Defendant asserts, this is not

good cause to for relief from the waiver of all objections. Richmark Corp. v. Timber Falling

Consultants, 959 F.2d 1468, 73 (9th Cir. 1992.) Accordingly, even though there is no showing of

prejudice from the two day delay, Plaintiffs have waived all objections .

 Nonetheless, a court always has discretion to limit discovery if the “burden or expense of the

proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit, taking into account the needs of the case, the

amount in controversy, the parties' resources, the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation,

and the importance of the proposed discovery in resolving the issues.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(iii). 

In this case, the overbreadth of the time frame makes the burden of responding to the discovery

greater than its likely benefit. The burden of producing any records from the start of 2000 to the end

of 2005 is not greater than the likely benefit. 

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, It Is Hereby Ordered that:

1. Defendant’s Motion to Compel Discovery is granted in part as to the time period

from the start of 2000 to the end of 2005; 

2. The Motion to Compel Discovery is denied in part as to information or records from

before 2000 and after 2005;

3. Absent specific Court Order, Defendants are precluded from disclosing the

interrogatory responses or contents of documents produced for any purpose other

Case 3:01-cv-21151-SI Document 267 Filed 11/17/06 Page 5 of 6
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

6

than to defend this lawsuit; 

4. The parties shall meet and confer to agree upon a protective order to govern all

confidential documents produced in this litigation. The parties are referred to the

Sample Stipulated Protective Order available at www.cand.uscourts.gov; and

5. Plaintiffs shall respond to the interrogatory and document requests, as described

within this order, no later than December 8, 2006.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 17, 2006 

PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 3:01-cv-21151-SI Document 267 Filed 11/17/06 Page 6 of 6