Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-02280/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-02280-7/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

*E-FILED 6/6/06*

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 contend, in essence, that all of the defendants are engaged in an enterprise to

collect from consumers who “bounce” checks, by sending collection letters on the letterhead of

defendant Paul Stassinos, an attorney. Plaintiffs assert that Stasssinos does not exercise sufficient

supervision and control over each collection effort to make the use of his name lawful. In this

motion, plaintiffs seek to compel further interrogatory responses and production of documents from

defendant Legal Recovery Services of Central California, Inc. (“Central”), which they contend is

effectively one “branch office” of defendants’ overall operations. Central opposes the motion,

arguing that because it is an independent entity that had no involvement in the collection letters sent

to the named plaintiffs, and because no class has yet been certified, the discovery requests in dispute

are overbroad and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Central’s arguments, however, primarily go the merits of the very allegations that plaintiffs

Case 5:05-cv-02280-RMW Document 83 Filed 06/06/06 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

1

 Plaintiff’s motion to permit consideration of its late-filed reply papers is granted, as good

cause has been shown and there is no undue prejudice.

2

are seeking to prove. The propriety of discovery does not turn on one party’s belief that the claims

are without merit. That notwithstanding, during the pendency of this motion the presiding judge

issued a ruling on Central’s motion for summary judgment that more clearly delineates which of

plaintiffs’ claims and theories remain potentially viable. Taking that guidance into account, the

motion to compel will be granted in part, and denied in part.1

 

 II. BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs Richard Carrizosa and Mary Pea have a joint checking account. Carrizosa wrote

several checks to PW Supermarkets that were returned unpaid. Carrizosa thereafter received a series

of “computer-generated form collection demands,” most of which purported to be sent by Stasssinos.

Plaintiffs contend that Stasssinos is engaged in a state-wide business of collecting on

dishonored checks in concert with all of the other defendants. The primary entity is defendant Legal

Recovery Services, Inc. (“LRS”). There is no dispute that Central, which provided the discovery

responses at issue in this motion, is a separately formed and owned entity from LRS. The exact

relationship between Central, LRS, and the other defendants, however, is in dispute. Plaintiffs

contend that Central is, in effect, a “remote office” of LRS. Central admittedly has a relationship

with Stassinos, and there is apparently no dispute that its business involves collecting on dishonored

checks in cooperation with Stassinos. There is similarly no dispute that the collection letters sent to

Carrizosa and Pea were not generated by Central, but instead came from another defendant’s offices.

III. STANDARDS

Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 26(b)(1),

 [p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, 

that is relevant to the claim or defense of any party . . . For good cause, 

the court may order discovery of any matter relevant to the subject matter 

involved in the action. Relevant information need not be admissible at the 

trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the 

discovery of admissible evidence.

Evidence is relevant if it has “any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of

Case 5:05-cv-02280-RMW Document 83 Filed 06/06/06 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

3

consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be

without the evidence.” Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 401. Discovery may be limited by the court

for good cause shown “to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or

undue burden or expense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 (c)).

Discovery requests for documents and tangible things are governed by Rule 34 of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure. The rule in relevant part states that, 

Any party may serve on any other party a request to produce and permit the party

making the request, or someone acting on the requestor's behalf, to inspect and copy,

any designated documents (including writings, drawings, graphs, charts, photographs,

phonorecords, and other data compilations from which information can be obtained,

translated, if necessary, by the respondent through detection devices into reasonably

usable form), or to inspect and copy, test, or sample any tangible things which

constitute or contain matters within the scope of and which are in the possession,

custody or control of the party upon whom the request is served.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a). 

Motions to compel are authorized by Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:

[If] a party fails to answer an interrogatory submitted under Rule 33, or if a

party, in response to a request for inspection submitted under Rule 34, fails

to respond that inspection will be permitted as requested or fails to permit

inspection as requested, the discovering party may move for an order

compelling an answer, or a designation, or an order compelling inspection in

accordance with the request. The motion must include a certification that

the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the

person or party failing to make the discovery in an effort to secure the

information or material without court action. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(2)(B). 

IV. DISCUSSION

A. General Principles

Central’s objections to the discovery requests at issue flow almost exclusively from its basic

arguments that it is a separate legal entity that had nothing to do with Carrizosa and Pea, and that

since no class has been certified it should not be required to provide information that would, at best,

only be relevant if there were other plaintiffs asserting similar claims directly against Central. 

While this motion was pending, the presiding judge heard and decided a motion for summary

judgment brought by Central, which relied on virtually the same arguments Central makes here 

Case 5:05-cv-02280-RMW Document 83 Filed 06/06/06 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

regarding the merits of the claims against it. The presiding judge declined to enter summary

judgment in favor of Central at this time, and instead conditionally granted plaintiffs’ request for a

continuance pursuant to Rule 56 (f), specifically referring to this motion to compel. See Order filed

May 22, 2006 at p. 6.

This motion is a discovery motion; it does not turn on the merits of any parties’ claims or

defenses, but on the relevance of the materials requested to such claims and defenses and on

balancing factors such as any undue burden arising from production. Nevertheless, as the presiding

judge’s summary judgment order makes clear, at this juncture the critical issue is whether there is

evidence that could support plaintiffs’ theory of a “joint business enterprise partly owned and

controlled by [Central].” Id. Because that is the central issue, this motion will be granted as to

requests that bear on that question. As to any requests that do not bear directly on that question, the

motion will be denied without prejudice. In the event the presiding judge denies Central’s motion

for summary judgment, the parties should meet and confer on the discoverability of the other

information Central seeks, and, if necessary, Central may then renew those aspects of the pending

motion to compel denied by this order.

B. Specific Requests

1. Interrogatory 2

This interrogatory seeks names and addresses of Central’s current and past employees, dating

back to 2001. Such persons plainly may possess discoverable information relevant to understanding

the relationships among the defendants. Central has not shown that responding to this interrogatory

would be unduly burdensome, or that it is otherwise improper. The motion to compel is GRANTED

with respect to this interrogatory.

2. Interrogatories 6 and 14

These interrogatories seek information regarding the number and type of form collection

letters Central sends, and the amount of interest Central has collected. Such specific information

will be relevant if, and only if, plaintiffs are permitted to proceed against Central under some theory,

and has no apparent bearing on the legal issues under consideration on summary judgment by the

presiding judge. The motion to compel is therefore DENIED without prejudice with respect to these

Case 5:05-cv-02280-RMW Document 83 Filed 06/06/06 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

2

 Central’s position that there were no payments between or among defendants that would

give rise to liability under a joint enterprise or other theory is not a basis for refusing to produce

whatever documents may exist regarding any such payments that were made. Whether Central is

correct on the facts and the law is a question for the presiding judge to decide, but documenting

those facts is the purpose of discovery.

5

interrogatories.

3. Document Request 4

 This request seeks any agreements between the defendants governing their legal

relationship. Central has produced what it contends is the only responsive document, but redacted

certain financial information. That information is relevant to understanding that relationship among

the parties, and should be disclosed. The parties shall meet and confer to negotiate a protective

order to address any confidentiality concerns. Subject to the entry of an appropriate protective order

to preserve any sensitive financial or other proprietary information, the motion to compel is

GRANTED with respect to this request.

4. Document Request 8

This request seeks documents quantifying Central’s collection activities, and like

Interrogatories 6 and 14, would be relevant only if and when plaintiffs are permitted to proceed

against Central under some viable theory. The motion to compel is DENIED without prejudice with

respect to this request.

5. Document Request 27

This request seeks information regarding payments between or among defendants, and is

therefore relevant to understanding how these parties relate to each other, and is particularly relevant

to the issues under consideration by the presiding judge.2

 Again, the parties shall meet and confer to

negotiate a protective order to address any confidentiality concerns. Subject to the entry of an

appropriate protective order to preserve any sensitive financial or other proprietary information, the

motion to compel is GRANTED with respect to this request.

V. CONCLUSION

 The motion to compel is GRANTED as to Interrogatory 2 and, subject to entry of an

appropriate protective order, GRANTED as to Document Requests 4 and 27. Further production

Case 5:05-cv-02280-RMW Document 83 Filed 06/06/06 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 MOTION TO COMPEL 

C 05-2280 RMW (RS) 

6

shall be made within 20 days. The motion is otherwise DENIED, without prejudice to renewal in

the event final summary judgment is not granted in favor of Central. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 6, 2006 

RICHARD SEEBORG

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:05-cv-02280-RMW Document 83 Filed 06/06/06 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 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

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: 6/6/06 Chambers of Judge Richard Seeborg

By: /s/ BAK 

Case 5:05-cv-02280-RMW Document 83 Filed 06/06/06 Page 7 of 7