Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-03526/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-03526-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PETROLEUM SALES, INC.,

Plaintiff,

 vs.

VALERO REFINING COMPANY -

CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 05-3526 SBA (MEJ)

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST

FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

NOS. 64-65

 The Court is in receipt of the parties' joint letter, filed September 25, 2006, regarding plaintiff

Petroleum Sales, Inc.'s ("Plaintiff") Requests for Production Nos. 64-65. (Doc. #52.) Request No.

64 seeks "Monthly profit and loss records referred to by Dane Williams in his second deposition . . .

that show Valero's credit card processing costs from November 2003 through December 2004." 

Request No. 65 seeks "Periodic analyses referred to by Dane Williams in his second deposition . . .

of Valero's credit card processing costs from November 2003 through December 2004." Id.

Plaintiff argues that this information is relevant to show that Defendants earned profits from fees

charged for processing major credit card transactions at Plaintiff's stations. Plaintiff contends that

the magnitude of those profits will demonstrate Defendants' true motivation for refusing to pay its

facilities allowances until Plaintiff agreed to process all credit card transactions on Defendants'

network.

In response, Defendants argue that Plaintiff's requests are outside the scope of permissible

Case 4:05-cv-03526-SBA Document 55 Filed 10/24/06 Page 1 of 2
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

discovery because their motivation is irrelevant to the question in this case - whether Plaintiff or

Defendants breached the Supply Agreement.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("FRCP") 26(b)(1), parties may "obtain

discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the claim or defense of any party." 

Requests for production of documents may be served pursuant to FRCP 34. Although FRCP 34

requires a party to set forth the request with reasonable particularity, the documents "need not be

admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of

admissible evidence." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Further, discovery can be limited by the Court if it

is cumulative or duplicative, obtainable from another source, the party seeking discovery has had

ample opportunity by discovery in the action sought to obtain the information sought, or the burden

or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Id. at 26(b)(2). 

Here, the Court questions the relevance of Plaintiff's requests. The requests seek documents

related to credit card fees, but the fees are not at issue in this case. As Plaintiff states in the joint

letter, its complaint about Defendants' credit card processing system was the speed of the system, not

its cost. Further, Plaintiff does not dispute that a Valero employee already testified that processing

fees are used to offset the costs of credit card processing. Accordingly, the Court finds that the

requested information is duplicative, and any potential relevance is outweighed by the burden on

Defendants of producing this information.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 24, 2006 

MARIA-ELENA JAMES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:05-cv-03526-SBA Document 55 Filed 10/24/06 Page 2 of 2