Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-03026/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-03026-10/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 8/18/06*

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

SUSANNE PALMER et al., 

Plaintiffs,

 v.

PAUL R. STASSINOS,

Defendant. /

NO. C 04 03026 RMW (RS)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART

AND DENYING IN PART

MOTION TO COMPEL

FURTHER DEPOSITION

TESTIMONY

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs in this action contend that defendant Paul Stassinos, an attorney, violated the Fair

Debt Collection Practices Act in connection with a business that collects on dishonored checks. At

Stassinos’s deposition, plaintiffs asked various questions about how Stassinos processes the checks

during collection that he refused to answer on grounds of the work product doctrine or attorneyclient privilege. Because work product protection is not absolute and Stassinos has selectively

disclosed aspects of his procedures and mental processes, the motion to compel will be granted as to

those questions not answered on the basis of work product doctrine. The motion will be denied with

respect to the one question not answered on grounds of attorney-client privilege.

Case 5:04-cv-03026-RMW Document 170 Filed 08/18/06 Page 1 of 4
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

II. DISCUSSION

A. Work Product

Claiming protection for work product, Stassinos refused to answer deposition questions

about: (1) Why on some occasions he sought pre-judgment interest when requesting default

judgments but on other occasions did not; (2) What he is looking for and considering when he

reviews checks; (3) What personal involvement he had with respect to initiating collection on the

named plaintiffs’ checks; and (4) When during the collection process is a decision to sue made.

Work product protection has never been absolute. As stated in the seminal Hickman v. Taylor, 329

U.S. 495 (1947) “Where relevant and non-privileged facts remain hidden in an attorney’s file and

where production of those facts is essential to the preparation of one’s case, discovery may properly

be had.” 329 U.S. at 511 (emphasis added). Furthermore, even though “opinion work product” like

that in dispute here generally is “accorded great protection,” it can be subject to discovery where the

activities of the attorney “are directly in issue” in the case. Charlotte Motor Speedway, Inc. v.

International Ins. Co., 125 F.3d 127 (M.D.N.C. 1989); see also Handgards, Inc. v. Johnson &

Johnson, 413 F.Supp. 926, 932 (N.D. Cal 1976) (“concern for a lawyer's privacy must give way

when the advice of counsel is directly at issue.”)

Here, Stassinos’s potential liability turns, at least in part, on what he did and did not do with

respect to reviewing the checks. His activities are “directly in issue,” such that the interests served

by word product protection must yield. Furthermore, as mentioned above, Stassinos has already

selectively disclosed the work product in dispute, both to some degree at the deposition and to a

larger extent in his declaration in opposition to this motion.

At the hearing, counsel for Stassinos complained that he was put to a “Hobbesian choice”

because he could not establish that the work product information is irrelevant without disclosing as

much as he did. That may be so, but it does not relieve Stassinos from the obligation now to answer

the deposition questions in dispute. Plaintiffs are not required to accept the information as provided

in the crafted form of a declaration, but have the right to test Stassinos’s explanation of his activities

at deposition. Accordingly, the motion to compel will be granted as to all of the questions not

answered under a claim of work product protection.

Case 5:04-cv-03026-RMW Document 170 Filed 08/18/06 Page 2 of 4
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

B. Attorney-Client Privilege

Stassinos refused to disclose what he knows regarding certain communications between

Legal Recovery Services, Inc. (“LRS”) and LRS’s clients, the merchants who utilize LRS and

Stassinos to collect on unpaid checks. Stassinos contends that his knowledge regarding those

communications arises solely out of the attorney-client relationship between him and LRS. 

Plaintiffs argue that the information is not privileged because Stassinos has a business relationship

with LRS and matters discussed in furtherance of that business relationship are not privileged.

Although it may be true that not all communications between LRS and Stassinos fall within

the scope of the attorney-client relationship between them, the particular question in dispute arose in

connection with questions regarding how a decision to litigate is arrived at and communicated to the

merchant. Even without deciding the disputed issue of whether or not there is an attorney-client

relationship between Stassinos and the merchants, communications between LRS and Stassinos

related to a decision to file suit do implicate potentially privileged matters. Furthermore, there is no

apparent barrier to plaintiffs learning directly from LRS what it communicates to merchants. Not

only is such evidence likely to be more reliable than any second-hand information known by

Stassinos, it likely would not implicate any privilege issue. Under these circumstances, Stassinos

will not be compelled at this time to answer the question as posed, and this element of the motion

will be denied.

III. CONCLUSION

 The motion to compel further deposition testimony is granted with respect to questions not

answered on grounds of work product protection and denied with respect to the question not

answered under a claim of attorney-client privilege.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 18, 2006 

RICHARD SEEBORG

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:04-cv-03026-RMW Document 170 Filed 08/18/06 Page 3 of 4
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 FURTHER DEPOSITION TESTIMONY 

C 04 03026 RMW (RS) 

4

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

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: 8/18/06 Chambers of Judge Richard Seeborg

By: /s/ BAK 

Case 5:04-cv-03026-RMW Document 170 Filed 08/18/06 Page 4 of 4