Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-03237/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-03237-4/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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

*E-FILED 7/14/05*

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

SUSANNE PALMER,

Plaintiff,

 v.

 I.C. SYSTEM, INC., ET AL.,

Defendants.

 /

NO. 5:04-cv-3237 RMW (RS)

ORDER DISCHARGING 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE:

CONTEMPT AND 

DIRECTING CDC TO 

PROVIDE ADDITIONAL 

DOCUMENTS

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Susanne Palmer ("Palmer") served a subpoena duces tecum on non-party Child

Development Centers ("CDC") on January 3, 2005. CDC did not object to the subpoena at that time and

produced some responsive documents. Subsequently, on January 31, 2005, Palmer deposed a CDC

corporate representative, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 30(b)(6), who testified to the existence of

additional responsive documents, such as client collection files, quarterly inventory reports, and dispute

letters. See Arons Declaration at Exh. 9. Thereafter, Palmer and CDC discussed a subsequent production

by CDC, however, only one supplemental document was provided. As a result, the Court issued an order

to show cause to CDC as to why it should not be held in contempt for its alleged failure to provide all

responsive documents. In response, CDC objected to the requests and stated that, to the extent that the

subpoena requested non-privileged, relevant materials, it had fully complied. As a result, CDC requests

Case 5:04-cv-03237-RMW Document 97 Filed 07/14/05 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

that the Court discharge the order to show cause. Palmer contends that the objections filed by CDC are

untimely and, therefore, seeks to compel CDC to comply with the subpoena and produce all remaining

responsive documents. An order to show cause hearing was held on July 13, 2005. Based on all papers

filed to date, as well as on the oral argument of counsel, the Court discharges the order to show cause and

grants in part and denies in part the request to compel, for the reasons set forth below.

II. BACKGROUND

Palmer, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, alleges that I.C. System, Inc. ("ICS"), a

nationalcollectionagency, violated the Fair Debt CollectionPractices Act("FDCPA") and theCaliforniaUnfair

Competition Law ("CUCL") by attempting to collect undue fees and falsely threatening to file litigation which

it did not intend to file. Palmer seeks to enjoin ICS from continuing its allegedly unlawful and predatory

collectionpractices and to require that it compensate the putative class membersforinjuryresulting therefrom.

As of the date of this order, however, Palmer has not filed a motion for class certification. 

Palmer seeks to compelnon-partyCDC, her son's daycare center which dishonored Palmer's check

and turned the matter overto ICS for collection, to comply with a subpoena duces tecum served on CDC on

January 3, 2005. The subpoena requests that the following documents be provided:

1. All documents concerning any dishonored check which Susan Palmer

wrote to the Del Roble Child Development Center (CDC), including,

but not limited to, communications with any banks, with I.C. System, Inc.,

or with Susanne Palmer.

2. All documents concerning IC System. This includes, but is not limited to,

documents explaining IC System's collection practices and methods, reports 

received from, or provided to, IC System, and promotional material provided

by IC System. In responding to this category, you may redact the name and 

address of any check writer identified in a document, with the exception of 

Susanne Palmer.

3. All documents that state or reflect any policy or practice of yours concerning your

response to checks that do not clear on initial presentment.

4. All agreements between the CDC and IC System.

5. All documents containing or referring to communications between the CDC and IC

System.

CDC was not represented by counselat the time that itreceived the subpoena and, therefore, did not

file any objections thereto. Subsequently, in February 2005, CDC retained counsel and, on July 6, 2005,

served objections to the requested discovery on the grounds that the inquiries are not narrowly tailored and

exceed the scope of discovery previously ordered in this action. CDC also claimed that the requests call for

Case 5:04-cv-03237-RMW Document 97 Filed 07/14/05 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 3

the productionof privileged information. Notwithstanding its objections, however, CDC contends that it has

provided all non-privileged documents to Palmer. 

III. STANDARDS

Fed. R. Civ. Pro. Rule 26(b)(1) provided in pertinent part: 

[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 consequence

to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence."

Fed. R. Evid. 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).

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

Although Palmer does not contend that CDC possesses additional documents concerning her first

document request, she argues that, based on the deposition testimony of CDC's corporate representative,

responsive documents exist regarding her second through fifth requests. Accordingly, Palmer requests that

the Court order CDC to produce that discovery. Palmer notes that CDC failed to file timely objections to

her subpoena, even after it retained counsel in February 2005, and, therefore, argues that all objections are

waived.

CDC responds that, although failure to serve timely objections ordinarily waives all grounds for

objection, in unusual circumstances and for good cause, the failure to act timely will not bar consideration of

Case 5:04-cv-03237-RMW Document 97 Filed 07/14/05 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

objections to a Rule 45 subpoena. McCoy v. Southwest Airlines Co., Inc., 211 F.R.D. 381, 386 (C.D.

Cal. 2002). Unusual circumstances exist where: (1) the subpoena is overbroad on its face and exceeds the

bounds of fair discovery; (2) the subpoenaed witness is a non-party acting in good faith; and, (3) counsel

for the witness and counsel for the subpoenaing party were in contact concerning the witness' compliance

prior to the time the witness challenged the legal basis for the subpoena. Id. 

In this instance, CDC contends that the subpoena is overly broad and exceeds the scope of fair

discovery since it requests the production of "all documents concerning ICS and CDC." See Subpoena, 

Requests Two, Four, and Five. CDC points out that no time limitations or similarly narrowing constraints

are placed on these inquiries, despite the fact that the relationship between CDC and ICS has existed since

1995 and the incident concerning Palmer occurred in 2002. Moreover, at the time that it was served with

the subpoena, CDC notes that it was not represented by counsel and acted in good faith to produce all

relevant, non-privileged documents. Once counsel was retained, CDC states that it immediately began

discussing the subpoena with counsel for Palmer and produced a supplemental, non-privileged document.

CDC argues that Palmer is proceeding in bad faith by attempting to compel the production of additional

documents to which she is not entitled based on a prior order issued by the Court in the similar case titled,

Palmer v. Far West Collection Services, Inc., C-04-3027 RMW (RS).

The Court agrees that the unusual circumstances discussed in the McCoy case exist in the present

action and, accordingly, considers the objections raised by CDC, namely, that the document requests are

overly broad, call for the production of privileged information, and exceed the scope of the Court's order

issued in the Far West case. The Court further finds that those objections are well-founded regarding all

but one of the document requests, since request numbers two, four, and five request, respectively, the

production of: "all documents concerning ICS;" "all agreements between CDC and ICS;" and, "all

communications between CDC and ICS," all of which are overly broad.

Request number three, on the other hand, seeks the production of documents "that state or reflect

any policy or practice of [CDC's] response to checks that do not clear on initial presentment." That inquiry

is more narrowly tailored, does not call for the production of privileged information since it requests only

materials related to the policy or practice of CDC, and does not exceed the scope of the Court's order

Case 5:04-cv-03237-RMW Document 97 Filed 07/14/05 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 5

issued in the Far West case. As a result, CDC shall provide all documents responsive to category three

from the years 2000 to the present, as contained in the subpoena issued by Palmer to CDC on January 3,

2005, within ten (10) days of the date of this order. In addition, since CDC states that it has withheld some

documents on the basis of privilege, it shall provide a privilege log to Palmer within ten (10) days of the date

of this order. In all other respects, the motion to compel further production is denied.

V. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated, the Court discharges its order to show cause on CDC and grants in part

and denies in part the request by Palmer to compel CDC to comply with the subpoena duces tecum issued

on January 3, 2005. CDC shall provide documents responsive to request number three in the subpoena, as

limited above, to Palmer within ten (10) days of the date of this order. CDC shall also provide a privilege

log to Palmer, listing all documents withheld on that basis, within ten (10) days. In all other respects, the

request to compel production is denied. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: July 14, 2005 /s/ Richard Seeborg 

RICHARD SEEBORG

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:04-cv-03237-RMW Document 97 Filed 07/14/05 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

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT NOTICE OF THIS ORDER HAS BEEN DELIVERED 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 

Mark Ewell Ellis mellis@mpbf.com, restrella@mpbf.com;npruitt@mpbf.com 

Andrew Steinheimer asteinheimer@mpbf.com,

lmiller@mpbf.com;mellis@mpbf.com;vaxeman@mpbf.com 

Ronald Wilcox ronaldwilcox@post.harvard.edu 

Dated: 7/14/05 Chambers of Judge Richard Seeborg

By: /s/ BAK 

Case 5:04-cv-03237-RMW Document 97 Filed 07/14/05 Page 6 of 6