Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-02905/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-02905-17/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331(a) Fed. Question: Real Property

---

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

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

JUAN MEDINA, MARIA ANTONETTE

GARCIA, OSCAR AND ODULIA ALANIZ,

FRANCISCO LOPEZ AND MARIA

CARRILLO, ALBERTO AND MARIA

REYES, JOSEPH AND YOLANDA

HIDALGO, CARLOS AND VERONICA

APARICIO, RICARDO GOMEZ AND MARIA

ROSAS, AND MARIA GARIBAY,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

ARGENT MORTGAGE COMPANY, BNC

MORTGAGE, INC., HERMAN MICHAEL

COVARRUBIAS, CESAR PONTE aka CESAR

VALVERDE, ESPERANZA VALVERDE,

SUMMIT MORTGAGE REALTY, INC., and

R+ FINANCIAL, INC. dba AMERIMAC

FIRST MORTGAGE,

Defendants.

 /

No. C05-02905 HRL

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’

MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

[Docket No. 155]

The parties presently are before the court on plaintiffs’ motion for entry of a protective

order. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the court finds this matter appropriate for

determination without oral argument, and the November 6, 2007 motion hearing is vacated. 

Upon consideration of the papers submitted, the court will grant plaintiffs’ motion and enter the

order proposed by plaintiffs and Argent, with some modification.

*E-FILED 11/2/2007*

Case 5:05-cv-02905-HRL Document 162 Filed 11/02/07 Page 1 of 5
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 All claims involving defendant R+ Financial, Inc. (dba Amerimac First

Mortgage) have been settled.

2

This action arises from alleged predatory lending practices in connection with home

loan mortgages for which plaintiffs seek damages, as well as declaratory and injunctive relief. 

The Second Amended Complaint, the operative pleading, seeks relief for claimed violations of

several federal and state laws. The lawsuit has been stayed as to defendants Summit Mortgage

Realty, Inc., Cesar Ponte (aka Cesar Valverde), Herman Covarrubias and Esperanza Valverde

(collectively, the “Summit Defendants”), pending the resolution of related state criminal

proceedings against them.

There is no dispute that a blanket protective order is necessary to protect confidential

and private information that is expected to be produced in discovery, including confidential

information about defendants’ respective businesses, as well as plaintiffs’ personal and private

financial data. However, the parties disagree as to the terms that should be included in the

order. Plaintiffs and defendant Argent Mortgage Company (“Argent”) have agreed to a form of

order and request that it be entered by the court. Plaintiffs represent to the court that third-party

defendant Commonwealth Land Title Company also agrees to the form of order proposed by

plaintiffs and Argent. The Summit Defendants, as to whom discovery currently is stayed, argue

that this court should instead enter a protective order like the one that has been entered by the

state court in the related criminal proceedings. Although the record shows that plaintiffs duly

served notice of their motion on all parties, defendant BNC Mortgage, Inc. has not advised

whether it opposes the motion or has any objection.1

Preliminarily, the Summit Defendants contend that plaintiffs lack standing to seek entry

of a protective order because their proposed order is meant to protect the lender defendants

(e.g., Argent) in discovery. Relatedly, they contend that plaintiffs have failed to establish good

cause for entry of a protective order because no discovery requests have been propounded

against plaintiffs, and additionally, that plaintiffs are merely seeking to conduct a fishing

expedition as to defendants. Further, they argue that plaintiffs’ proposed order is too complex,

unduly burdensome and impracticable. Plaintiffs maintain that the Summit Defendants’

Case 5:05-cv-02905-HRL Document 162 Filed 11/02/07 Page 2 of 5
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

proposed order is too generalized and does not go far enough in addressing many issues which

commonly arise in civil litigation.

Although the Summit Defendants express concern that plaintiffs will conduct a fishing

expedition in discovery, the propriety of any particular discovery requests is not before the

court on the instant motion.

The Summit Defendants’ arguments re standing are equally unavailing. As noted above,

Argent joins in plaintiffs’ request for entry of the protective order, which contemplates the

protection of confidential information expected to be produced by all parties.

Moreover, the order proposed by plaintiffs and Argent, which appears to be based in

large part upon the Northern District of California’s suggested Model Protective Order, has

been entered by this court in a wide variety of civil lawsuits. Such orders are commonly

entered in advance of discovery to (a) establish the procedures for the exchange and treatment

of claimed confidential information; and (b) avoid potentially burdensome and expensive

motions practice to resolve disputes on an ad hoc basis. Further, the instant action involves an

appreciable number of parties with varying claims and counterclaims. While plaintiffs’

proposed order is considerably more detailed than the order proposed by the Summit

Defendants, this court finds that it addresses many of the issues which typically arise in federal

civil litigation and strikes an appropriate balance between a requesting party’s need for

discovery and a responding party’s desire to protect its confidential information.

The Summit Defendants nonetheless complain that the order proposed by plaintiffs and

Argent is too cumbersome because it requires compliance with the court’s Civil Local Rule 79-

5 with respect to filing confidential information under seal. This argument is not well taken. It

should go without saying that parties are obliged to follow the court’s local rules. Insofar as the

court may be required to consider confidential information to resolve a particular matter before

it, Civil Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed. A blanket protective

order will not suffice to allow the filing of documents under seal. See CIV. L.R. 79-5 and

commentary. That the order proposed by plaintiffs and Argent states this requirement expressly

does not make it “cumbersome.”

Case 5:05-cv-02905-HRL Document 162 Filed 11/02/07 Page 3 of 5
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

Finally, the Summit Defendants raise a number of questions about the mechanics of

plaintiffs’ proposed order. In essence, they complain that it (a) limits disclosure of documents

only to a “receiving party’s” expert, but does not provide that documents will be produced to

any other party’s expert; and (b) it imposes an undue burden by requiring that third parties

(including former officers, directors or employees of a party) sign an agreement to be bound by

the protective order before any confidential information may be disclosed to them. The court

does not find the stated concerns as to disclosure to parties’ retained experts to be well founded

inasmuch as information that is produced in discovery will be produced to all parties. As for

disclosure to third parties, the court will adopt plaintiffs’ proposed modification permitting

disclosure of confidential information to fact witnesses who were authors or recipients of the

documents or things, even if those witnesses have not yet signed the “Agreement to Be Bound

by Protective Order.” In any event, if an issue should arise which a party believes requires

modification of the order, the party may bring the matter to the court’s attention at that time. 

(See Plaintiffs’ Proposed Order at ¶ 13.1).

Based on the foregoing, it is ordered that plaintiffs’ motion is granted. The protective

order proposed by plaintiffs and Argent will be entered, with some modification, as an order of

the court.

Dated:

 

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

November 2, 2007

Case 5:05-cv-02905-HRL Document 162 Filed 11/02/07 Page 4 of 5
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

5:05-cv-2905 Notice will be electronically mailed to: 

Philip M. Adleson padleson@ahk-law.com, tclark@ahk-law.com 

Kerstin Arusha kerstina@lawfoundation.org 

Peter N. Brewer pbrewer@brewerfirm.com, julia@brewerfirm.com 

Moses Diaz mosesd@lawfoundation.org, moses@ucdavis-alumni.com 

Matthew Greinert greinertm@howrey.com, jamesjimmy@howrey.com 

Kyra Ann Kazantzis kyrak@lawfoundation.org 

David A. Makman makmand@howrey.com

Hsiao C. Mao mmao@ahk-law.com, dvajretti@ahk-law.com

Jack R. Nelson jnelson@reedsmith.com, cahunt@reedsmith.com; jnelson@reedsmith.com 

Paul E. Rice price@rutan.com, jmccluskey@rutan.com 

James F. Zahradka , II jamesz@lawfoundation.org, teresam@lawfoundation.org 

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.

Case 5:05-cv-02905-HRL Document 162 Filed 11/02/07 Page 5 of 5