Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-06280/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-06280-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection Act

---

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, page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

IRMA SANCHEZ, JORGE SANCHEZ,

and SOPHIA SANCHEZ,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CLIENT SERVICES, INC. and KARLA

DAVIS,

Defendants. ___________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: C 06-06280 PVT

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING

IN PART PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO

COMPEL 

Plaintiffs Irma Sanchez, Jorge Sanchez and Sophia Sanchez move to compel defendants

Client Services, Inc. (“Client Services”) and Karla Davis to produce further discovery. Plaintiffs

further move to preclude evidence. Defendants oppose the motion. On September 4, 2007, the

parties appeared for hearing. Based on the briefs and arguments presented,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that counsel shall meet and confer regarding the scope of

discovery of the personnel files for the eight employees named in the call logs for this action. Based

on a stipulation by the parties, counsel for the defendants shall review the personnel files (for the

time period beginning in or around January 2005 until October 5, 2006, the date the complaint was

filed) and produce such discovery. In the event, counsel is unable to agree on the scope of discovery

of the personnel files, plaintiffs shall notice a hearing for September 18, 2007 for further resolution

Case 5:06-cv-06280-PVT Document 38 Filed 09/06/07 Page 1 of 3
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, page 2

 by the court.

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that on or before September 18, 2007, counsel for defendants

shall notify plaintiffs whether they will assert a bona fide error defense at trial. If defendants inform

plaintiffs that they intend to assert a bona fide error defense, the court may revisit whether to re-open

discovery as to this specific issue.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs shall propound interrogatories related to Rule

30(b)(6) deposition topic nos. 9, 11, 12 and 13 and defendants shall serve responses no later than

September 18, 2007.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs shall subpoena and re-notice the deposition of

Don Bailey. The deposition shall occur prior to September 18, 2007. In the event the deposition

cannot be scheduled prior to September 18, 2007, the parties shall meet and confer on an alternative

date and so notify the court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs shall re-notice the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition with

newly drafted deposition topics which may relate to12 prior lawsuits involving defendant Client

Services. Plaintiffs had previously noticed this specific topic as deposition topic no. 26. Counsel

shall meet and confer on the scope of the new deposition topics prior to returning to court. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motion to preclude evidence is denied as

premature in light of the pending discovery orders specified above. 

Dated: 9/6/2007

 

PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:06-cv-06280-PVT Document 38 Filed 09/06/07 Page 2 of 3
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, page 3

Counsel automatically notified of this filing via the court’s Electronic Case Filing system.

copies mailed on to:

 _________________________ CORINNE LEW

 Courtroom Deputy 

Case 5:06-cv-06280-PVT Document 38 Filed 09/06/07 Page 3 of 3