Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03140/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03140-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES W. BOWMAN, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

CMG MORTGAGE, INC., et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 07-03140 SI

ORDER GRANTING IN PART

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL

PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

Plaintiffs James Bowman and Pacific Real Estate Management Company, Inc., have filed a letter

brief asking the Court to compel defendants CMG Mortgage, Inc., and CMG Mortgage Services, Inc.,

to produce certain documents requested by plaintiffs. Plaintiffs seek discovery of all documents

“evidencing the nature and amount of reserves,” and “the use of those reserves,” as well as the same

documents relating to security deposits. Plaintiffs also ask defendants to provide them with copies of

all complaints from any civil, criminal, arbitral, or administrative proceeding in which defendants are

named as parties. The Court will address each request in turn.

In response to plaintiffs’ request for documents regarding defendants’ use of the reserves and

security deposits, defendants take issue only with the bank account records that plaintiffs seek as part

of this request. Defendants argue that plaintiffs’ request did not mention bank records and that it was

impossible to discern from the request that bank records were included within its scope. The Court finds

that plaintiffs’ request for documents showing the nature, amount, and use of the reserves and security

deposits reasonably includes bank records for accounts in which those reserves and deposits were kept.

The Court also finds that defendants’ concerns about privacy and relevance are overstated, and that

defendants can simply create a privilege log and redact any information from the bank records that may

Case 3:07-cv-03140-SI Document 71 Filed 06/20/08 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

reveal private information, such as account numbers. In addition, defendants have not objected to

plaintiffs’ request for documents discussing defendants’ policies with regard to reserves and deposits,

their communications regarding reserves and deposits, and other similar documents, and the Court finds

that these documents must be disclosed.

Next, plaintiffs seek copies of all complaints or similar documents for cases, of any nature, in

which defendants are named as parties. Defendants object that such information can be obtained from

the public record and that many such cases may have no relevance at all to the instant lawsuit. The

Court agrees with defendants, in part, that plaintiffs’ request is overbroad, and suggests that plaintiffs

narrow the scope of this request to include only complaints that are likely to lead to the discovery of

admissible evidence, such as complaints in specific categories of lawsuits that could be relevant to

plaintiffs’ claims. The Court doubts, for instance, that lawsuits raising boundary or easement disputes,

in which defendants happen to be named merely because they hold liens on the properties at issue, are

the proper subject of discovery in the instant employment dispute. 

For all of these reasons, plaintiffs’ motion to compel is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN

PART [Docket No. 48].

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 20, 2008 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-03140-SI Document 71 Filed 06/20/08 Page 2 of 2