Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00671/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00671-22/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 371
Nature of Suit: Truth in Lending
Cause of Action: 15:1601 Truth in Lending

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

DAVID VAN SLYKE, et al., On Behalf of 

Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

CAPITAL ONE BANK, CAPITAL ONE 

FINANCIAL CORP. and DOES 1-100, 

inclusive, 

Defendants. 

Case No. C07-0671 WHA (EDL) 

CLASS ACTION

ORDER RE DISCOVERY 

CONFERENCE OF AUGUST 23, 

2007 

Date: N/A 

Time: N/A 

On August 23, 2007, the parties represented through their counsel appeared on various 

discovery motions assigned to this Court by the Honorable William H. Alsup. Jacqueline Mottek, 

Esq. of the firm Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins appeared for Plaintiffs. Mia 

Mazza, Esq. and James F. McCabe, Esq., from the firm Morrison & Foerster, appeared on behalf 

of Defendants Capital One Bank (“Capital One”) and Capital One Financial Corp. Having fully 

considered the motions and letter briefs, other records on file in the action, the oral arguments of 

counsel, and good cause appearing therefor, the Court ORDERS as follows: 

Case 3:07-cv-00671-WHA Document 173 Filed 08/29/07 Page 1 of 5
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

Defendants’ motion for contempt and discovery sanctions against Plaintiff Franklin Chan, 

and the accompanying motion for shortened time, filed on August 22, 2007, are denied without 

prejudice. In accordance with Plaintiffs’ representations at the hearing, Plaintiffs have filed a 

notice of withdrawal of Plaintiff Franklin Chan and he is no longer a party. Accordingly, 

Defendants are no longer restricted from contacting him due to his status as a represented party. 

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel production of the fee information that the Court ordered 

produced to Plaintiffs in its Order of June 26, 2007 is granted. Subject to the protective order 

entered in this matter, Defendants shall produce to Plaintiffs all fee information set forth in that 

Order within seven (7) days of this Order. 

With respect to the motion to compel production of 360 boxes potentially relevant 

documents located in a warehouse in Richmond, Virginia, Defendants’ privacy objections are 

overruled, and Judge Alsup’s prior order giving Plaintiffs unfettered access to all materials except 

those that are privileged is not disturbed. Capital One may, at its election, either: (1) review the 

boxes to withhold privileged documents only, without making determinations as to relevance, in 

advance of the production of the remainder of the documents to Plaintiffs for identification and 

copying of documents that Plaintiffs deem relevant; or (2) permit Plaintiffs to review all of the 

documents to identify and copy documents that Plaintiffs deem relevant, without a preview by 

Defendants for privilege, as provided for in the Court’s July 24, 2007 Order. With respect to 

option two (2), as provided for in that Order: 

No privilege shall be waived by this procedure. A duplicate copy [of all materials 

selected by Plaintiffs for copying] shall be provided to defense counsel who shall have ten 

calendar days (from receipt of the duplicate copy) to ask for the return of any privileged 

material, which shall then be returned or provided to the Court for review, with no other 

use to be made of it in the meantime. 

See July 24, 2007 Order (Doc. No. 109). Privilege shall be strictly and narrowly construed 

according to the applicable legal requirements for attorney-client privilege, work product 

privilege protecting the mental impressions of counsel, or other recognized privilege. With either 

election, Plaintiffs shall Bates number the documents it selects for copying in a manner that 

Case 3:07-cv-00671-WHA Document 173 Filed 08/29/07 Page 2 of 5
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

identifies the box the documents were taken from, and provide a duplicate set of the numbered 

documents to Defendants. To the extent not already produced, Defendants shall produce a 

privilege log of all privileged documents withheld from the boxes from which Plaintiffs selected 

documents for copying. To avoid unnecessary burden, Defendants need not provide a privilege 

log for the contents of boxes from which no documents were selected. The supplemental 

privilege log shall comport with this Court’s Order re Discovery Procedures (Doc. No. 156). In 

the event Plaintiffs challenge the privilege log entries, the Court will review up to five (5) 

exemplars to determine whether the specific documents, and documents of their nature, may be 

withheld for privilege. The parties are ordered to meet and confer forthwith regarding specific 

procedures and time frame for providing Plaintiffs full access to the documents, either before or 

after Defendants’ privilege review per Defendants’ election, without monitoring by Defendants 

during the review process. Defendants are ordered to report their election to the Court and to 

Plaintiffs within one (1) court day of their meet and confer. If Defendants elect to preview the 

boxes for privilege, Defendants shall complete the preview and provide access to the documents 

to Plaintiffs no later than September 30, 2007. 

With respect to Defendants’ motion to compel discovery responses to Defendants’ First 

Set of Requests for Production, Plaintiffs are ordered to produce to Defendants within ten (10) 

days the following documents in their possession, custody, or control: 

1. All documents identified in their depositions that may have been excluded from 

earlier production; 

2. All credit card statements or other communications from credit card issuers during 

the class period; and 

3. All current credit reports and credit reports generated during the class period. 

In addition: 

4. Plaintiff Bragado shall produce documents in her possession, custody, and control 

(excluding court documents that are publicly available), relating to her personal 

bankruptcy proceedings referred to in the Second Amended Complaint; 

Case 3:07-cv-00671-WHA Document 173 Filed 08/29/07 Page 3 of 5
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

5. Plaintiff Van Slyke shall produce documents in his possession, custody, and 

control (excluding court documents that are publicly available), regarding the 

lawsuits referred to in the Second Amended Complaint in which he and Capital 

One were parties; and 

6. Plaintiff Hart shall produce documents in his possession, custody, and control 

(excluding court documents that are publicly available), regarding his financial 

hardship and the lawsuit with Capital One referred to in the Second Amended 

Complaint. 

All parties shall amend their discovery responses in accordance with the Court’s Order re 

Discovery Procedures, ¶ 4 and Rule 26(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and comply 

with the Court’s Order re Discovery Procedures, ¶ 6. 

With respect to the additional discovery disputes raised during the discovery conference, 

these issues are not properly before the Court. However, the Court provides the following 

guidance: Defendants should revise their redactions of documents produced in response to 

Plaintiffs’ Second Set of Requests for Production to produce the portions redacted for relevance, 

rather than privilege. In addition, regarding the topic of the list of solicitations asked about at the 

30(b)(6) deposition, Defendants should be completely forthcoming, to the extent the company 

(not merely the witness) has knowledge and can authenticate the information. The parties are 

ordered to meet and confer about these and the remaining disputes. 

The parties are ordered to conduct weekly meet and confers about discovery, in person, 

attending by persons who are knowledgeable about the discovery issues and who have the 

authority to make decisions regarding discovery. In the event a discovery issue cannot be 

resolved by the parties meeting and conferring in good faith, the parties may move to compel 

consistent with the schedule set out in this matter’s case management order and the Local Rules. 

In accordance with the Court’s Order re Discovery Procedures, ¶1, discovery motions and other 

papers shall be submitted as set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7 and Northern District 

Civil Local Rules section 7; and motions to enlarge or shorten time shall be submitted as set forth 

Case 3:07-cv-00671-WHA Document 173 Filed 08/29/07 Page 4 of 5
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

in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6 and Northern District Civil Local Rules section 6, except as 

the Court may otherwise order. 

 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: August 29, 2007 ____ 

THE HONORABLE ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

 

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte

Case 3:07-cv-00671-WHA Document 173 Filed 08/29/07 Page 5 of 5