Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03723/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03723-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Petition for Removal

---

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

DONALD NOBLES,

Plaintiff,

 v.

 MBNA CORPORATION et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 06-03723 CRB

ORDER RE: OBJECTION TO

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S RULING

Now pending before the Court is plaintiff’s objection to the Magistrate Judge’s

October 17, 2007 ruling granting defendants’ motion to compel responses to defendants’

document requests nos. 3, 6, 8, 12, 14 and 16.

Defendants moved to compel plaintiff to respond to several discovery requests. In

document requests nos. 19 and 20, defendants seek documents that refer or relate to

plaintiff’s use of access checks or convenience checks. The court denied the motion to

compel on the ground that plaintiff represented that he had never used access or convenience

checks, other than defendants’ access check at issue in this litigation. The court also stated in

dicta its agreement with plaintiff’s argument that “the mere receipt by him of a solicitation

from another financial institution is not relevant to his claim that Defendants’ solicitations

are deceptive.” October 17, 2007 Order at 17. 

In document requests nos. 23, 24, and 26, defendants seek documents that refer or

relate to any penalties incurred by plaintiff from using any convenience checks, credit card

Case 3:06-cv-03723-CRB Document 126 Filed 11/26/07 Page 1 of 3
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

account, or any overdraft fees or overdrafts incurred by plaintiff in connection with any bank

account. The court denied the motion to compel responses to these requests on the ground,

among others, that “these requests are not tethered to live checks, and that overdraft fees, for

example, are irrelevant to claims regarding live checks, live check solicitations, fees

associated with live checks or accounts for which live check solicitations are issued.” Order

at 17. 

The court ruled differently as to document request nos. 3, 6, 8, 12, 14, and 16. These

requests seek documents that relate or refer to line of credit or credit card accounts held by

plaintiff. Plaintiff argued that these general categories of documents, for example, credit

card agreements with companies other than defendants, are not relevant to his understanding

of defendants’ offer. The court rejected plaintiff’s objection reasoning that “[i]f Plaintiff

received and used access checks from other institutions, with similar terms or different terms,

he could well have learned how to use them and what to watch out for.” Oct. 17 Order at 16. 

 Plaintiff claims this ruling was error for two reasons. First, the requests seek

documents “untethered” to access checks, for example, credit card statements or agreements;

thus, the court’s reason for granting the motion to compel–that experience with access checks

is relevant--does not make sense. Second, when the court denied defendant’s motion to

compel document request nos. 19 and 20 the court stated that “the mere receipt by [plaintiff]

of a solicitation from another financial institution is not relevant to his claim that Defendants’

solicitations are deceptive.” Id. at 17. This reasoning contradicts the court’s reasoning in

granting the motion to compel as to request nos. 3, 6, 8, 12, 14 and 16.

The Court agrees that the Magistrate Judge’s ruling appears to be internally

inconsistent. The Court notes, however, that the Magistrate Judge has currently pending

before him defendants’ motion to modify the October 17, 2007 Order. Defendants’ motion

overlaps somewhat with the arguments made by plaintiff here, at least to the extent that

plaintiff argues that the court’s reasons for denying some of defendants’ requests apply

equally to the part of defendants’ motion the court granted. Accordingly, the Court will

vacate the Magistrate Judge’s ruling on defendants’ motion to compel responses to

Case 3:06-cv-03723-CRB Document 126 Filed 11/26/07 Page 2 of 3
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

G:\CRBALL\2006\3723\orderreobjection1.wpd 3

defendants’ document request nos. 3, 6, 8, 12, 14 and 16 to enable the Magistrate Judge to

reconsider the ruling in connection with defendants’ motion to modify. In so doing, the

Court is not expressing an opinion as to whether the motion to compel should have been

granted; rather, the Court is vacating the ruling to give the Magistrate Judge the opportunity

to make the ruling consistent with all of his opinions on defendants’ motion to compel.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 26, 2007 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-03723-CRB Document 126 Filed 11/26/07 Page 3 of 3