Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-02485/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-02485-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 371
Nature of Suit: Truth in Lending
Cause of Action: 15:1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act

---

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 The Experian credit reporting agency was formerly a party to this action.

*E-filed 6/28/06* 

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

SHERYL MOULTON,

Plaintiff,

 v.

AMERICREDIT FINANCIAL SERVICES,

INC., doing business in California as ACF

FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., TRANS

UNION, LLC, EQUIFAX INFORMATION

SERVICES, LLC, CITIBANK (SOUTH

DAKOTA), N.A. AND DOES 1-50,

Defendants. /

No. C04-02485 JW (HRL)

ORDER

1) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING

IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO

COMPEL AND PLAINTIFF'S MOTION

FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER,

2) DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO

STRIKE, AND

3) DENYING ALL MOTIONS FOR

SANCTIONS

Plaintiff sues AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc. dba ACF Financial Services, Inc.

(“AmeriCredit”), Trans Union LLC (“Trans Union”), Equifax Information Services LLC

(“Equifax”), Citibank (South Dakota), N.A. (“Citibank”), and Does 1-50 for alleged violations

of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. §1681 et seq. There are two disputed accounts, a

car loan from AmeriCredit and a Citibank account discharged in bankruptcy. Both accounts

appear in reports generated by the credit reporting agency defendants, Trans Union and

Equifax.1

 Plaintiff pleads seven claims for relief under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, two

against the lenders and five against the credit reporting agencies. Plaintiff has, to date,

submitted to two full days of deposition.

Case 5:04-cv-02485-JW Document 201 Filed 06/28/06 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

2

Defendant Trans Union moves to compel plaintiff’s further deposition. Defendants

AmeriCredit and Citibank join in the motion. Rather than “oppose” the motion, plaintiff moves

for a protective order to prevent any further deposition of her. Plaintiff also requests the court

to "strike" certain parts of her deposition testimony she deems privileged, and moves for

sanctions against Trans Union. Also, she asks the court to seal all documents pertaining to her

personal, confidential, financial and medical matters. 

PLAINTIFF’S FURTHER DEPOSITION

A. LEGAL STANDARD

Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(d)(2) states that a deposition is presumptively limited to one day of 

seven hours; however, "[t]he court must allow additional time consistent with Rule 26(b)(2) if

needed for a fair examination of the deponent or if the deponent... impedes or delays the

examination." Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(d)(2). Both a party seeking a protective order and a party

seeking a court order to extend deposition time must demonstrate "good cause." See Fed R.

Civ. P. 26(c); Boston Scientific Corp. v. Cordis Corp., 2004 WL 1945643, *2 (N.D. Cal. 2004).

B. DISCUSSION

Defendants’ motion to compel alleges that plaintiff impeded her deposition with 

evasive and unprepared answers, and therefore a further deposition is necessary for a fair

examination. Plaintiff counters that the deposition only lasted so long because the defendants

harassed her with embarrassing and irrelevant questions. Furthermore, she states, it is

unreasonable to expect her to have memorized all of the details from thousands of documents. 

The court has reviewed plaintiff’s deposition testimony and does not perceive blatant

evasiveness or lack of preparation, particularly given the complexity of the case; therefore, this

line of argument does not entitle defendants to exceed the presumptive seven hour limit. At the

same time, defendants' questions did not clearly cross any lines that would entitle plaintiff to a

protective order.

Defendants also argue that they are entitled to a further deposition because plaintiff

produced new documents immediately prior to her deposition, as well as at the deposition and

even afterwards. Plaintiff testified at her deposition about documents that she had not yet

Case 5:04-cv-02485-JW Document 201 Filed 06/28/06 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 2 Time spent at lunch or on break does not count toward the seven hours.

3

produced to defendants, and alluded to new categories of damages. Additionally, plaintiff filed

a second amended complaint, alleging four additional claims for relief, on the eve of her

deposition. These are good reasons for further deposition. 

The court’s conclusion is not based on defendants' arguments that there are four of them,

some of whom "did not have the opportunity to ask a single question" at plaintiff's deposition. 

Defendants acknowledged at oral argument that they did not confer prior to the deposition in

order to allocate most efficiently the seven hours of deposition to which they were entitled as of

right. Reportedly, there was no discussion with plaintiff’s then-counsel before the deposition

began about how long it would go. (At the end of day one plaintiff’s attorney agreed to day

two.) Defendants acted without foresight or coordination, and seemed to assume that they

could take as much time as they wished. 

 The court ORDERS the plaintiff to submit to one further seven-hour day of deposition.2

 The deposition will take place where plaintiff lives, Reno, Nevada. Each defendant is entitled

to at least one hour of deposition time, with the remaining unused time to be divided between

defendants by agreement.

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE

In a somewhat confused motion, plaintiff requests that the court "strike" allegedly

privileged portions of her deposition testimony and "seal" all records pertaining to personal,

confidential, financial, and medical matters. The motion to strike is DENIED. As for plaintiff's

concerns about confidentiality, the parties stipulated at oral argument to a confidentiality

agreement. The court ORDERS all parties not to use or disclose any information obtained in

discovery except for purposes of the lawsuit. 

///

///

///

///

///

Case 5:04-cv-02485-JW Document 201 Filed 06/28/06 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

MOTIONS FOR SANCTIONS

All motions for sanctions are DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 6/28/06 /s/ Howard R. Lloyd 

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:04-cv-02485-JW Document 201 Filed 06/28/06 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

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT A COPY OF THIS NOTICE WILL BE SENT TO:

Donald E. Bradley d.bradley@mpglaw.com, k.reisner@mpglaw.com 

Steve W. Dollar nritz@eakdl.com 

Amy Greenstein agreenstein@kilpatrickstockton.com, speltier@kilpatrickstockton.com 

Eric J. Gribbin ejg@severson.com, mcl@severson.com 

Andrea Hackett Henningsen ahh@severson.com, axo@severson.com; ejg@severson.com;

mcl@severson.com 

Scott J. Hyman sjh@severson.com, nla@severson.com; mcl@severson.com;

ejg@severson.com 

Andrew W. Moritz Amoritz@Stroock.com, jsepko@stroock.com 

Sheryl Ann Moulton ideasvc@hotmail.com 

Marcos D. Sasso msasso@stroock.com 

Julia B. Strickland jstrickland@stroock.com, 

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.

A courtesy copy will be mailed to:

Christopher J. Battersby 

Musick, Peeler & Garrett LLP

650 Town Center Drive, Suite 1200

Costa Mesa, Ca 92626-1925

Brenton S. Bean 

Kilpatrick Stockton LLP

Suite 2800

1100 Peachtree Street

Atlanta, GA 30309

Dated: 6/28/06 /s/ JMM 

Chambers of Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd

Case 5:04-cv-02485-JW Document 201 Filed 06/28/06 Page 5 of 5