Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02807/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02807-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 15:1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act

---

1

16-CV-2807-GPC-WVG

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AHMED S. ADAN, an individual,

Plaintiff,

v.

INSIGHT INVESTIGATIONS, INC., a 

California Corporation; and DOES 1-10 

inclusive,

Defendant.

Case No.: 16-CV-2807-GPC-WVG

ORDER ON JOINT MOTION FOR 

DETERMINATION OF DISCOVERY 

DISPUTE

The parties in the above captioned matter have jointly moved the Court for a 

determination of a discovery dispute. Specifically, the parties’ dispute surrounds the 

depositions of Donna Cotter and Vanessa Cotes.

I. WITNESS DONNA COTTER

Defendant seeks a protective order to limit the questioning by Plaintiff’s counsel of 

Donna Cotter. Defendant argues Plaintiff is seeking to depose Cotter as if she is a person 

most knowledgeable (“PMK”) witness and, although not designated as such, Defendant 

anticipates Plaintiff’s questioning may exceed the bounds of relevancy given that Cotter is 

only a percipient witness having taken only a single phone call from Plaintiff and sent one 

email to him. Plaintiff argues he should not be limited in deposition testimony but rather 

should be allowed to ask any and all questions that are within the bounds of the Federal 

Case 3:16-cv-02807-GPC-WVG Document 28 Filed 06/28/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

16-CV-2807-GPC-WVG

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

Rules of Civil Procedure (“Rules”) and relevancy.

The Rules authorize the Court, upon a showing of good cause, to issue a protective 

order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue 

burden or expense. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1). The party seeking a protective order bears the 

burden of establishing good cause. Rivera v. NIBCO, Inc., 364 F.3d 1057, 1063 (9th Cir. 

2004). Good cause is established where it is specifically demonstrated that disclosure will 

cause a specific prejudice or harm. Id. at 1063-64 (internal quotation and citation omitted). 

Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples or articulated reasoning, 

do not satisfy the Rule 26(c) test. Id. Any protective order that issues must be narrowly 

tailored. In re Bofl Holding, Inc. Securities Litigation, 318 F.R.D. 129, 133 (S.D. Cal. 

2016.)

Defendant has not demonstrated any specific prejudice or harm but rather has made 

broad allegations of potential harm. Given this, Defendant has not satisfied the Rule 26(c) 

test. Accordingly, Defendant’s motion for a protective order is DENIED. Since Cotter is a 

percipient witness, she may be questioned as such. Of course, Cotter may be examined 

about whether she followed company policy and procedure in taking the call and sending 

the email, but she is not a PMK and efforts by Plaintiff to expand her testimony into areas 

rightfully in the realm of a PMK are prohibited. The Court further admonishes the parties

to follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure regarding the relevance and time restrictions

of depositions.

II. WITNESS VANESSA COATES

Defendant seeks a protective order to bar the deposing of Vanesa Coates. Defendant 

argues Coates deposition is irrelevant and unduly burdensome. Defendant stated during the 

status conference that under no uncertain terms did Coats have any involvement in the 

auditing process during the time period relevant to the case. Further, Defendant claims that 

Plaintiff could have acquired the same discovery through other means of discovery such as 

written interrogatories or asking more specific questions of the PMK during his or her 

deposition (but did not). Defendant claims these other forms of discovery are far less 

Case 3:16-cv-02807-GPC-WVG Document 28 Filed 06/28/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

16-CV-2807-GPC-WVG

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

burdensome and would reveal the same information sought by Plaintiff.

Plaintiff seeks to depose Coates because Plaintiff believes she has knowledge of 

Defendant’s operating procedures, specifically auditing. Plaintiff claims that although at 

least one other witness has testified that Coates was not an auditor for the time frame in 

question, Plaintiff has a right to ask Coates herself when she started that position.

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorize the Court, upon a showing of good 

cause, to issue a protective order to protect a party or person from annoyance, 

embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1). The party 

seeking a protective order bears the burden of establishing good cause. Rivera, 364 F.3d 

at1063. In assessing the motion, “the court should balance the costs and burdens to each 

side.” U.S. v. $160,066.98 from Bank of Am., 202 F.R.D. 624, 626 (S.D. Cal. 2001).

On balance, Defendant has shown there is a far less burdensome discovery method 

by which Plaintiff can acquire the information sought. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS

Defendants motion for protective order barring the deposition of Coates.

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:16-cv-02807-GPC-WVG Document 28 Filed 06/28/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

16-CV-2807-GPC-WVG

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

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

(1) Defendants motion for a protective order regarding Donna Cotter is DENIED;

(2) Defendants motion for a protective order regarding Vanessa Coates is 

GRANTED;

(3) Plaintiff may propound interrogatories regarding Vanessa Coates on Defendant, 

allowing time for Defendant to respond prior to the fact discovery deadline;

(4) Defendant shall respond to any interrogatories regarding Vanessa Coates within 

two (2) business days of service; and

(3) The July 7, 2017 fact discovery deadline remains in effect.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 28, 2017

Case 3:16-cv-02807-GPC-WVG Document 28 Filed 06/28/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4