Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-00239/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-00239-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection 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

*E-filed 1/27/06*

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

ELIZABETH TREVINO and YADIRA RIOS,

on behalf of themselves and all others similarly

situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ACB AMERICAN, INC., HILCO

RECEIVABLES, LLC, B. MASTERS and

K. FRANCIS,

Defendants.

 /

Case No. C05-00239 JF (HRL)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS'

MOTIONS TO COMPEL DISCOVERY

On January 24, 2006, this court heard plaintiffs' motions to compel further discovery

responses and production of documents. Based on the papers submitted and the arguments of

counsel, the court issues the following order.

I. Background

Elizabeth Trevino ("Trevino") and Yadira Rios ("Rios") (collectively, "plaintiffs"), on

behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, filed a complaint on January 14, 2005,

alleging that defendants ACB American, Inc. ("ACB") and Hilco Receivables LLC ("Hilco")

(collectively, "defendants") violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") and its

California State counterpart, the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, by sending debt

collection letters that threatened legal action which defendants did in fact not intend to take.

Case 5:05-cv-00239-JF Document 53 Filed 01/27/06 Page 1 of 12
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

Hilco Receivables buys bulk debt from credit card agencies and other creditors at a

discount price. It then contracts with collection agencies like ACB to actually collect on the

debts. Hilco owns Trevino's debt and contracted with ACB to collect it. ACB is also the

authorized collector of that Rios' debt, but the debt is owned by a creditor other than Hilco.

In the complaint, plaintiffs defined two putative classes: (1) California residents who

were sent a collection letter by defendants in a form substantially similar to Exhibit B attached

to the complaint during the year prior to the filing of the action; and (2) California residents

who were sent a collection letter by defendants in a form substantially similar to Exhibits D and

E attached to the complaint during the year prior to the filing of the action. As of the date of

this order, plaintiffs have not filed a motion for class certification.

Plaintiffs seek to compel Hilco and ACB to respond further to certain interrogatories,

requests for admissions, and requests for production of documents on the theory that such

discovery supports the individual and class claims, and is needed for class certification. 

Defendants argue that class discovery is premature because plaintiffs have not yet moved to

certify the class, and object on a host of other grounds.

III. Discussion

A. Numerical Limits on Interrogatories (Hilco Interrogatory nos. 3, 4, 7, 14, 15,

27, 28; ACB Interrogatory nos. 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15)

Defendants object to numerous interrogatories as compound, and several others as over

plaintiffs' 25 interrogatory limit, in violation of Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a). That rule states: "any

party may serve upon any other party written interrogatories, not exceeding 25 in number,

including all discrete subparts." Although the term "discrete subparts" does not have a precise

meaning, courts generally agree that "interrogatory subparts are to be counted as one

interrogatory . . . if they are logically or factually subsumed within and necessarily related to the

primary question." Safeco of America v. Rawston, 181 F.R.D. 441, 445 (C.D. Cal. 1998), citing

Kendall v. GES Exposition Services, 174 F.R.D. 684 (D. Nev. 1997).

Plaintiffs' interrogatories fall, for the most part, squarely into this definition. For

example, Hilco Interrogatory no. 3 asks: "Identify by caption, court, civil action number, and

Case 5:05-cv-00239-JF Document 53 Filed 01/27/06 Page 2 of 12
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

3

result all litigation filed against you alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices

Act." These subparts are not "discrete" under Rule 33(a)—they are subsumed within and

related to the primary question. However, some of plaintiffs' interrogatories are compound

within the meaning of Rule 33(a). For example, Hilco Interrogatory no. 4 and ACB no. 5 ask: 

Identify each person whom you expect to call as an expert witness at trial, state

the subject matter on which the expert is expected to testify and the substance of

the facts and opinions to which the expert is expected to testify, and provide a

summary of the grounds for each opinion and the expert's qualifications.

This looks to the court to be three separate interrogatories. Likewise, Hilco Interrogatory nos.

14 and 15 and ACB no. 9 are really two discrete subparts each and ACB nos. 11, 12 and 13 are

really three discrete subparts each.

This does not mean that defendant can avoid answering these interrogatories. According

to the Federal Rules, each plaintiff may serve each defendant with 25 interrogatories. Here,

adding together the subparts of the interrogatories discussed above, plus Hilco Interrogatory

nos. 26, 27, and 28 (not compound but over the 25 interrogatory limit), plaintiffs have jointly

served 32 interrogatories on Hilco and 34 on ACB. The court will treat the first 25

interrogatories as served by plaintiff Trevino. The next 12 against Hilco and 14 against ACB

will be treated as served by plaintiff Rios. 

Accordingly, defendants' "compound" objections are overruled and they must provide

complete responses to any interrogatories or subparts they refused to answer on these grounds,

particularly Hilco Interrogatory nos. 7 and 15 and ACB Interrogatory no. 8.

B. "Class-Related Discovery" (Hilco Interrogatory nos. 17, 18, 19, 23, 24; ACB

Interrogatory nos. 11, 12, 13, 15, 20, 21; ACB RFP nos. 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35)

Several of plaintiffs' discovery requests seek information about the number of persons in

California and nationwide who were sent letters similar to those received by plaintiffs and the

number of persons against whom defendants instituted litigation or arbitration proceedings

during the year prior to filing the action. Plaintiffs also seek information about how many of

these collection efforts were for debts under $500.00.

//

Case 5:05-cv-00239-JF Document 53 Filed 01/27/06 Page 3 of 12
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

Defendants object to these requests because they seek (1) information about a class that

has not yet been certified, and (2) on a nationwide scale even though plaintiffs defined the

putative class as California residents only. Defendants further object to requests related to the

Exhibit C as irrelevant because plaintiffs do not allege that Exhibit C violates the FDCPA. 

Hilco individually responds that it is not involved in the sending letters to debtors—it

contracts with companies like ACB to do so. It also claims it has not "caused" litigation to be

instituted against any debtors—rather, it "relies on recommendations from independent agents

as to whether legal proceedings are commenced."

Contrary to defendants' argument, there is no hard and fast rule that discovery relating to

class issues is not proper before class certification has been filed or granted. If defendants want

bifurcated discovery, they must secure it from the trial court. In the meantime, discovery

pertaining to the class may proceed. Defendants are correct, however, that discovery should be

limited to class members within the state of California. Until the class is certified, the operative

definition of the putative class is in the complaint, and defendants do not have to provide

information about persons outside California who were sent collection letters. Defendants are

also correct that information about Exhibit C is irrelevant. Accordingly, plaintiff's motions as to

Hilco Interrogatory no. 18 and ACB Interrogatory nos. 12 and 15 are denied.

Hilco's answers to the remaining requests here being considered were non-responsive. It

was asked to "State the number of people . . . who were sent a letter," not "how many letters did

you send." Moreover, the "Recovery Agreement" between Hilco and ACB attached to

plaintiffs' motion states that Hilco must agree in writing before any legal action can be

commenced on its behalf. However, at the hearing, counsel for defendants represented that

Hilco has no information about the number of people in California who received the letters and

that it has not commenced arbitration or litigation against any California debtors who received

the letters within the relevant time period. Accordingly, plaintiffs' motion as to Hilco

Interrogatory nos. 17, 19, 23, 24 is denied as moot.

//

//

Case 5:05-cv-00239-JF Document 53 Filed 01/27/06 Page 4 of 12
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

ACB RFP nos. 31 and 34 appear to be exact duplicates of RFP nos. 30 and 33, respectively. 

Accordingly, defendant is not required to respond to ACB RFP nos. 31 and 34.

5

ACB responded to Interrogatory no. 11 that 500 persons in California were sent a letter

in the form of Exhibit B. ACB must still provide information about whether Exhibit B is still in

use by ACB or its affiliates or subsidiaries.

ACB responded to Interrogatory no. 13 that 5000 persons in California were sent a letter

in the form of Exhibits D or E. ACB must still provide information about whether Exhibits D

and E are still in use by ACB or its affiliates or subsidiaries.

ACB Interrogatory nos. 20 and 21 seek information relating to the number of persons

who were sent Exhibit E in an attempt to collect a debt under $500, and the number of such

persons against whom litigation was commenced. ACB refused to respond to on grounds of

irrelevance. These questions are directly relevant to plaintiffs' claims. Accordingly, ACB must

respond to ACB Interrogatory nos 20 and 21 as to individuals in California only.

ACB RFP nos. 30 through 35 request copies of all complaints and arbitration demands

filed by ACB against debtors who received the disputed letters (B, D, and E) during the year

prior to the filing of the present claim. These requests are directly related to the class claims. 

Accordingly, ACB must produce documents responsive to ACB RFP nos. 30, 32, 33 and 35 as

to California residents only.

1

C. Discovery Related to Prior Claims (Hilco Interrogatory nos. 3, 14; RFP nos.

2, 3, 4, 22, 23, 24, 37 and ACB Interrogatory nos. 4, 9; RFP nos. 2, 3, 4, 23,

24, 25)

These discovery requests seek information relating to prior FDCPA claims filed against

defendants, FDCPA litigation and arbitration involving defendants, attorney demand letters sent

to defendants, and Federal Trade commission opinions regarding defendants' collection efforts.

Plaintiffs seek copies of all documents and pleadings relevant to such cases, copies of any

depositions of defendants' personnel, and all discovery produced by defendant Hilco in the case,

Scally v. Hilco Receivables in the Northern District of Illinois.

//

//

Case 5:05-cv-00239-JF Document 53 Filed 01/27/06 Page 5 of 12
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 See 15 U.S.C.A. § 1692k(c): 

A debt collector may not be held liable in any action brought under this subchapter if the debt

collector shows by a preponderance of evidence that the violation was not intentional and

resulted from a bona fide error notwithstanding the maintenance of procedures reasonably

adapted to avoid any such error.

3

In addition to defendants' "bona fide error" affirmative defense, defendants' "Fifth Affirmative

Defense" states: "These Defendants allege that all of their actions at issue in this matter were taken in good faith

and with a reasonable belief that such actions were lawful." Defendants have not informed the court whether

they in fact intend to pursue these defenses.

4

The request for Scally discovery appears as Hilco Interrogatory no. 37 in plaintiff's first set of

discovery requests. It is incorrectly listed as no. 29 in plaintiffs' moving papers. 

6

Plaintiffs argue that such discovery is directly relevant to defendants' assertion of "bona

fide error" and "good faith" affirmative defenses in its answer.2

 Conversely, defendants argue

that such discovery is overly broad and irrelevant to these plaintiffs.

In their answer to the complaint, defendants claim that they had a good faith belief that

their collection efforts were lawful.3 While plaintiffs' requests may be phrased too broadly,

information relating to whether or not defendants had claims filed against them, participated in

litigation or arbitration, or received demand letters from attorneys about the legality of this

particular type of collection effort under the FDCPA is relevant and must be disclosed. 

Accordingly, in response to Hilco Interrogatory no. 3 and RFP nos. 22 and 23 and ACB

RFP nos. 23 and 24, defendants must identify the caption, court, civil action number, result, and

name of plaintiff's attorney. Plaintiffs can obtain the actual documents through their own effort. 

If the documents are not available in the public record, they may renew their motion at a later

date upon a better showing.

In response to Hilco RFP no. 24 and ACB RFP no. 25, defendants must provide the date

of the letter, the name of the attorney, and the result.

It is more difficult to find relevancy in plaintiffs' requests for copies of depositions of

defendants' personnel and all discovery from the Scally case.4

 These requests are without

limitation as to subject matter and may implicate confidential third-party information. 

Moreover, at the hearing, counsel for defendants represented that the only discovery produced

by Hilco in the Scally case was a "Recovery Agreement" between Hilco and the authorized debt

Case 5:05-cv-00239-JF Document 53 Filed 01/27/06 Page 6 of 12
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

These disclosures will be subject to the stipulated protective order discussed below. 

7

collector in that case (not ACB). Plaintiffs have not adequately demonstrated the relevance of

this information. 

Accordingly, plaintiffs' motions are denied with respect to Hilco Interrogatory no. 14

and RFP nos. 2, 3, 4, and 37 and ACB Interrogatory no. 9 and RFP nos. 2, 3, 4, without

prejudice and may be renewed upon a better showing.

D. Expert Witness Discovery (Hilco Interrogatory no. 4; ACB Interrogatory

no. 5)

Plaintiffs seek information relating to all expert witnesses defendants intend to call at

trial and the opinions those experts plan to offer. As noted above, case management dates have

not yet been set in this case. Disclosure of expert witnesses and reports is routinely done on

dates set by the trial court, or pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2), 90 days before trial. 

Accordingly, plaintiff's motions as to Hilco Interrogatory no. 4 and ACB Interrogatory

no. 5 are denied.

E. Discovery Related to Damages (Hilco Interrogatory no. 16; ACB

Interrogatory no. 10; Hilco and ACB RFA nos. 1-9; Hilco and ACB RFP

nos. 8, 19)

Plaintiffs seek information about defendants' net worth, and the production of financial

statements and tax returns for the last three years and two years, respectively.

The FDCPA explicitly states that damages in a class action case may be calculated

based on defendants' net worth. See 15 U.S.C. §1692k(a). Therefore, such information is

relevant, and potentially useful in determining whether this case is appropriate for class

certification. 

Accordingly, defendants are ordered to produce complete annual financial statements for

the past three years, including, but not limited to, balance sheets, and profit and loss statements

with notes.

5

 Plaintiffs' motions to compel the production of tax returns are denied without

prejudice and may be renewed later upon a better showing.

//

//

Case 5:05-cv-00239-JF Document 53 Filed 01/27/06 Page 7 of 12
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

8

F. The "Recovery Agreement" (ACB RFP no. 22)

In response to one or more of the discovery requests, defendants produced a "Recovery

Agreement" between ACB and Hilco detailing the companies' business relationship. The

document was heavily redacted before disclosure. Defendants claim they redacted the

Agreement to protect confidential financial information and trade secrets—particularly, Hilco's

work standards and arrangements with its contractor collection agencies.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(7) states that a party may obtain a protective order to protect “trade

secrets or other confidential research, development, or commercial information.” To obtain a

protective order based upon a trade secret, the party seeking protection “must first establish that

the information sought is a trade secret and then demonstrate that its disclosure might be

harmful.” Centurion Industries Inc. v. Warren Steurer & Assocs., 665 F.2d 323, 325 (10th Cir.

1981). The burden then shifts to the party seeking the discovery to demonstrate that the

information is relevant and “necessary to prepare the case for trial.” In re Remington Arms Co..

Inc., 952 F.2d 1029, 1032 (8th Cir. 1991). The court must then weigh the risk of disclosure of

the trade secret to unauthorized parties with the risk that a protective order will impede

prosecution or defense of the claims. Id. Once the moving party has established relevance and

necessity, “‘the discovery is virtually always ordered.’” Compaq Computer Corp., 163 F.R.D.

329, 338 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (citing Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Coca-Cola Co., 107 F.R.D. 288,

293 (D. Del. 1985)).

Actually, defendants have offered no evidence that the redacted information is a trade

secret. Moreover, plaintiffs are not competitors of defendants, so with a stipulated protective

order in place, there is virtually no risk that defendants' "secrets" will be disclosed. Moreover, 

the relationship between ACB and Hilco and the operating procedures included in the

Agreement are directly relevant to this case, particularly whether defendants had in place

procedures to ensure their compliance with the FDCPA. At the hearing, both parties

represented that they are familiar with the standard Northern District of California protective

order and willing to stipulate to such an order in this case. Accordingly, the parties must have a

Case 5:05-cv-00239-JF Document 53 Filed 01/27/06 Page 8 of 12
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

6

See ACB's response to RFP no. 18, in particular.

7

ACB Interrogatory no. 24 is mistakenly identified in plaintiffs' moving papers as no. 25.

9

protective order submitted for the court's approval within two weeks from the date of this order. 

Thereafter, defendants must produce an unredacted version of the Agreement.

G. Attorney-Client Privilege and the Work Product Doctrine

Defendants objected to numerous discovery requests on the basis of attorney-client

privilege or the work product doctrine.6 If they in fact withheld discovery on these grounds,

defendants must produce a privilege log detailing all such documents. The log should conform

to the guidelines set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See, e.g., FED. R. CIV. P.

26(b), advisory committee notes to 1993 amendments ("the party must provide sufficient

information to enable other parties to evaluate the applicability of the claimed privilege or

protection").

H. The Relationship Between Defendants (Hilco Interrogatory nos. 25, 27, 28;

RFP nos. 13, 15, 25, 26; ACB Interrogatory nos. 22, 23, 24, 25; RFP nos. 13,

15)

Several discovery requests seek information about the relationship between the

defendants and any documents and communications transmitted between defendants. 

Hilco Interrogatory no. 25 and RFP nos. 13 and 15 and ACB Interrogatory nos. 22 and

23 and RFP nos. 13 and 15 seek all correspondence, documents, database entries or system

notes that refer or relate to any communications between Hilco and ACB regarding plaintiffs

and their debts. Defendants represent that they have produced all information responsive to

these requests. Accordingly, plaintiffs' motions as to Hilco Interrogatory no. 25 and RFP nos.

13 and 15 and ACB Interrogatory nos. 22 and 23 and RFP nos. 13 and 15 are denied as moot.

Hilco Interrogatory no. 27 and RFP no. 26 and ACB Interrogatory no. 24 seek all

communications between Hilco and ACB.7 This request is overly broad. Only communications

relating to either named plaintiffs, their debts, or collection letters like Exhibits B, D, and E are

relevant and must be produced. Since defendants represent that they have produced all

responsive documents, plaintiffs' motions as to Hilco Interrogatory no. 27 and RFP no. 26 and

ACB Interrogatory no. 24 are denied as moot. 

Case 5:05-cv-00239-JF Document 53 Filed 01/27/06 Page 9 of 12
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

8

This interrogatory was mistakenly numbered as the second "no. 23" in plaintiffs' first set of discovery

requests. In plaintiffs' moving papers, this request was identified as no. 24, which actually corresponds to a

different request. This interrogatory should properly be no. 25.

10

Hilco Interrogatory 28 asks defendants to describe the authority that Hilco gave to ACB

to negotiate debts on its behalf. This question is relevant and defendants must respond.

Hilco RFP no. 25 seeks copies of any insurance policies or indemnification agreements

regarding Hilco and its debt collection activities, letter writing agreements and/or violations of

the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. At the hearing, counsel for defendants represented that

they have produced all responsive documents. Accordingly, plaintiffs' motion as to Hilco RFP

no. 25 is denied as moot.

One of the ACB RFP's seeks information on what percentage of ACB's debt collection

activities are derived from Hilco and its related companies.8

 This request is relevant and ACB

must respond.

I. Operation Manuals, Memos and Procedures (Hilco and ACB RFP nos. 9,

10, 20, 21)

These requests seek defendants' internal reports, memos, operation manuals and

procedures on the use of the collection notices and related collection efforts, and any procedures

meant to ensure compliance with the FDCPA.

ACB responds that these requests are vague and overly broad. ACB is correct that the

term "related collection efforts" is vague and perhaps irrelevant. However, internal reports,

memos, operation manuals and procedures on the use of the collection notices and how to

ensure that those notices comply with the FDCPA are relevant to this case, particularly to the

defendants' asserted good faith defenses. Nonetheless, ACB represents that it does "not have

any written documents reflecting procedures on how to draft letters which [do] not violate the

FDCPA." Accordingly, plaintiffs motion as to ACB RFP nos. 9, 10, 20, 21 is denied as moot.

Hilco responds to these requests stating that it does not perform debt collection activities

and therefore has no such documents. This response is evasive. The mere fact that Hilco does

not perform actual debt collection activities does not mean that it does not have procedures in

Case 5:05-cv-00239-JF Document 53 Filed 01/27/06 Page 10 of 12
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 9

 Hilco's "Recovery Agreement" demonstrates that it in fact does have some such procedures in place. 

11

place regarding the use of debt collection letters and FDCPA compliance.9 Accordingly, Hilco

must provide an amended response to Hilco RFP nos. 9, 10, 20 and 21. 

J. Hilco and ACB RFP no. 1

According to plaintiffs' moving papers, defendants stated that the contract between

Hilco and MNBA, another creditor, might be responsive to this discovery request but it has not

yet been produced. However, at the hearing, counsel for defendants clarified that the relevant

document was a contract between plaintiff and MNBA. Based on this representation, counsel

for plaintiffs agreed not to pursue this request further. 

K. ACB's Correspondence With Plaintiffs (ACB RFP nos. 11 and 12)

These requests seek all documents transmitted by ACB or on ACB's behalf to both

named plaintiffs. ACB represents that it has produced all responsive documents. Accordingly,

plaintiffs' motion as to ACB RFP nos. 11 and 12 is denied as moot.

IV. ORDER

Plaintiffs' motions to compel are granted in part and denied in part. The parties shall

have a stipulated protective order filed with the court for approval no later than two weeks from

the date of this order. Defendants are ordered to produce information and documents pursuant

to this order no later than February 17, 2006.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 1/27/06 /s/ Howard R. Lloyd 

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:05-cv-00239-JF Document 53 Filed 01/27/06 Page 11 of 12
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

12

THIS SHALL CERTIFY THAT A COPY OF THIS ORDER WILL BE SENT TO:

Brian Lewis Bromberg brian@brianbromberg.com

Jeanine K. Clasen jclasen@mpbf.com, npruitt@mpbf.com, jmueller@mpbf.com

June D. Coleman jcoleman@mpbf.com, fwilson@mpbf.com

Mark Ewell Ellis mellis@mpbf.com, lmiller@mpbf.com

Allison Amy Krumhorn allison@caclawyers.com

Lance A. Raphael lar@caclawyers.com

Ronald Wilcox ronaldwilcox@post.harvard.edu

* Counsel are responsible for providing copies of this order to co-counsel.

Dated: 1/27/06

 /s/ RNR 

 Chambers of Magistrate Judge Lloyd

Case 5:05-cv-00239-JF Document 53 Filed 01/27/06 Page 12 of 12