Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-00239/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-00239-8/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 2/17/06*

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 RE: PROTECTIVE ORDER

I. Background

A recent discovery dispute between the parties concerned the production of certian

"confidential" information. At the hearing on the motion to compel, both parties represented

that they would stipulate to the "standard" protective order used in this District. Accordingly,

the court's discovery order of January 27, 2006 required the parties to enter into a stipulated

protective order.

On February 11, 2006, defendants filed a "Response to Magistrate Lloyd's January 27,

2006 order" in which they stated that the parties had reached an impasse in their negotiations

over the stipulated protective order. Apparently, the standard protective order available on the

District Court website has "optional" provisions that the parties cannot agree on. Defendants

want the inclusion of optional provision 7.4, which sets out a procedure that must be followed

Case 5:05-cv-00239-JF Document 68 Filed 02/17/06 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

before confidential discovery may be turned over to an expert. They are concerned that,

without provision 7.4, it will be difficult to enforce compliance with the protective order against

an out-of-state expert. Defendants requested that the court enter their proposed protective with

provision 7.4.

On February 13, 2006, plaintiffs filed their own "Letter Brief Regarding the Protective

Order." Plaintiffs stated that they believed optional provision 7.4 added overly complicated and

unnecessary procedures to the litigation. They asserted that the protective order provides

adequate protection without the additional requirements. Plaintiffs requested that the court

enter their proposed protective order without provision 7.4 (but was in all other respects

identical to defendants' proposal).

Having reviewed both iterations of the protective order, the court believes that there is

adequate protection without the addition of provision 7.4. The protective order already requires

(in provision 7.2(c)) all experts who receive confidential information to sign an

"Acknowledgment and Agreement to be Bound" by the protective order. The Agreement

specifically states: "I further submit to the jurisdiction of the United States District Court of the

Northern District of California for the purpose of enforcing the terms of this Stipulated

Protective Order, even if such enforcement proceedings occur after termination of this action." 

Because the court believes that this explicit consent to jurisdiction provides the parties

with adequate means to enforce the protective order against out-of-state experts, if necessary,

the court will enter the protective order without provision 7.4, as submitted by plaintiffs.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 2/17/06 /s/ Howard R. Lloyd 

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:05-cv-00239-JF Document 68 Filed 02/17/06 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

3

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: 2/17/06

 /s/ RNR 

 Chambers of Magistrate Judge Lloyd

Case 5:05-cv-00239-JF Document 68 Filed 02/17/06 Page 3 of 3