Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-00375/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-00375-5/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 11/7/06* 

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

MICHAEL S. CANLAS, an individual on behalf

of himself and all similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ESKANOS & ADLER, P.C., IRWIN J.

ESKANOS, DONALD R. STEBBINS, JEFF

DANIEL, and JEROME M. YALON, JR.,

individuals,

Defendants.

 /

No. C05-00375 JF (HRL) 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO COMPEL

INTERROGATORIES AND RESPONSE

TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF

DOCUMENTS

[Re: Docket No. 40]

On October 3, 2006, this court heard plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Interrogatories and

Response to Requests for Production of Documents. Defendants opposed the motion. Having

considered the papers filed by the parties, as well as the arguments of counsel, this court issues

the following order.

I. BACKGROUND

This class action was brought pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The

parties filed a joint application for certification of the settlement class and preliminary approval

of the class settlement agreement. In their proposed settlement agreement, the parties agree that

defendants will pay reasonable attorney’s fees and costs to be determined by the court absent an

agreement by the party. Judge Fogel granted preliminary approval of the class settlement in

Case 5:05-cv-00375-JF Document 51 Filed 11/07/06 Page 1 of 4
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

June 2006, and a final approval hearing is set for November 2006. The final approval hearing

and attorney’s fees are the only remaining issues in this case. 

Plaintiff expected opposition to his application for attorney’s fees and costs and served

on defendants a Second Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production, seeking to learn the

time and money expended by defendants in defending this litigation. Defendants objected to

this discovery on several grounds and plaintiff filed this motion to compel.

II. DISCUSSION

This is an uncomplicated case. The Supreme Court has announced a general policy that

“[a] request for attorney’s fees should not result in a second major litigation.” Hensley v.

Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 437 (1983). By considering reasonable local rates and the nature of

the case, the court will be able to decide plaintiff’s fee request without the defense information. 

See Hernandez v. George, 793 F.2d 264, 268 (10th Cir. 1986) (sustaining a trial judge’s

decision not to allow discovery into opposing counsel’s fees and hours where these appeared

particularly irrelevant to plaintiff’s reasonable fees and hours, and where the district judge had

other information available to him about reasonable local rates); Martinez v. Schock Transfer &

Warehouse Co., Inc., 789 F.2d 848, 849 (10th Cir. 1986) (“in uncomplicated cases which take

little trial time the district court normally has a reasonably good idea of the amount of attorney’s

fees which will fairly compensate a party for the extent, quality, and success of his lawyer’s

work”) (citing Gabaldon v. AAA Alarm Co., Inc., No. 81-1016-HB, slip op. at 3 (D.N.M. Dec.

2, 1983). 

Moreover, the Court is not satisfied that the time defendants’ lawyers spent is a useful

measure of the appropriateness of the time plaintiff’s attorney spent. Other courts denying

discovery of defense fees have acknowledged the difference in preparation time for each party.

See Johnson v. Univ. Coll. of Univ. of Ala. in Birmingham, 706 F.2d 1205, 1208 (11th Cir.

1983) (“[t]he amount of hours that is needed by one side to prepare adequately may differ

substantially from that for opposing counsel); Mirabel v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp., 576

F.2d 729, 731 (7th Cir. 1978) (“a given case may have greater precedential value for one side

than the other”).

Case 5:05-cv-00375-JF Document 51 Filed 11/07/06 Page 2 of 4
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

Further, defendants assured the Court that they would not seek to disprove the

credibility of plaintiffs’ fee request by pointing to their own hours.

III. ORDER

Based on the foregoing, it is ordered that plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Interrogatories

and Response to Requests for Production of Documents is DENIED.

Dated: 11/7/06

 /s/ Howard R. Lloyd 

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:05-cv-00375-JF Document 51 Filed 11/07/06 Page 3 of 4
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

Notice will be electronically mailed to:

O. Randolph Bragg rand@horwitzlaw.com, shannon@horwitzlaw.com 

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

William Angelo Munoz wmunoz@mpbf.com 

Ronald Wilcox ronaldwilcox@post.harvard.edu 

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.

Case 5:05-cv-00375-JF Document 51 Filed 11/07/06 Page 4 of 4