Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-00239/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-00239-5/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 2/9/06*

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)

INTERIM ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS'

REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF 

DISCOVERY ORDER

On February 6, 2006, defendants filed two documents with the court: (1) "Defendants'

Objections to Magistrate's January 27, 2006 Order . . . and Motion for De Novo Determination

and Motion for Expansion of the Record," and (2) "Defendants' Request for Clarification as to

Order Re: Motions to Compel or in the Alternative, Request for Permission to File Motion for

Reconsideration." The court understands these filings represent defendants' (1) request to this

court to "clarify" its January 27, 2006 discovery order, andm, (2) in the alternative, objections to

that order addressed to the trial court. 

Specifically, defendants request clarification on three issues: (1) the intended temporal

scope for the court's order that defendants provide information related to prior claims, litigation,

and attorney demand letters; (2) whether the court's ruling with respect to Hilco Interrogatory

no. 24 should be changed in light of the fact that the court may have misunderstood defendants'

Case 5:05-cv-00239-JF Document 57 Filed 02/09/06 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

representations about not having commenced litigation or arbitration against California debtors

during the relevant time period; and (3) whether footnote 9 of the order constitutes a "factual

determination," and if so, whether that factual determination is proper.

This court is willing to consider amending the January 27, 2006 order as to these three

issues upon further briefing by both parties. Accordingly, plaintiffs shall file an opposition or

response to defendants' request no later than February 13, 2006. Defendants may file a reply no

later than February 15, 2006. The matter will be deemed submitted on the papers unless

otherwise ordered by the Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 2/9/06 /s/ Howard R. Lloyd 

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:05-cv-00239-JF Document 57 Filed 02/09/06 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: 2/9/06

 /s/ RNR 

 Chambers of Magistrate Judge Lloyd

Case 5:05-cv-00239-JF Document 57 Filed 02/09/06 Page 3 of 3