Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-02280/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-02280-8/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 7/20/06*

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

RICHARD L. CARRIZOSA, et al., 

Plaintiffs,

 v.

PAUL R. STASSINOS, et al.,

Defendants. /

NO. C 05-2280 RMW (RS)

ORDER RE PROTECTIVE

ORDER

On June 6, 2006, the Court entered an order directing, among other things, that “[t]he parties

shall meet and confer to negotiate a protective order to address any confidentiality concerns.” Given

that the parties previously stipulated to entry of protective order entered in the related case, 04-3026

RMW (RS), the Court anticipated that this would be a routine matter, and that a similar, if not

identical from of general protective order would promptly be jointly submitted by the parties for

entry in this action. 

Defendants have now instead filed an “ex parte application for a protective order, or

alternatively ex parte order for an order shortening time to hear a motion for protective order.” 

Defendants have presented no grounds for bringing an “ex parte application” as that term is used in

the Local Civil Rules, See Local Civil Rule 7-10. As defendants’ papers were filed electronically,

however, plaintiffs have received notice, and the application was not made “ex parte” within the

Case 5:05-cv-02280-RMW Document 96 Filed 07/20/06 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

meaning of Rule 7-10. Construing defendants’ request as a motion under Local Rule 6-3 for an

order shortening time, the Court concludes that this matter should be resolved expeditiously and

without protracted briefing or a hearing. Accordingly, pursuant to Local Rule 6-3 (d), Plaintiffs are

directed to file within 10 court days a brief, not exceeding five pages in length, explaining any

reasons they may have as to why the Court should not enter a protective order in this action identical

in form to the order entered in the related action. Alternatively, and preferably, the parties shall

submit a stipulated form of protective order within that same time period, and they are hereby

directed to engage in further meet and confer discussions in an attempt to do so.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 20, 2006 

RICHARD SEEBORG

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:05-cv-02280-RMW Document 96 Filed 07/20/06 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 IS TO CERTIFY THAT NOTICE OF THIS ORDER HAS BEEN GIVEN TO:

Paul Arons lopa@rockisland.com

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

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

npruitt@mpbf.com

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

Candace M. Pagliero cpagliero@paglierolaw.com

James Raymond Pagliero jpagliero@paglierolaw.com

Frederick William Schwinn cand_cmecf@sjconsumerlaw.com,

fred.schwinn@sjconsumerlaw.com; fschwinn@gmail.com

Thomas Mark Smith msmith@clifford-brownlaw.com, bpowers@clifford-brownlaw.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. 

Dated: 7/20/06 Chambers of Judge Richard Seeborg

By: /s/ BAK 

Case 5:05-cv-02280-RMW Document 96 Filed 07/20/06 Page 3 of 3