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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MITZIE PEREZ, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., 

Defendant. 

Case No.17-cv-00454-MMC (EDL) 

ORDER ON DISCOVERY DISPUTES 

FOLLOWING JANUARY 9, 2018 

HEARING 

Re: Dkt. Nos. 96, 97 

On January 9, 2018, the Court held a telephonic hearing with the parties regarding their 

discovery disputes involving Plaintiffs’ objections to Defendant’s subpoena to non-party Eric 

Samaniego and Defendant’s objections to Plaintiffs’ responses and objections to its document 

requests and interrogatories. For the reasons stated on the record and summarized below, the 

Court resolved those disputes as follows. 

With respect to Defendant’s subpoena to Mr. Samaniego, the Court invokes its authority 

under Rule 26(c) and issues a protective order forbidding the discovery by quashing the subpoena. 

As currently drafted, the discovery sought in the subpoena is significantly overbroad and not 

narrowly tailored to avoid undue burden on a non-party. The parties are ordered to further meet 

and confer on ways to narrow the requests to seek only relevant information that bears on the 

parties’ claims and defenses and is proportionate to Mr. Samaniego’s role as a non-party to this 

case. For example, Defendant’s subpoena is disproportionate to the extent it requires Mr. 

Samaniego to produce documents that are already in the possession of a party to this case. Thus, 

if Defendant continues to seek communications or other documents exchanged between itself and 

Mr. Samaniego, Defendant is only entitled to obtain unique documents that it does not already 

have in its possession. To facilitate a response to such a request, Defendant would be required to 

inform Mr. Samaniego of the documents that it already has. The same limitation applies to 
2 

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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

Defendant’s request for any communications or documents exchanged between Plaintiff Rodas 

and Mr. Samaniego. Further, it was confirmed during the hearing that Defendant already has a 

copy of Mr. Samaniego’s credit score from around the time of Plaintiff Rodas’s credit application, 

which appears to demonstrate his viability as a co-signer. If Defendant seeks additional 

information about his creditworthiness as a co-signer, it needs to articulate a basis that justifies 

that additional discovery. The parties should consider this discussion and the additional guidance 

the Court provided during the hearing with respect to any further subpoena served on Mr. 

Samaniego or any other non-party. 

The Court also considered the parties’ disputes regarding Defendant’s objections to 

Plaintiffs’ responses and objections to certain document requests and interrogatories. The 

discovery requests at issue sought three main categories of documents and information, which the 

Court addresses in turn. 

First, Defendant sought documents and information regarding Plaintiffs’ credit history: 

Document Request No. 10: Any application for credit that You 

submitted to any entity in the last four years and all documents 

related thereto, including any notifications of approval or denial. 

Interrogatory No. 5: Identify each instance in which You sought 

credit from any entity in the last four years. For each such instance, 

identify the type of credit sought, the date on which you made the 

credit application, the outcome of the credit application, and all 

persons with whom you communicated regarding the credit 

application. 

 To date, Plaintiffs have provided responses to the interrogatory that provide information 

about credit applications they made as a result of Defendant’s denial of their applications. 

Plaintiffs have also produced some documents associated with these credit applications, but 

Plaintiffs’ counsel represented that they are not able to produce all related documents because they 

were not always retained. The Court orders Plaintiffs to complete their search for documents that 

are responsive to Document Request No. 10, and then send a written statement to Defendant 

within two weeks of this order that confirms that they have completed their search for these 

documents and commits to produce any additional responsive documents that are located by 

February 1, 2018. 
3 

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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

 Defendant also seeks documents and information about any other credit applications that 

Plaintiffs made to other lending institutions around the same time as they submitted their 

applications with Defendant but before Defendant denied those applications. Defendant’s stated 

purpose for requesting these documents is that it needs to create a benchmark for the terms of the 

credit that it would have offered notwithstanding the allegedly discriminatory policy. Plaintiffs’ 

counsel conceded that this information is relevant to Plaintiff Perez because she did not submit a 

credit application to Defendant. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are ordered to produce responsive 

documents and respond to the interrogatory regarding Plaintiff Perez. 

 Applications made before Plaintiffs’ applications to Defendant are of some (albeit limited) 

relevance, especially if they are close in time, but the burden may also be modest. Thus, the 

parties are also ordered to meet and confer on whether Plaintiffs will produce responsive 

documents for the remaining Plaintiffs and, if so, what the applicable time period for responsive 

documents would be. Any time period should be limited (e.g., three to four months before 

Plaintiffs submitted their applications to Defendant). 

 Second, Defendant seeks Plaintiffs’ credit reports for Plaintiffs and any co-signers who 

were included on their credit applications: 

Document Request No. 6: An authorization for Wells Fargo to 

obtain Your credit report. 

Document Request No. 8: For each person identified as a cosigner in Interrogatory Nos. 3 and 6, please produce an authorization 

for Wells Fargo to obtain the co-signer’s credit report. 

 Defendant claims that it needs credit reports to the present day because that information 

goes to Plaintiffs’ duty to mitigate their damages from Defendant’s allegedly unlawful policy. 

Plaintiff Acosta has alleged that his credit as negatively affected by Defendant’s denial of his 

credit application. Thus, Plaintiff Acosta’s subsequent credit reports are directly relevant to his 

claims and Defendant’s defenses. According to Plaintiffs’ counsel, no other Plaintiff is making a 

similar claim of an adverse effect on his or her credit following Defendant’s denial. As Defendant 

points out, however, subsequent credit reports could be relevant to the question of Plaintiffs’ 

mitigation of damages. Still, as to all Plaintiffs, the request must be narrowly tailored to seek only 
4 

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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

relevant documents. For example, as discussed during the hearing, if a Plaintiff only applied for a 

credit card from Defendant, then a subsequent credit report is only relevant to the extent it 

discloses information about subsequent applications for other credit cards, whereas information 

about unrelated types of credit would not be. Accordingly, the parties are ordered to meet and 

confer to narrow the requests in light of these considerations. 

 Third, Defendant has requested documents related to Plaintiffs’ status under the Deferred 

Action for Childhood Arrivals (“DACA”) program: 

Document Request No. 1: All documents referring to or 

referencing Your DACA status, including your DACA application 

and all documents related thereto. 

Document Request No. 2: All documents referring to Your 

continuing DACA status, and any documents or communications 

discussing whether Your DACA status will or will not continue or 

be renewed. 

 These requests are overbroad as currently drafted. The only DACA-related documents that 

are relevant to the claims and defenses in this case are documents that demonstrate whether 

Plaintiffs were or were not participants in the DACA program and whether their participation 

status has changed since the time of their credit applications with Defendant. 

 Plaintiffs stated that they have provided renewal documents, employment authorizations, 

Social Security cards, approval documents, and communications with the United States 

Citizenship and Immigration Services agency. Plaintiffs stated that they are withholding 

Plaintiffs’ DACA applications, as well as text messages and emails with friends and family 

discussing political activism about and potential changes to the DACA program. These withheld 

documents are not relevant and need not be produced. However, Plaintiffs must provide a letter to 

Defendant that describes the documents that they are withholding, so that Defendant may have an 

opportunity to challenge the decision to withhold any documents it believes it is entitled to 

receive. Moreover, to the extent that Defendant seeks documents showing Plaintiffs’ school and 

employment status, Plaintiffs offered to respond provided that Defendant propounds additional 

requests for those specific documents, which it must do. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 
5 

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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

Dated: January 16, 2018 

 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE 

United States Magistrate Judge