UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
July 22, 2008
EMELIA M. PASTERNAK, PLAINTIFF(S),
TRANS UNION LLC, ET AL., DEFENDANT(S).
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Bernard Zimmerman United States Magistrate Judge
GRANTING CAPITAL ONE BANK'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND TO QUASH
Before the court is defendant Capital One Bank's motion for a protective order and to quash a subpoena plaintiff served on Alec Trueblood. Having read the moving papers, the opposition and the reply and having had an informal discovery conference with the parties, I find no need or further hearing and vacate the July 23, 2008 hearing date. IT IS ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED for the following reasons:
1. Plaintiff's claim that the information in question was improperly designated as confidential in the Valdez litigation is best addressed to the Superior Court in Los Angeles which issued the protective order. See Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1132-33 (9th Cir. 2003). It does not appear that plaintiff has sought relief from that court.
2. In any event, the court agrees with defendant that the information sought is of very marginal relevance to this action. As defendant notes, Valdez involved an inter-family dispute whereas here the disputed accounts were opened by strangers. Different fraud departments and different investigators handled each matter. The court is not persuaded that granting plaintiff access to the requested information would facilitate the preparation of plaintiff's case, avoid wasteful discovery in this case or "shorten the depositions." Ultimately, plaintiff will still have to discover the procedures and practices applicable to plaintiff's situation and depose the people who conducted the fraud inquiry in this case and satisfy herself whether the defendant acted properly and lawfully. If plaintiff gets relief from the Superior Court, and that court concludes that it has protected information of some relevance to this suit, plaintiff may seek reconsideration of this ruling.
© 1992-2008 VersusLaw Inc.