Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Sergio L. Ramirez, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similar v. Trans Union

March 13, 2013

SERGIO L. RAMIREZ, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILAR SITUATED, PLAINTIFF,
v.
TRANS UNION, LLC,
DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Jacqueline Scott Corley United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER RE: JOINT DISCOVERY DISPUTE STATEMENT (Dkt. No. 66)

Now pending before the Court is the parties' Joint Statement Regarding a Discovery Dispute (Dkt. No. 66) wherein Plaintiff seeks to compel responses to written discovery and an 23 order directing certain depositions to occur. Having carefully considered the parties' written 24 submissions, and with the benefit of oral argument on March 13, 2013, the Court GRANTS 25 Plaintiff's motion in part and DENIES is it in part. 26 27 28 4 of the pending motions to dismiss and motion to disqualify counsel and for sanctions (Dkt. 5

Accordingly, the motion to stay is denied. 7

Plaintiff moves to compel four depositions -- those of Michael O'Connell, Colleen Gill, 9 and Bharat Acharya, and a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10 30(a)(2)(A)(i) authorizes a party to take up to ten depositions as a matter of course. Plaintiff 11 has taken six depositions and noticed a total of thirteen depositions. Defendant objects as 12 agrees. At oral argument, Plaintiff identified that the aforementioned four depositions have 14 the highest priority. Accordingly, the parties shall work together to schedule these 15 depositions as soon as possible. To the extent Plaintiff believes he needs more than 10 16 depositions, he should seek leave from the Court pursuant to Rule 30. 17 Plaintiff seeks additional responses regarding interrogatories 2, 4, 5-12, and 15. These 19 interrogatories fall within two general categories: (1) those that seek discovery regarding 20 numerosity, and (2) those that seek information regarding the identities of unnamed class 21 members. Defendant objects to these interrogatories as overbroad and alleges that the 22 interrogatories impermissibly seek certain consumer information, including names and 23 addresses, which it cannot provide under Section 1681b of the FCRA and Section 1785.11 of 24 the CCRAA. 25 26 interrogatories seek total figures relevant to Plaintiff's proposed classes (see Dkt. No. 1, ¶¶ 27 79-81). Specifically, Plaintiff seeks information regarding the number of individuals for 28 whom Defendant sold a consumer report which included an Office of Foreign Asset Control

DISCUSSION

A.Defendant's Request to Stay All Discovery

Defendant requests that the Court stay all discovery in this action pending disposition Nos. 51 & 52.) As the Court stated at oral argument, it intends to deny both motions. 6

B.Depositions

Plaintiff has not sought leave of the court to exceed the ten deposition limit. The Court United States District Court Northern District of California

C.Interrogatories

With respect to the interrogatories regarding numerosity (nos. 5, 7, 9, and 11), the (OFAC) record in the United States or California, and to whom Defendant sent a file 2 disclosure such as the one sent to Plaintiff on February 28, 2011 from February 9, 2010. 3

(Dkt. No. 66-2, Interrogatories 5 & 7.) Plaintiff seeks similar information regarding 4 individuals with the first name "Sergio" and the last name "Ramirez." (Dkt. No. 66-2, 5

Interrogatories 9 & 11.) Defendant objects to providing this information as overly 6 burdensome because it would have to manually compare the records regarding those 7 consumers for whom a consumer report was sold against its records regarding consumers to 8 whom Defendant sent a file disclosure. Under the proportionality analysis called for by 9

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 the Court must weigh Plaintiff's need for this information 10 against the burden on Defendant of providing this discovery. Here, although Defendant has 11 asserted burden, it has not offered any evidence regarding the burden in terms of cost or 12 hours; ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.