Case Name: Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC v. Alvestegui

Case No.: 1-14-CV-260513

According to the Notice of Motion, Plaintiff seeks a protective order to limit dissemination of its “Purchase Agreement” and “Schedule A”. According to the proposed order,
Plaintiff seeks an order allowing it to produce only a redacted version of these documents and to limit the dissemination of those redacted documents in the manner set forth at length in the proposed order.

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2017.020: “[t]he court shall limit the scope of discovery if it determines that the burden, expense of intrusiveness of that discovery clearly outweighs the likelihood that the information sought will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”

Preliminarily, Defendant argues that Plaintiff did not promptly move for a protective order. This argument has no merit.

Plaintiff seeks to redact (i.e., to exclude from discovery entirely) information in the Purchase Agreement that “relate[s] specifically to purchase price, media price, and account information for individuals that [sic] are not subject to this lawsuit” and information in Schedule A consisting of “the names, account numbers, social security numbers, home addresses, delinquency amounts, and other private, non-public information of the consumer’s account….” (Memorandum in Support, at 3:8-9, and 4:7-9.) Apart from a suspicion that Plaintiff will not make the redactions properly, Defendant does not oppose the exclusion of this information from discovery. Certainly, there is no argument or showing that this private third-party information is directly relevant.

Plaintiff also seeks to limit the dissemination of the redacted documents, based on the factual showing that the Purchase Agreement contains commercially sensitive information not generally known outside Plaintiff and Wells Fargo Bank, and that disclosure of this information to competitors would damage the legitimate commercial interests of Plaintiff and Wells Fargo. (Declaration of Colby Eyre, at paragraphs 3 and 4.) Defendant’s opposition refers to a “Loan Sale Agreement” (Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition, at 1:24-25), and provides no explanation whether this is the same as the Purchase Agreement. Therefore, Defendant’s arguments as to the relevance and public nature of the Loan Sale Agreement are not persuasive. Moreover, it does not follow from Defendant’s evidence that another company’s document may be public, that Plaintiff is not entitled to protection of its own commercially sensitive information. In any event, Defendant has provided no evidence to contradict Plaintiff’s showing of the sensitive nature of the information and the economic value of its not being generally known.

The motion is granted. The Court will adopt the proposed form of order, except for the deletion of the term “trial” from section 4c. This order shall impose no obligations on the court reporter at trial or on the trial court. Defendant’s request for fees is denied.