2012-00124468-CU-MC

Northern Ca Collection Service vs. James John Betzing

Nature of Proceeding: Motion for Protective Order

Filed By: LeLievre, Andre J.

Plaintiff Northern California Collection Service, Inc.’s Motion for Protective Order is
ruled upon as follows.

This action arises out of a judgment allegedly entered against Defendants James John
Betzing and Gayle Stewart Betzing in Puerto Vallarta, located in the Mexican State of
Jalisco. Plaintiff contends that the judgment was obtained by Guiseppe Viola, in his capacity as attorney-in-fact for a woman named Sofia DeLaTorre, and that Viola and
DeLaTorre subsequently assigned the judgment to Plaintiff. Through the instant
lawsuit, Plaintiff seeks to domesticate the Mexican judgment against Defendants.

On September 4, 2013, the Court granted Defendant’s motion to compel further
responses to discovery, but also granted Plaintiff leave to file a motion for protective
order.

Plaintiff now moves for a protective order excusing it from responding to the Special
Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents at issue in the September
4, 2013 order. Plaintiff contends that the discovery requests constitute improper “non-
party” discovery because they include the Plaintiff’s attorneys in the definition of the
responding party. Plaintiff argues that discovery may be directed only to a party to an
action, and that the inclusion of Plaintiff’s attorneys, who are not parties to the action,
is improper.

Plaintiff’s position is without merit. As the Court previously ruled in its order granting
Defendant’s motion to compel, the discovery requests are directed to Plaintiff, not to
any non-party. They are expressly directed to Plaintiff, including Plaintiff’s “agents,
representatives, attorneys, successors, and assigns.” This is a standard practice in
drafting discovery that reflects the responding party’s obligation to produce documents
and information available from sources under its control. (See Regency Health Servs.
v. Superior Court (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 1496, 1504 (“When responding to discovery,
counsel generally has a duty to disclose information known to counsel…Moreover a
party has a general duty to conduct a reasonable investigation to obtain responsive
information [citation] and must furnish information from all sources under his or her
control.”).) This is so even where the responsive information is known only to the
attorney. (Smith v. Superior Court (1961) 189 Cal.App.2d 6, 12. Further, Plaintiff offers
no examples of any materials or information which its attorneys would be improperly
required to produce under the formulation of the discovery requests at issue.

The motion for protective order is therefore denied.

The parties’ requests for sanctions are denied.

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule
3.1312 or further notice is required.