Free Exhibit - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:03-cv—01014-JBA Document 134-4 Filed 09/15/2005 Page 11baig4 2 Of5
Westlaw
Not Reported in F.Supp.2d Page 1
Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2002 WL 1816820 (D.Conn.)
(Cite as: Not Reported in F.Supp.2d)
need not be admissible as evidence in order to be
Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2002 WL 1816820 discoverable. Seattle Times C0. v. Rhinehart, 467
(D.Conrr.) U.S. 20, 29-30 (1984). "It is not ground for
Briefs and Other Related Documents objection that the information sought will be
Only the Westlaw citation is currently available. inadmissible at the trial if the information sought
United States District Court, D. Connecticut. appears reasonably calculated to lead to the
Lauren KIMBRO, -Plaintiff discovery of admissible evidence." Fed.R.Civ.P.
v. 26(b)(1). In the Second Circuit, "[t]his obviously
I.C. SYSTEM, INC., -Defendant broad rule is liberally construed." Daval Steele
No. 3:01 CV 1676(DJS). Products v. M/V Fakredine, 951 F.2d 1357, 1367
(2d Cir.1991), citing Oppenheimer, supra, 437 U.S.
July 22, 2002. at 351.
Defendant I.C.S. also overlooks that, as the
RULING ON MOTION TO COMPEL objecting party, it bears the burden of showing why
discovery should be denied. Blakenshtp v. Hearst
SMITH, Magistrate J. Corp., 519 F.2d 418 (9th Cir.1975). The mere
*1 The plaintiff has brought this action against statement by a party that discovery is "irrelevant
defendant I.C. System, Inc. (hereafter "I.C.S."), and irmnaterial" is not enough to discharge this
alleging that I.C.S.'s debt collection efforts against burden. Joseph v. Harris Corp., 677 F.2d 985, 992
her have violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices (3rd Cir.1982). Moreover, a party which fails to
Act ("FDCPA"), 15 U.S.C. § 1692. Plaintiffs object to a discovery request waives any objections
motion to compel is pending before the court. The it otherwise might have made. Richmark Corp. v.
motion (Dkt.# 13) is GRANTED. FN1 Timber Falling Consultants, 959 F.2d 1468, 1473
(9th Cir.1992) ; Smith v. United States, 193 F.R.D.
201, 207 n. 19 (D.Del.2000).
FN1. It is worthy to note that a majority of
the discovery disputes that are at issue in Nor may I.C.S. withhold discovery on the strength
this motion could have been resolved of its own overly optimistic speculation that it might
without court intervention. Experienced one day be successful in achieving dismissal of, or
legal professionals should know, without summary judgment on plaintiffs complaint.
Court direction, what is within the realm of Because an adjudication on the merits normally
permissible discovery pursuant to comes only ajler discovery, "it is no objection to an
Fed.R.Civ.P. 26 and D. Conn. L. Civ. R.~ interrogatory that it relates to a defense or claim
38 & 39. which is insufficient in law." Anderson Co. v.
Helena Cotton Oil Co., 117 F.Supp. 932, 945 n. 9
The court finds that I.C.S.'s resistance to plaintiffs (E.D.Ark.1953). Finally, I.C.S. is not free to raise in
discovery efforts is unjustified and contrary to its brief-almost as an afterthought-entirely new
well-established legal principles. Among the objections which it did not assert earlier. Davis v.
principles defendant I.C.S. ignores is the axiom that Fender, 650 F.2d 1154, 1160 (9th Cir.1981) ;
discovery is normally allowed into any matter that Eureka Financial Corp. v. Hargford Act. and Index.
bears upon the issues or reasonably could lead to C0., 136 F.R.D. 179 (E.D.Ca1.1991).
relevant information. Oppenheimer Fund Inc. v.
Sanders, 473 U.S. 340, 351 (1978). Information
© 2005 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
http://print.westlaw.com/delivery.htm1‘?dest=atp&format=HTMLE&dataid=B0055800000... 9/14/2005

Case 3:03-cv—01014-JBA Document 134-4 Filed 09/15/2005 Page 2151% 3 OH
Not Reported in F.Supp.2d Page 2
Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2002 WL 1816820 (D.Conn.)
(Cite as: Not Reported in F.Supp.2d)
I. UNOBJECTIVE DISCOVERY REQUESTS: defendant‘s "contact history" including the meaning
Interrogatory 1, 2, and 10 and Request for of code numbers and abbreviations. To the extent
Production 1, 4, 5, 8 and 21 that there are aspects of the history that is not
apparent to counsel, plaintiff shall contact defendant
Defendant I.C.S. did not object to the above by telephone or letter and identify which portions of
mentioned Interrogatories or Requests for the "contact history" require further explanation.
Production. In addition, I.C.S. has not sought an
extension of time to produce these discovery
materials. Therefore, I.C.S. is ordered to respond to C. INTERROGATORIES NOS. 6 and 7
these interrogatories and production requests unless
it has already satisfied this obligation. Interrogatory No. 6 requests that the I.C.S. "
[i]dentify each consumer reporting agency (credit
bureau) to which the defendant reported the
II. DISPUTED DISCOVERY REQUESTS plaintiffs debt and the dates of each such report."
(Dkt. 14 at 4.) Interrogatory No. 7 states "set forth
A. INTERROGATORIES NOS. 3 and 4 your procedures reasonably adapted to comply with
the Fair Credit Reporting Act." (Id.) In its
opposition papers to the motion to compel, I.C.S.
*2 Interrogatory No. 3 simply asks I.C.S. to " stated that it will provide a response to No. 6
itemize the components of the $1,494.90 amount indicating that it did not report with respect to the
demanded, including principal, interest and charges. plaintiffs account. (Dkt. 18 at 2.) In addition, I.C.S.
" (Dkt. 14 at 2.) In addition, Interrogatory 4 stated that, as a result, plaintiff has agreed that
requests that the defendant "itemize the components Interrogatory No. 7 is unnecessary. (Id.) To the
of interest or charges still accruing on the Providian extent that I.C.S. has not already complied with its
account as of the date of the 50% off letter." (Id.) representations, the court orders it to do so.
Defendant I.C.S. objects to providing this
information on grormds that it is "irrelevant,
immaterial, and not reasonably calculated to lead to D. INTERROGATORY NO. 8
the discovery of admissible evidence." (Dkt. # 14 at
3). FN2 The objection is overruled. The court finds Plaintiff has requested that I.C.S. set forth its
that the information plaintiff seeks in these two procedures reasonably adapted to make sure that its
discovery requests goes directly to whether the " form letters comply with the FRCPA. (Dkt. 14 at 5.)
50% off" was based on an accurate figure, and The plaintiff and I.C.S. have agreed to what
whether assertions in the letter that amounts were discovery is permissible regarding this
still accruing were within § 1692e and § 1692f of interrogatory. (Dkt. No. 18 at 2.) Specifically, I.C.S.
the FDCPA. The Court finds that this information is has agreed to supplement its previous response. (Id.
relevant, material, non—privileged, and reasonably ) According to the plaintiff, however, I.C.S. has
related to plaintiffs claims. failed to resolve this issue. Therefore, this court
orders I.C.S. to supplement its response as agreed.
FN2. In its opposition papers, the
defendant indicates that it will provide a E. INTERROGATORY NO. 9
response to these interrogatories. However,
the plaintiff contends that, as of June ll, In its Interrogatory No. 9, the plaintiff requests that
2002, the defendant has failed to comply. I.C.S. specify all changes made in the format of the
50% letter since July, 13, 2001. (Dkt. 14 at 5.)
B. INTERROGATORY NO. 5 Defendant asserts that it will provide an answer to
this interrogatory. In the event that I.C.S. has not
Plaintiff seeks a "plain English transcript" of already complied, the court orders it to provide a
© 2005 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
http://print.west1aw.com/delivery.html?dest=atp&format=HTMLE&dataid=B0055800000... 9/14/2005

Case 3:03-cv—01014-JBA Document 134-4 Filed 09/15/2005 Page alfflgf 4 OH
Not Reported in F.Supp.2d Page 3
Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2002 WL 1816820 (D.Conn.)
(Cite as: Not Reported in F.Supp.2d)
satisfactory response to this interrogatory. I. PRODUCTION REQUEST NOS. 10, 17, and 22
The plaintiff has requested the following
F. Production Requests NOS. 2, 12, 14, and 19 information: FN3
*3 These requests seek the manuals, written
procedures, and protocols defendant uses in FN3. Plaintiffs requests also included "[a]
complying with the FDCPA and in accessing and screen dump of the first and latest repoits
reporting to credit bureaus. The court finds that the to any consumer reporting agency
information sought is relevant, is not overly broad, conceming plaintiffs debt." (Dkt. 14 at 8.)
and is properly discoverable. The court finds that, I.C.S. indicated that an agreement was
while I.C.S. must expend some effort in gathering reached with the plaintiff as to this request.
this information, the documents requested are not so (Dkt. 18 at 3.)
voluminous that their production is unfairly or
tmduly burdensome. 10. All agreements with Providian National Bank or
its assignee concerning the collection of plaintiffs
debt.
G. PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 6
In this production request, plaintiff seeks copies of 17. All agreements of defendant with any entity
all judgments, court opinions, complaints, and conceming servicing, or collection of the debt of
consent order conceming the defendant's practices plaintiff
under the FDCPA and the Fair Credit Reporting Act 22. Documents concerning the payment
in or after the year 2000. Contrary to defendant's arrangements defendant/Providian would accept.
objection, this request does not seek irrelevant and (Dkt. 14 at 8.)
immaterial infonnation; nor is the requested
information not reasonably calculated to lead to the I.C.S. objects to these requests on the grounds that
discovery of admissible evidence. they are irrelevant, immaterial, and not reasonably
limited to any of the issues raised in plaintiffs
Plaintiffs request is reasonably limited as to scope complaint. The court disagrees finding that these
and time. The material sought is clearly relevant to request are relevant, material, and reasonably
the state of mind with which I.C.S. acted. It is also limited in their scope.
relevant to whether defendant's alleged statutory
violations occurred after it had actual notice that its For all of the these reasons, plaintiffs motion to
practices were actionable. While it may be compel (Dkt.# 13) is granted and the defendant is
burdensome to require defendant to compile and ORDERED to produce the aforesaid information
permit discovery of the various legal complaints and material to plaintiff within twenty (20) days
and judgments against it from 2002 to the present, hereof. The documents shall be used by counsel for
surely these documents are not so voluminous that it the plaintiff in this litigation only without prejudice
is an unreasonable or imfair burden for defendant to to plaintiffs right to seek leave fiom the court for an
shoulder. enlargement of this limitation if necessary. At the
conclusion of this case, or upon application, the
plaintiff is free to seek an award of attomey‘s fees in
H. PRODUCTION REQUEST NO. 7 connection with successful prosecution of this
motion. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 37.
This production request is not opposed in
defendant's opposition papers. Absent objection, the *4 This is not a recommended ruling. This is a
court orders I.C.S. to respond to this production discovery ruling and order which can be reviewed
request. pursuant to the "clearly erroneous" standard of
© 2005 Thomson/W est. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
http ://print.westlaw.com/delivery.html?dest:atp&format=HTMLE&dataid=B005 5 800000... 9/ 14/2005

Case 3:03-cv—01014-JBA Document 134-4 Filed 09/15/2005 Page 4%%% 5 Of5
Not Reported in F.Supp.2d Page 4
Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2002 WL 1816820 (D.Conn.)
(Cite as: Not Reported in F.Supp.2d)
review. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) ; Fed. R. Civ.P. `
6(a) and 72(a); and Rule 2 of the Local Rules for
U.S. Magistrate Judges. As such, it is an order of
the court unless reversed or modified by the district
judge upon motion timely made.
IT IS SO ORDERED at Hartford, Connecticut, this
22 nd day of July, 2002.
D.Conn.,2002.
Kimbro v. I.C. System, Inc.
Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2002 WL 1816820
(D.Conn.)
Briefs and Other Related Documents (Back to top)
• 3:01CV01676 (Docket) (Aug. 29, 2001)
END OF DOCUMENT
© 2005 Thomson/W est. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
http://print.westlaw.com/delivery.html?dest=atp&format=HTMLE&dataid=B0055800000... 9/14/2005