Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01767/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01767-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JASON E. DAVIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNIFUND CCR PARTNERS, a corporation;

STEVEN A. BOOSKA, an individual; and

DOES 1-10 inclusive,

Defendants. /

Case No. C 07-1767-SI

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER

RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES

Before the Court is plaintiff’s motion to compel defendants to produce further responses to

interrogatories. This case arises out of defendants’ alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection

Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692 et seq. and the California Rosenthal Act, Civil Code §§ 1788 et seq.

Specifically, plaintiff alleges that defendants engage in a pattern and practice of purchasing old,

defaulted debts in bulk, and then filing lawsuits against individuals without undertaking reasonable

investigation regarding whether their claims are time-barred. Complaint ¶¶ 13-20. Plaintiff further

alleges that defendants file such lawsuits with the hope that they will result in default judgments in favor

of defendants, and that defendants regularly dismiss actions if an alleged debtor contests the lawsuit

because defendants (a) lack admissible evidence to support their claim, or (b) wish to avoid liability for

an alleged debtor’s attorney’s fees. Complaint ¶¶ 25-26. Plaintiff alleges he was a victim of this pattern

and practice, and that he suffered harassment, oppression, and abuse as a result.

To support his claim, plaintiff served interrogatories on defendants in accordance with the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. At issue here are Interrogatories 2 through 6 to defendant Unifund,

and Interrogatories 1 through 3 against defendant Booska. These interrogatories ask defendants to

Case 3:07-cv-01767-SI Document 53 Filed 10/24/07 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

identify and describe debt-related documents that defendants possessed when they commenced their

debt collection action against plaintiff, and when they dismissed that action. They also seek information

regarding the number and disposition of similar lawsuits filed by defendants in California between

January 1, 2004 through July 31, 2006. Plaintiff contends in his brief that proper responses to these

interrogatories will tend to show habit or routine practice as permitted by Federal Rule of Evidence 602,

as well as prove various elements of plaintiff’s statutory claims.

Defendants’ responses consist entirely of formulaic objections on the grounds that they are

overbroad, vague, or that they seek confidential or privileged information. In some instances,

defendants assert that they have provided responsive documents to plaintiff, and thus do not need to

respond to the interrogatories. Regarding questions about defendants’ other lawsuits, defendants

respond that plaintiff can obtain that information elsewhere. In their brief, defendants do not address

plaintiff’s argument that he is entitled to this information to show habit or routine practice, and to

support the various elements of his claims. Instead, they contend that plaintiff will fail on the merits of

his claims.

Defendants’ arguments on the merits of the case are premature, as the scope of discovery is

broad: “Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 26(b)(1). Plaintiff’s

interrogatories are not overbroad or vague, and plaintiff is entitled to fully responsive answers. To the

extent certain documents are privileged, defendants may assert the relevant privileges, but must provide

plaintiff with a privilege log if they choose to do so. See Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 26(b)(5)(A). To the extent

defendants contend that information regarding other lawsuits is “equally available to plaintiff,” the Court

finds that efficiency and accuracy would be served by having defendants provide that information.

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the motion (Docket No. 46), and orders the defendants to

provide further and complete responses no later than November 5, 2007.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 24, 2007

Case 3:07-cv-01767-SI Document 53 Filed 10/24/07 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-01767-SI Document 53 Filed 10/24/07 Page 3 of 3