Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-mc-00124/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-mc-00124-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection Act

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

James Jeske, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Persolve LLC; Persolve Series 1 LLC;

Persolve Series 2 LLC; Persolve Series 3

LLC; Golden Gate Financial LLC; Does 5

through 25, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

MC 11-00124-PHX-FJM

ORDER

We have before us Persolve LLC's ("Persolve") motion to compel the deposition of

FIA Card Services ("FIA") and production of documents (doc. 1). FIA was served with a

copy of the instant motion on November 29, 2011, but has not responded.

I

In 2006, plaintiff James Jeske defaulted on his Bank of America credit card account.

This account was ultimately transferred to Persolve, which filed a collection complaint

against Jeske in December 2009. Persolve sought an interest rate of 32.24%, the rate applied

to Jeske's account by Bank of America. The rate was labeled in his account statements as

"penalty rate" pricing. At the time, Jeske's account was serviced by FIA.

Jeske filed an action against defendants in 2011, alleging that Persolve's attempt to

collect on his Bank of America account improperly sought interest above California's default

Case 2:11-mc-00124-FJM Document 6 Filed 01/27/12 Page 1 of 3
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 1

 This action is pending in the Southern District of California.

- 2 -

rate of 10%.1

 Persolve served FIA, a non-party to the Jeske action located in Arizona, with

a subpoena in July 2011. The subpoena set FIA's deposition for August 3, 2011, and

included Persolve's request for documents relating to Peske's account. See Mot. to Compel,

ex. E. Persolve's counsel spoke with FIA, which indicated that it would send relevant

documents by August 12, 2011. On August 16, 2011, Persolve was told that FIA records

showed that it sold Jeske's account and had no additional information to provide. Persolve

has followed up with FIA by letter and by telephone in an effort to meet and confer, but FIA

has refused to produce a deponent for deposition. Persolve moves that FIA be compelled to

produce documents and a proper deponent for deposition in accordance with its subpoena.

II

Rule 45, Fed. R. Civ. P. governs discovery of non-parties through the use of subpoena.

 Subpoenas can command a non-party to produce documents and to attend and testify. The

serving party may move for an order compelling discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a). The

permissible scope of discovery is the same when sought from non-parties as when sought

from parties. See id. 45 advisory committee's note (1970) ("The changes make it clear that

the scope of discovery through a subpoena is the same as that applicable to. . . the other

discovery rules"). Parties may seek discovery relevant to any party's claim or defense. Id.

26(b)(1). 

Here, the documents sought by Persolve are relevant to its defense in the Jeske action.

Jeske claims that Persolve did not have the right to seek interest in excess of 10%. Jeske's

account statements show that a higher interest rate was applied by Bank of America labeled

penalty rate pricing. Documents relating to penalty rate pricing are relevant to Persolve's

defense for deciding to seek a higher interest rate in its collection action against Jeske.

Persolve seeks documents not only related to Jeske's specific account, but also documents

relating more generally to Bank of America's penalty rate pricing provisions.

Persolve also seeks testimony that it claims is institutional knowledge that would not

Case 2:11-mc-00124-FJM Document 6 Filed 01/27/12 Page 2 of 3
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 -

have been transferred when Jeske's account was sold. When a notice of deposition of an

entity describes with particularity the subjects for examination, the entity must designate

people to testify on its behalf "about information known or reasonably available to the

organization." id. 30(b)(6). The subpoena lists with detail subjects for discussion, including

information concerning Bank of America's penalty pricing rates between 2003 and 2009, and

Bank of America's options upon customer default. As a former servicer for Bank of America

accounts, including Jeske's account, this is information that should be known or "reasonably

available" to FIA. See id.

In sum, we conclude that the documentation and testimony Persolve seeks from FIA

are relevant to Persolve's defense in the Jeske action. FIA has not argued that the search for

and production of documents would be overly burdensome. And FIA offers no reason why

the subpoena should be quashed or modified. See id. 45(c)(3). Indeed, FIA failed to respond

at all. See LRCiv 7.2(i) ("if. . . counsel does not serve and file the required answering

memoranda. . . such non-compliance may be deemed a consent to the denial or granting of

the motion and the Court may dispose of the motion summarily"). 

IT IS ORDERED GRANTING Persolve's motion to compel the deposition of FIA

Card Services and Produce Documents (doc. 1).

IT IS ORDERED that FIA Card Services shall make a diligent search for all

documents requested in the subpoena and produce all responsive documents within five (5)

days of this order.

IT IS ORDERED that FIA Card Services shall produce a deponent for deposition

prepared to testify pursuant to Rule 30(b)(6), Fed. R. Civ. P.

DATED this 26th day of January, 2012.

Case 2:11-mc-00124-FJM Document 6 Filed 01/27/12 Page 3 of 3