Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-00760/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-00760-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CATHERINE EVON,

Plaintiff, CIV. NO. S-09-0760 JAM GGH

vs.

LAW OFFICES OF SIDNEY MICKELL, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Previously pending on this court’s law and motion calendar for January 28, 2010,

was plaintiff’s motion to compel further discovery responses, filed October 29, 2009. Sergei

Lemberg appeared telephonically for plaintiff. John Dahlberg represented defendants. After

hearing oral argument and reviewing the joint statement, the court now issues the following

order.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed the instant action under the FDCPA, claiming that defendants

engaged in harassing conduct violative of the act by sending a letter to her at her place of

employment which threatened her with legal action, wage garnishment, bank account levies,

attachment of assets, and accrual of interest and attorneys’ fees. Defendants contend that it is

undisputed that they intended to commence legal action against plaintiff and did in fact file a

Case 2:09-cv-00760-KJN Document 41 Filed 02/03/10 Page 1 of 7
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

2

complaint against her on February 6, 2009, a few weeks after the January 14, 2009 letter was sent

to her office. 

The discovery requests at issue were originally served on August 27, 2009. After

some extensions of time, defendants responded around October 16, 2009, through its former

counsel. On November 2, 2009, current defense counsel was substituted in. Plaintiff’s motion

was originally noticed for hearing on December 10, 2009, but was continued by order filed

December 2, 2009, after a telephone conference initiated by defendants on November 30, 2009

concerning some of the issues raised in the motion. In that order, the undersigned directed

plaintiff to inform defendants which discovery requests were being withdrawn, and defendants

were to provide complete responses, including production of documents for inspection, to

plaintiff’s discovery requests by December 17, 2009.

A misconception that runs throughout defendants’ papers is the belief that

discovery can only be obtained that is personal to the named plaintiff’s suit. That is not true. 

The action is styled as a class action. Unless a court orders otherwise, discovery can proceed into

class issues. Sirota v. Solitron Devices, 673 2d 566, 571 (2nd Cir. 1982); Kingsberry v. Chicago

Title Ins. Co., 258 F.R.D. 668 (W.D. Wash. 2009). As importantly, the amended complaint itself

references specific provisions of FDCPA which were allegedly violated. At this point, the

undersigned is in no position to find that certain provisions do not relate to the named plaintiff

and others do. No law and motion has taken place which would make this clear. Thus, the

undersigned can only rule upon this discovery motion with the fact in mind that the amended

complaint’s allegations cover a wide variety of activities.

As discussed at hearing, all of the further discovery discussed is based upon this

broader reading of the discovery requests, i.e. the discovery relates to all allegations even if

defendant contends here that the named plaintiff herself is not germane to a specific asserted

violation; unless specifically written otherwise in a discovery request, discovery shall be

produced that is pertinent to the violation allegations in the complaint. 

Case 2:09-cv-00760-KJN Document 41 Filed 02/03/10 Page 2 of 7
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

3

DISCUSSION

Both parties take issue with the opponent’s actions during the meet and confer

process, both contending that opposing counsel did not participate in good faith. In regard to the

merits, plaintiff contends that although defendants have provided some responsive discovery

since the telephone conference with the undersigned, they continue to improperly object to many

discovery requests despite the existence of a Consent Confidentiality Order, and other documents

have been produced in an overly redacted fashion, containing significant portions of deleted

sections. 

Defendants, on the other hand, argue that the discovery requests are overbroad,

time consuming, and seek irrelevant information, and they should be limited to the claims or

defenses in this litigation. 

The undersigned chooses to reach the merits and each discovery request will be

addressed in turn.

I. DOCUMENT REQUESTS

Number 1 - Documents reviewed, referred to or relied upon in responding to plaintiff’s first set

of interrogatories.

Plaintiff claims that defendants failed to produce documents relating to

interrogatories numbered 12 and 18, such as 359 similar letters sent to other consumers in 2008,

and 278 similar letters sent to consumers’ place of employment in 2008. All documents

reviewed, referred to or relied upon, shall be produced subject to the protective order on file. In

addition, a further non-contact order as discussed at hearing is ordered and shall remain in place

without further order of the court.

Number 3 - Documents reflecting policies and procedures used by defendants and which relate to

compliance with FDCPA requirements.

In regard to multi-volume manuals or large documents separated by express

designations, if entire sections are clearly and convincingly irrelevant, they may be redacted. If,

Case 2:09-cv-00760-KJN Document 41 Filed 02/03/10 Page 3 of 7
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

 Redaction is, after all, an alteration of potential evidence. The Federal Rules sanction 1

only very limited unilateral redaction, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2. Outside of these limited

circumstances, a party should not take it upon him, her or itself to decide unilaterally what

context is necessary for the non-redacted part disclosed, and what might be useless to the case. It

should not come as a shock to those involved in litigation, that parties may see the outcome

differently. Moreover, protective orders are available to shield irrelevant, but important-to-keepconfidential information, and unless the protective order permits partial production, a document

should be produced in its entirety. On the other hand, where a specific document is very large,

and separated by clearly marked designations, or separate volumes, each section/volume

becomes, more or less, a document in itself. However, generally worded sections of the large

document may apply to specific sections whose potential relevance is unquestioned. Thus,

unless a particular section unmistakably has no relevance whatsoever to the allegations in a

complaint or denials/defenses in an answer, it should be produced along with the other relevant

sections. And a word of warning to those who redact even under this standard – if you make

unwarranted redactions, a court may well award sanctions for non-disclosure of requested

evidence up to and including default/dismissal based on a seeming bad faith hiding of

information. 

4

however, a document is an integral document which is not separated by express designations the

entire document must be produced.1

The allegations in the amended complaint shall define relevance.

Defendant shall produce documents in accordance with the above directives.

Number 4 - Title pages of all complaints filed against defendants in a court of law in which

FDCPA violations are alleged. 

Defendants shall produce all responsive documents, but only to the extent that

they concern reasonably similar allegations to the allegations in the amended complaint.

Number 6 - All financial documents reflecting defendants’ net worth.

Plaintiff seeks this discovery solely for purposes of a class action, and no date is

set for class certification. In regard to damages, 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(2)(B), which sets forth the

criteria for establishing damages as related to the net worth of the debt collector, pertains only to

class actions. The damages for actions brought by individuals are not based on the net worth of

the debtor. Id.; § 1692k(a)(1), (a)(2)(A). Although this request would normally be considered

premature, plaintiff has cited cases which permit such discovery in cases where the class is not

yet certified. See Anchondo v. Anderson, Crenshaw & Associates, 256 F.R.D. 661, 668-69

Case 2:09-cv-00760-KJN Document 41 Filed 02/03/10 Page 4 of 7
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

5

(D.N.M. 2009); Muha v. Encore Receivable Management, Inc., 236 F.R.D. 429, 430-31 (E.D.

Wis. 2006. As in Muha, defendants do not argue that discovery on class issues should wait. In

fact, defendants have offered to provide a declaration by Sidney Mickell as to his and his law

firm’s net worth. Therefore, defendants shall respond to this request in the form of a declaration,

and shall produce available documents pertinent to the declaration pursuant to the protective

order in this case.

Number 7 - All operation manuals, employee manuals, training manuals or similar documents,

used in connection with defendants’ debt collection business.

The parties are referred to the court’s order in regard to document request number

3 which will apply equally to this request.

Number 9 - All documents identified in response to interrogatory number 7 (whether defendants

provided training to persons identified in response to interrogatories numbered 3 and 4, and

identify all training content, procedures, practices, policies, all documents relating to training,

and all persons responsible for training others).

Defendants are directed to search again for documents and produce them under

the directives previously set forth in regard to request number 3.

Number 12 - All documents identified in defendants’ response to interrogatory number 15 (all

templates or form letters used to communicate with consumers).

Defendants are directed to conduct another search for responsive documents, by

construing relevance in accordance with the claims in the amended complaint.

Number 14 - All documents identified in response to special interrogatory number 19.

Defendants are directed to produce responsive documents in accordance with the

order pertaining to request number 3.

Number 18 - all documents referred to in defendants’ Rule 26 Initial Disclosures as

“correspondence with Plaintiff ... pertaining to Plaintiff’s debt.”

\\\\\

Case 2:09-cv-00760-KJN Document 41 Filed 02/03/10 Page 5 of 7
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

 It appears that plaintiff was in possession of this letter and produced a copy to 2

defendants.

 Defendants’ response is properly limited to only those documents in connection with 3

plaintiff.

6

Defendants have conducted a good faith search but could not locate the

September, 2008 letter sent to plaintiff, and have produced all other relevant documents. Based

on this representation by defense counsel, no further order will issue in regard to this request.2

Number 19 - Copies of all form letters, templates and similar documents used by defendants to

communicate with consumers.

Defendants are directed to conduct another search for responsive documents, by

construing relevance in accordance with the claims in the amended complaint.

Numbers 20 and 21 - All documents regarding communications between defendants and CACH

LLC in connection with plaintiff; all documents provided to defendants by CACH LLC in

connection with plaintiff.

Defendants represented at hearing that all responsive documents have been

produced, and that no documents were withheld based on attorney client privilege or work

product protection.3

II. SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

Number 4 - Identity of all persons engaged in debt collection in your behalf or under your

supervision, and all persons you compensated in connection with debt collection. 

Defendants have now supplemented their response by identifying all individuals

who personally handled plaintiff’s matter only. As the request seeks identities of current

employees only, defendants shall produce the identities of all current employees engaged in debt

collection. 

Number 12 - Number of accounts placed with or transferred to defendants for collection within

each calendar year during the relevant time period. As to each account, state whether you

Case 2:09-cv-00760-KJN Document 41 Filed 02/03/10 Page 6 of 7
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

7

commenced a collection suit.

Defendants shall respond to this interrogatory.

Number 13 - Whether defendants have commenced any lawsuit for debt collection, and if so

provide a list of jurisdiction, court, case number, case title and filing date for each case.

The undersigned does not understand the relevance of this interrogatory in terms

of its overbreadth and potential burden. Plaintiff’s motion is denied in this regard.

Number 22 - Describe the manner in which defendants are compensated by CACH LLC.

Plaintiff’s motion is granted in regard to this interrogatory, but only as it pertains

to the claims and defenses in the amended complaint.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery, filed October 29, 2009, (dkt. # 21), is

granted in part and denied in part.

2. Defendants shall produce all discovery as ordered herein within twenty days of

this order.

DATED: 02/03/2010 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows 

 

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

 U. S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:076

Evon0760.dsy.wpd

Case 2:09-cv-00760-KJN Document 41 Filed 02/03/10 Page 7 of 7