Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00412/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00412-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection Act

---

filed

t8 jmi u

l

2

3

4

amsK - iff

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT j

9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

JUAN PAVLOVICH, individually and on

behalfof all others similarly situated,

11 Case No.: 3:17-cv-00412-AJB-KSC

12 ORDER (1) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO COMPEL AND (2)

DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST

FOR SANCTIONS

13 Plaintiffs,

v. 14

ACCOUNT DISCOVERY SYSTEMS,

LLC; and DNF ASSOCIATES, LLC,

Defendants.

15

[Doc. No. 65] 16

17

18

19 Before the Court is the parties’ Joint Motion for resolution of a discovery dispute.

[Doc. No. 65]. Plaintiffs request this Court compel defendant, DNF Associates, LLC

(“DNF”), to provide responsive documents to multiple requests for production. [Id.].

Defendants object on several grounds, including the argument that the documents

requested are outside the scope ofdiscovery authorized by the Court at this time. [Id. at pp.

19-20]. Plaintiffs Motions are DENIED for the reasons discussed in greater detail, below.

DISCUSSION

This Court issued a prior Order granting plaintiffs Motion to Compel on November

28,2017. [Doc. No. 63]. Therein, the Court approved discovery regarding DNF’s financial

net worth because it is relevant to an eventual motion for class certification, and took care

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

l

3:17-cv-00412-AJB-KSC

Case 3:17-cv-00412-AJB-KSC Document 72 Filed 01/11/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
to note that “discovery at this time should be focused on issues surrounding class

certification.” [Id. at p. 4, n. 2]. However, the fact that some information relevant to class

certification might also be relevant to the underlying merits is not a basis for a party to

1

2

3

refuse engaging in discovery.

Plaintiffrequests that this Court compel defendant, DNF, to respond to Requests for

Production 1-16 seeking information regarding DNF’s practice of retaining independent

law firms to collect on debts it owns. [Doc. No. 65, at pp. 4-17]. Plaintiff contends this

information is critical to rebut defendant’s arguments in its Motion for Summary Judgment.

[Id. at p. 17]. Plaintiffs Motion again misconstrues and overstates the appropriate scope

of discovery at this time. The Court’s prior Order resolving a discovery dispute explained

that plaintiff “overstate^] the degree to which current discovery efforts can look beyond a

motion for class certification.” [Doc. No. 63 at p. 4, n. 2]. Plaintifffails to explain how the

requested information is relevant to class certification, and fails to cite relevant case

authority to support his position.1 The Court cannot see any reasonable use ofthe requested

information for purposes ofseeking class certification.

Moreover, DNF has filed a single Motion for Summary Judgment in this case, and it

was dismissed as moot by the District Court on October 20,2017. [Doc. No. 42]. The only

pending Motions for Summary Judgment are those filed by plaintiff against defendant,

Account Discovery Systems (“ADS”), and by ADS against plaintiff. [Doc. Nos. 44, 60].

Notably defendant ADS acknowledges it is a debt collector as defined in the FDCPA [Doc.

No. 60 at pp. 5-11], which suggests erroneous drafting by plaintiff in the instant Motion.

The Court recognizes that DNF denies it is a debt collector under the FDCPA in its Motion

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

i Plaintiff cites to a series of cases to support his argument that evidence of an entity hiring a third party

to collect on owed debts is relevant to prove the hiring entity is a debt collector under the FDCPA. [Doc.

No. 65 at p. 18]. Despite citing cases which are irrelevant to the pertinent question of whether the

requested information bears on a motion for class certification, plaintiff also fails to provide any pincite

for his cases. [Id.\.

25

26

27

28

2

3:17-cv-00412-AJB-KSC

Case 3:17-cv-00412-AJB-KSC Document 72 Filed 01/11/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
to Dismiss filed on October 26, 2017.2 [Doc. No. 48]. Whether DNF’s Motion to Dismiss

is the Motion plaintiff references in his portion of the instant Joint Motion is unclear.

Regardless, plaintiff does not explain how his discovery requests are made relevant by a

dismissed Motion, or address whether he seeks additionalTdiscovery ihTight ofthe pending

Motion to Dismiss. Further, for the reasons stated above, the discovery at issue is

premature as it is not relevant to the issue of class certification.

CONCLUSION

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

For the reasons discussed above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED plaintiffs Motion to

Compel is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs Motion for Sanctions is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January jf), 2018

8

9

10

11

12

13

. Crawford

United States Magistrate Judge

on. K 14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23 2DNF relies, inter alia, on Mitchell v. LVNVFunding, LLC, 2017 WL 4303804 (N.D. Ind. Sept. 28,2017)

both in its objections to plaintiffs Requests for Production and in its arguments section of the instant

Motion. One day after this Motion was filed, however, the Mitchell Court, on motion for reconsideration,

reversed its ruling on the exact issue upon which defendant relies in its objections and briefing. Mitchell,

2017 WL 6406594 (N.D. Ind. Dec. 15,2017). “Though the Plaintiffhas provided additional evidence not

present in other cases regarding LVNV's principal purpose, resolution ofthis issue requires weighing the

evidence, including drawing inferences resulting from that evidence, to determine ifit is sufficient to find

that LVNV is a debt collector. [....] This factual finding is reserved for the trier offact.” Id. at *6. The

legal question at issue in Mitchell was irrelevant for deciding this Motion, and the decision is not

controlling precedent for this Court. Accordingly, this case is no longer good law.

24

25

26

27

28

3

3:17-cv-00412-AJB-KSC

Case 3:17-cv-00412-AJB-KSC Document 72 Filed 01/11/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3