Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01392/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01392-1/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

- 1 - 08cv1392

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID TOURGEMAN,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 08-CV-1392 JLS (NLS)

ORDER: OVERRULING

DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS

(Doc. Nos. 107 & 108)

vs.

COLLINS FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.;

NELSON & KENNARD; DELL

FINANCIAL SERVICES, L.P.; CIT

FINANCIAL USA, Inc.; et al.,

Defendants.

Presently before the Court are Defendant Nelson & Kennard’s objections to Magistrate Judge

Stormes’s Order granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff’s motion to compel supplementary

discovery responses, (Doc. No. 107 (“N&K’s Objections”)) and Defendant Collins Financial Services,

Inc.’s objection to the same Order. (Doc. No. 108 (“Collins’s Objections”).) Also before the Court

is Plaintiff’s response to these objections. (Doc. No. 115 (“Response”).) For the reasons stated below,

Defendants’ objections are OVERRULED.

Because it is a discretionary decision regarding a non-dispositive pretrial matter, this Court

reviews Magistrate Judge Stormes’s order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) using a “clearly

erroneous or contrary to law” standard. See also Hoar v. Sara Lee Corp., 900 F.2d 522, 525 (2d Cir.

1990) (“Matters concerning discovery generally are considered ‘nondispositive’ of the litigation.”);

FDIC v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Md., 196 F.R.D. 375, 378 (S.D. Cal. 2000). “The ‘clearly

Case 3:08-cv-01392-CAB-NLS Document 118 Filed 08/03/10 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

- 2 - 08cv1392

erroneous' standard applies to factual findings and discretionary decisions made in connection with

non-dispositive pretrial discovery matters.” Fidelity, 196 F.R.D. at 378. “Clearly erroneous” review

is “significantly deferential, requiring ‘a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been

committed.’” Concrete Pipe & Prods. v. Constr. Laborers Pension Trust, 508 U.S. 602, 623 (1993).

On the other hand, “contrary to law” review “permits independent review of purely legal

determinations by the magistrate judge.” Fidelity, 196 F.R.D. at 378 (citing, inter alia, Computer

Econs., Inc. v. Gartner Group, Inc., 50 F. Supp. 2d 980, 983 (S.D. Cal. 1999)).

Having reviewed Defendants’ objections and Magistrate Judge Stormes’s Order, the Court

must OVERRULE Defendants’ objections. To begin with, Defendants are correct that the initial

burden on a motion to compel falls on Plaintiff. (See N&K’s Objections at 3; Collins’s Objections

at 3.) However, there is no real controversy here as both Judge Stormes’s Order and Plaintiff’s

response to the objections note the same legal standard. (See Doc. No. 104 (“Discovery Order”) at

3; Response at 3.) 

Nonetheless, this legal standard does not offer Defendants any refuge. Although not directly

stated in the Order, it is clear to this Court that Magistrate Judge Stormes found that Plaintiff had

carried his burden of showing that the discovery requests were relevant. Plaintiff submitted

substantial explanations related to each of his discovery requests to Nelson & Kennard and Collins

Financial. (See Doc. Nos. 95-2 & 95-3.) These, along with Plaintiff’s briefing regarding his motion

to compel, adequately demonstrate that the evidence sought is relevant to Plaintiff’s case. 

This conclusion is quite obvious from looking over the requests propounded by Plaintiff. For

example, the Court sees a clear link between Plaintiff’s Fair Debt Collection Practices Act claims and

Nelson & Kennard’s “form letters, enclosures, envelopes, complaints, memoranda, etc. used . . . in

its debt collection activity.” (N&K Objections at 4.) Similarly, the request to produce documents

“pertaining to the number of alleged debtors that [Nelson & Kennard] mailed letters to requesting

payment of an alleged debt” clearly relate to Plaintiff’s class allegations. (Id. at 14.) The remainder

of the document requests and interrogatories to both Nelson & Kennard and Collins Financial contain

the same obvious relation to Plaintiff’s case.

Further, Defendants’ repeated complaint that “the Magistrate Judge failed to even explain why

Case 3:08-cv-01392-CAB-NLS Document 118 Filed 08/03/10 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 - 08cv1392

the information sought was relevant” is a non-sequitur. (See N&K’s Objections at 7, 10, 28, & 32;

Collins’s Objections at 9, 12, 15, & 21.) Although an explicit explanation is always helpful in

reviewing a magistrate judge’s decision and many courts choose to do provide such analysis, it is not

required and its absence does not make a decision incorrect or clearly erroneous. 

Finally, the Court concludes that Magistrate Judge Stormes correctly found that Defendants

failed to carry their heavy burden to show why the motion to compel should be denied. Ultimately,

it appears to the Court that Defendants have an overly narrow view on the discovery process.

Although they note the standard for discovery which allows for “any nonprivileged matter that is

relevant to any party’s claim or defense” and that this “information need not be admissible at trial if

the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence,” their

view of these standards does not support the broad wording and the rule’s permissive intent. (N&K

Objections at 2 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 26).) The fact of the matter is that these requests are squarely

within the scope of a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act case generally and Plaintiff’s case

specifically.

Given that Defendants’ objections are without merit, they are OVERRULED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 3, 2010

Honorable Janis L. Sammartino

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-01392-CAB-NLS Document 118 Filed 08/03/10 Page 3 of 3