IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

DONJA SEAWELL, on behalf of herself 

and all others similarly situated,, 

Plaintiff(s) 

vs. 

UNIVERSAL FIDELITY CORPORATION, 

Defendant(s) 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

Civil Action 

No. 05-CV-479 

DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE 

TO EXCLUDE RERPRESENTATIVES 

FROM OTHER DEBT COLLECTION SERVICES 

 AND THEIR SAMPLE LETTERS 

BASED ON RELEVANCE 

I. BACKGROUND. 

Plaintiff commenced this class action February 2, 2005, alleging that Universal 

Fidelity violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §1692, et seq. 

(“FDCPA”). Plaintiff contends that on or about September 24, 2004, Universal Fidelity 

wrote and sent to Plaintiff by United States Mail a collection or “dunning” letter which 

attempted to coerce Plaintiff into paying a debt. The basis of Plaintiff’s claim is that 

the letter was on letterhead that contained the language “Administrative Office – 

Record of Notification,” and also depicted an American Flag in the left-hand corner of 

the letterhead. Plaintiff alleges that the use of this letterhead was a violation of the 

Case 2:05-cv-00479-LP Document 68 Filed 10/25/07 Page 1 of 3
FDCPA, because it supposedly misled Plaintiff into believing that the United States 

Government approved the letter. 

II. FACTS 

Plaintiff identifies certain representatives from the following corporations: NCO 

Financial Systems, Inc., Arrow Financial Services, LLC, and Academy Collections

Services, Inc. (Witnesses 10-12 on Plaintiff’s Pre-Trial Memorandum.) These

individuals will apparently authenticate certain sample debt collection letters used by

these other debt collection services. (Exhibits P11 – P16) It is presumed that Plaintiff 

will attempt to use these letters to show that other debt collection services do not use 

an American Flag, or the term “Office of Administration” on their letterhead.

III. ARGUMENT 

Relevant evidence is defined under Federal Rules of Evidence 104 as, “Evidence

having a tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the

determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without

the evidence.” 

The issue in this matter is whether Defendant’s letterhead that included a flag 

and the term “Office of Administration” is misleading. The witnesses, and the letters

which they will apparently authenticate, have no relevance to this issue. Plaintiff has 

failed to offer evidence that these letters represent any percentage of the total 

collection letters used by debt collectors in the industry. Moreover, Plaintiff has failed

to offer evidence that the proffered letters represent a particular percentage of the

letters used by these three debt collection services. Whether three other debt

collection services use an American Flag or the term “Office of Administration” on one 

of the form letters sent out by that company has no bearing or probative value as to

2

Case 2:05-cv-00479-LP Document 68 Filed 10/25/07 Page 2 of 3
whether or not the letter sent out by Universal Fidelity Corporation was misleading or

deceptive.

IV. CONCLUSION 

As such, Universal Fidelity Corporation moves that corporate representatives

from NCO Financial Systems, Inc., Arrow Financial Services, LLC, and Academy

Collection Services (Witnesses 10-12 on Plaintiff’s Pre-Trial Memorandum) and the 

same debt collection letters used by these other debt collection services (Exhibits P11 –

P16) be excluded from trial. 

 BRIGGS LAW OFFICE, P.C. 

 By: ____/NWB3521_________________ 

 NORMAN W. BRIGGS

 300 Walnut Street, Suite 2 

 Philadelphia, PA 19106

 Telephone No. 215-925-4632

 Facsimile No. 215-925-1611

 Attorneys for Defendant 

Universal Fidelity Corporation 

3

Case 2:05-cv-00479-LP Document 68 Filed 10/25/07 Page 3 of 3