IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

JACK E. FURAY, 

 

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. Case No. 2:12-cv-1048 

 Judge Sargus 

 Magistrate Judge King 

LVNV FUNDING, LLC, et al., 

 

 Defendants. 

 

 

OPINION AND ORDER 

 Plaintiff brings this action under the Fair Debt Collection 

Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq., the Fair Credit Reporting 

Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681b, and the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act, 

O.R.C. § 1345.01 et seq., in connection with defendants’ alleged 

unlawful collection efforts and alleged unlawful access to plaintiff’s 

credit report. This matter is now before the Court for consideration 

of plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendants to Answer Discovery 

(“Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel”), Doc. No. 14, by which plaintiff 

seeks to compel response to requests for production of documents and 

interrogatories propounded to defendants on March 29, 2013. 

Defendants LVNV Funding, LLC, and Resurgent Capitol Services, LP, have 

filed a response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel, Defendants’ Response 

to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel, Doc. No. 19, and plaintiff has filed 

a reply, Doc. No. 20. 

Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes a 

motion to compel discovery when a party fails to provide proper 

Case: 2:12-cv-01048-EAS-NMK Doc #: 25 Filed: 08/05/13 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>
2 

response to interrogatories propounded pursuant to Rule 33 or to 

requests for production of documents propounded pursuant to Rule 34. 

Rule 37(a) expressly provides that “an evasive or incomplete 

disclosure, answer, or response must be treated as a failure to 

disclose, answer, or respond.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4). “The 

proponent of a motion to compel discovery bears the initial burden of 

proving that the information sought is relevant.” Martin v. Select 

Portfolio Serving Holding Corp., No. 1:05-cv-273, 2006 U.S. Dist. 

LEXIS 68779, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 25, 2006) (citing Alexander v. 

Fed. Bureau of Investigation, 186 F.R.D. 154, 159 (D.D.C. 1999)). 

Relevance for discovery purposes is extremely broad. Miller v. Fed. 

Express Corp., 186 F.R.D. 376, 383 (W.D. Tenn. 1999). Rule 26(b) 

provides that “[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, 

not privileged, that is relevant to the claim or defense of any 

party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). “The test is whether the line of 

interrogation is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of 

admissible evidence.” Mellon v. Cooper–Jarrett, Inc., 424 F.2d 499, 

500–01 (6th Cir. 1970) (citations omitted). 

 According to plaintiff, defendants failed to produce any 

documents responsive to plaintiff’s discovery requests and provided 

evasive responses to plaintiff’s interrogatories. Plaintiff’s Motion 

to Compel, p. 2. Specifically, plaintiff complains that defendants 

responded to every interrogatory by stating that the information 

sought or the “methods/process used by Defendant” do “not tend to 

prove the elements to Plaintiff’s claims.” Id. Plaintiff has not, 

however, provided to the Court a copy of his discovery requests or any 

Case: 2:12-cv-01048-EAS-NMK Doc #: 25 Filed: 08/05/13 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>
3 

information regarding his interrogatories or document requests. Under 

the circumstances, the Court is unable to evaluate either the 

propriety of the discovery requests or the sufficiency of the 

responses. 

Rule 37 also requires that a party moving to compel certify that 

he “has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with other 

affected parties in an effort to resolve the dispute without court 

action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1). See also S.D. Ohio Civ. R. 37.2. 

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel does not include the required 

certification. Plaintiff does represent that, before filing 

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel, he “asked [defendants’] Counsel if he 

was going [to] have Defendants answer Discovery and Counsel said that 

it had been answered.” Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel, p. 1. The Court 

concludes, however, that this single question fails to satisfy the 

requirement of Rule 37(a)(1) and S.D. Ohio Civ. R. 37.2. 

For both these reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery, 

Doc. No. 14, is DENIED. 

August 5, 2013 s/Norah McCann King_______ 

 Norah McCann King 

 United States Magistrate Judge 

Case: 2:12-cv-01048-EAS-NMK Doc #: 25 Filed: 08/05/13 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>