DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR PROTECTION OR ALTERNATIVELY, MOTION TO

QUASH DISCOVERY PAGE 1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

SHERMAN DIVISION 

SEAN OWENS, § 

 § 

 Plaintiff, § 

 § 

v. § 

 § 

EXPERIAN INFORMATION § 

SOLUTIONS INC., § 

 § Case No. 4:23-cv-00079-SDJ-KPJ 

EQUIFAX INFORMATION § 

SERVICES, LLC, § 

 § 

EDUCATIONAL CREDIT § 

MANAGEMENT CORPORATION § 

(agent of ECMC Group) § 

Defendants. 

§ 

§ 

DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR PROTECTION OR ALTERNATIVELY, 

MOTION TO QUASH DISCOVERY 

Defendants Experian Information Solutions, Inc. (“Experian”), Equifax Information 

Services, LLC (“Experian”), and Educational Credit Management Corporation (“ECMC”) 

(collectively, “Defendants”) file this Joint Motion for Protection or Alternatively, Motion to Quash 

Discovery (“Motion for Protection”) in accordance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(b)(2) 

and 26(c). In support of this Motion for Protection, Defendants respectfully show as follows: 

I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 

This case was previously on file in the United States District Court for the Central District 

of California, in a case styled Sean Owens v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. et al., Civil 

Action No. 8:22-cv-01601-FWS-JDW (the “California action”). Plaintiff Sean Owens 

(“Plaintiff”) initiated the California action against Defendants, alleging violations of the Fair 

Case 4:23-cv-00079-SDJ-KPJ Document 40 Filed 02/23/23 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 124
DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR PROTECTION OR ALTERNATIVELY, MOTION TO

QUASH DISCOVERY PAGE 2 

Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), the 

Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”), and FED. R. CIV. P. 9(b). The matter was 

transferred to this Court pursuant to the first-to-file rule because two years prior, Plaintiff filed a 

nearly identical lawsuit against Defendants, also alleging violations of the FCRA, FDCPA and the 

TCPA, in the Eastern District of Texas, in a case styled Owens v. Trans Union, LLC, et al., Civil 

Action No. 4:20-cv-665-SDJ-KPJ (the “Texas action”).1 Following the transfer, Defendants filed 

a Joint Motion to Stay Action Pending Final Judgment in the Prior Related Action, which is 

pending before the Court. See ECF No. 37. 

Prior to the transfer of the California action, Plaintiff served discovery on all Defendants. 

Defendants’ deadline to respond to Plaintiff’s discovery requests is February 24, 2023 for ECMC 

and February 27, 2023 for Equifax and Experian. The discovery sought by Plaintiff, however, is 

substantially similar, if not nearly identical, to discovery previously propounded by Plaintiff in the 

Texas action. Notably, discovery is stayed in the Texas action pending final rulings on various 

dispositive motions filed and pending before this Court.2 Plaintiff should not be able to circumvent 

the Magistrate Judge’s previous ruling granting a stay of discovery in the Texas action by filing 

an identical lawsuit in a separate forum and propounding the same discovery previously served 

and stayed. 

Defendants thus request a protective order quashing the cumulative and duplicative 

discovery propounded by Plaintiff. See FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(2)(c). Alternatively, Defendants 

1

 The Central District Court granted Defendants’ Joint Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motion to Stay (ECF 

No. 19) and transferred the California action to this Court on January 31, 2023. See ECF No. 32 and 33. 

2

 Discovery was stayed on May 17, 2022, pending the Eastern District of Texas’ ruling on Defendant ECMC’s and 

non-party Navient Solutions, LLC’s motions to dismiss. See Texas action, ECF No. 163. On September 9, 2022, the 

Magistrate Judge in the Eastern District of Texas issued an Order and Report and Recommendation, granting in part 

and dismissing in part the motions to dismiss. See Texas action, ECF No. 193. The Eastern District of Texas has not 

yet entered its final ruling on the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, and therefore discovery currently 

remains stayed in the Eastern District of Texas case.

Case 4:23-cv-00079-SDJ-KPJ Document 40 Filed 02/23/23 Page 2 of 9 PageID #: 125
DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR PROTECTION OR ALTERNATIVELY, MOTION TO

QUASH DISCOVERY PAGE 3 

request that this Court limit discovery and require that Plaintiff propound only discovery requests 

that do not duplicate—either in substance or in form—any discovery previously served on 

Defendants in the Texas action. See FED. R. CIV. P. 26(c). 

II. ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES 

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), the Court has broad discretion to protect a 

party with a protective order on a showing of good cause. FED. R. CIV. P. 26(c)(1). For example, 

the Court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance, 

embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense. Id. “Good cause” may also exist if 

(1) the discovery is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative or can be obtained from some other 

source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive; (2) the person seeking 

discovery has had ample opportunity already to obtain the information sought; or (3) the burden 

or expense of taking discovery outweighs its likely benefit. FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(2)(C). In issuing 

the protective order, the Court may forbid the discovery sought, forbid inquiry into certain matters, 

and otherwise limit the scope of proper discovery. FED. R. CIV. P. 26(c); see also Sanders v. Shell 

Oil Co., 678 F.2d 614, 618 (5th Cir. 1982). 

Defendants would show that good cause exists to enter a protective order in the instant 

proceeding because (1) Plaintiff’s discovery is unreasonably cumulative and/or duplicative to 

discovery previously propounded by Plaintiff and thus, can be obtained from a more convenient, 

less burdensome, and less expensive source—i.e., the Texas action, and (2) permitting the 

discovery sought by Plaintiff would circumvent the Magistrate Judge’s ruling granting a stay of 

discovery in the Texas action, causing undue burden and expense on the parties and contravening 

the scope and spirit of discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Case 4:23-cv-00079-SDJ-KPJ Document 40 Filed 02/23/23 Page 3 of 9 PageID #: 126
DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR PROTECTION OR ALTERNATIVELY, MOTION TO

QUASH DISCOVERY PAGE 4 

A. The discovery is cumulative and duplicative of discovery already sought by Plaintiff 

and can be obtained from a more convenient, less burdensome, and less expensive 

source. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 allows a party to discover “nonprivileged matter that is 

relevant to any party’s claim or defense.” FED. R. CIV. P. 26(c). However, that right is not without 

limits. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C). Rule 26(b)(2)(C) provides that limitations are necessary 

and required where the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative and/or duplicative, can be 

obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive, or 

where the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Id. 

There is no question that the burden and expense of responding to the pending discovery 

outweigh its likely benefit because most of the discovery requests are cumulative and duplicative 

of discovery propounded by Plaintiff in the Texas action. Both sets of requests seek information 

and documentation related to sixteen (16) student loans taken out by Plaintiff and allegedly 

mishandled and misreported by Defendants. For example, Plaintiff’s Requests for Production 

served on ECMC in both actions seek copies of all documents related to the “assignment, 

reassignment, acquisition, purchase, or transfer” (“ARAPT”) of the sixteen (16) student loans that 

are subject of this civil suit from the original creditor, CitiBank . . .” See attached Exhibit A, at 

RFP No. 1. The Requests also seek copies of ECMC’s consumer dispute process, including all 

relevant documents, manuals, or written policies. See id. at RFP No. 2. Similarly, Plaintiff’s 

Requests for Production served on Equifax in both actions seek copies of all documents “that 

Equifax transmitted or submitted electronically or sent in hard copy form to the defendant 

furnishers in an attempt to resolve Plaintiff’s consumer disputes.” See attached Exhibit B, at RFP 

Case 4:23-cv-00079-SDJ-KPJ Document 40 Filed 02/23/23 Page 4 of 9 PageID #: 127
DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR PROTECTION OR ALTERNATIVELY, MOTION TO

QUASH DISCOVERY PAGE 5 

No. 1. The parallel between the discovery sought in the California action and the Texas action 

permeates throughout the remainder of Plaintiff’s Requests.3 

The duplication between the discovery in the California action and Texas action indicate 

that (1) the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative and duplicative, and can be obtained from 

some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive—namely, 

Plaintiff’s prior discovery requests and Defendants’ responses in the Texas action, and (2) that the 

burden and expense of making sense of and responding to the recent pending discovery outweighs 

its likely benefit, considering its cumulative and duplicative content and nature. 

B. The purpose of Plaintiff’s requests appears to circumvent the Texas action’s stay of 

discovery and cause undue burden and expense. 

As described above, much of the discovery sought by Plaintiff does not request new or 

previously unknown information. Indeed, many of the requests duplicate prior requests and/or 

refer to allegations that have been present in the Texas action since the case commenced in 

September 2020.4 This information was already inquired into in the Texas action through 

Plaintiff’s previous discovery. 

The duplication of Plaintiff’s requests evidences an underlying purpose to circumvent the 

Magistrate Judge’s ruling granting a stay of discovery in the Texas action and to cause undue 

burden and expense on Defendants and this Court. Consequently, an order under Rule 26(c) 

quashing or limiting the pending discovery in this proceeding is necessary to protect Defendants 

from Plaintiff’s unfair discovery practices and tactics. See FED. R. CIV. P. 26(c). 

Additionally, Rule 33(a)(1) states “[u]nless otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court, a 

party may serve on any other party no more than 25 written interrogatories, including all discrete 

3

 The same is true for the discovery served on all Defendants. 

4

 For example, the first six interrogatories served on Defendant ECMC are nearly identical to the interrogatories served 

in the Texas action, and sixteen (16) out of the twenty-four (24) are substantially the same. See Exhibit C. 

Case 4:23-cv-00079-SDJ-KPJ Document 40 Filed 02/23/23 Page 5 of 9 PageID #: 128
DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR PROTECTION OR ALTERNATIVELY, MOTION TO

QUASH DISCOVERY PAGE 6 

subparts.” FED. R. CIV. P. 33(a)(1). In Plaintiff’s prior pending Texas action, Plaintiff already 

served the maximum number of interrogatories allotted by Rule 33. By filing a duplicative case 

and pursuing additional discovery, Plaintiff is not only circumventing the current stay in discovery 

in the prior pending action but is also improperly forcing Defendants to respond to duplicative 

discovery beyond the limits imposed by Rule 33. 

III. REQUEST FOR COSTS 

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(f), Defendants would respectfully ask this 

Court to order Plaintiff to pay the costs of the preparation of Defendants’ Motion for Protection. 

Rule 16(f)(1)(C) provides that the Court may, on motion or on its own, issue any just orders if a 

party or its attorney fails to obey a scheduling or other pretrial order. See FED. R. CIV. P. 

16(f)(1)(C). Such orders by the Court may include the payment of reasonable expenses, including 

attorneys’ fees, incurred because of a party’s noncompliance with this rule. See FED. R. CIV. P. 

16(f)(2). 

As Defendants have addressed above, Plaintiff’s insistence on duplicative discovery 

appears to improperly circumvent the Magistrate Judge’s ruling granting a stay of discovery in the 

Texas action by filing a nearly identical lawsuit in a separate forum and propounding substantially 

the same discovery previously stayed by the Magistrate Judge. Defendants have met their burden 

to show good cause exists for issuance of a protective order as Plaintiff’s requests were brought 

only for the purpose of seeking duplicative discovery from Defendants, causing undue burden and 

expense on the parties and this Court, and ultimately, circumventing the stay of discovery in the 

Texas action. Defendants thus request that costs be assessed against Plaintiff for his improper 

discovery requests, including the costs incurred by Defendants to bring forth this Motion for a 

protective order. 

Case 4:23-cv-00079-SDJ-KPJ Document 40 Filed 02/23/23 Page 6 of 9 PageID #: 129
DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR PROTECTION OR ALTERNATIVELY, MOTION TO

QUASH DISCOVERY PAGE 7 

IV. CONCLUSION AND PRAYER 

Without a protective order limiting discovery, Defendants will be subject to the undue 

burden of responding to duplicative, cumulative discovery that has already been propounded and 

stayed by this Court. In view of the good cause shown, Defendants respectfully request that the 

Court grant their Motion for Protection and issue a Protective Order finding that: 

1. The discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, and/or that the 

discovery can be obtained from another source that is more convenient, less 

burdensome, or less expensive; 

2. The burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit; 

3. Defendants’ Motion for Protection or Alternatively, Motion to Quash is granted or, 

in the alternative, the discovery sought should be limited to only discovery requests 

that do not duplicate any discovery previously served on Defendants in the related 

Texas action; and 

4. Defendants’ attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in filing the present Motion for 

Protection should be assessed against Plaintiff. 

Defendants further respectfully request such other and further relief, at law and in equity, 

as the Court may deem just and appropriate. 

 

Case 4:23-cv-00079-SDJ-KPJ Document 40 Filed 02/23/23 Page 7 of 9 PageID #: 130
DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR PROTECTION OR ALTERNATIVELY, MOTION TO

QUASH DISCOVERY PAGE 8 

Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Mark A. Platt 

MARK A. PLATT 

State Bar No. 00791453 

mplatt@fbtlaw.com 

SARAH M. SMITH 

Texas Bar No. 24115049 

E-mail: smsmith@fbtlaw.com 

FROST BROWN TODD LLP 

Rosewood Court 

2101 Cedar Springs Road, Suite 900 

Dallas, Texas 75201 

(214) 580-5852 Telephone 

(214) 545-3473 Facsimile 

Attorneys For Defendant 

Educational Credit Management Corporation 

/s/ Forrest M. “Teo” Seger, III (with permission)

FORREST M. “TEO” SEGER, III 

Texas Bar No. 24070587 

teo.seger@clarkhillstrasburger.com 

CLARK HILL STRASBURGER 

2301 Broadway 

San Antonio, TX 78215 

(210) 250-6162 

(210) 250-6100 Fax 

Counsel for Equifax Information Services LLC 

/s/ Julia N. Camp (with permission) 

JULIA N. CAMP 

Texas Bar No. 24123598 

juliacamp@jonesday.com 

JONES DAY 

717 Texas, Suite 3300 

Houston, TX 77002 

(832) 239-3939 

(832) 239-3600 Fax 

Counsel for Experian Information Solutions, Inc. 

 

Case 4:23-cv-00079-SDJ-KPJ Document 40 Filed 02/23/23 Page 8 of 9 PageID #: 131
DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR PROTECTION OR ALTERNATIVELY, MOTION TO

QUASH DISCOVERY PAGE 9 

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE 

I hereby certify that on or about February 1, 2023, and on February 22, 2023, counsel for 

Defendants made efforts to confer with Plaintiff Sean Owens regarding the relief requested in this 

Motion, as demonstrated in the attached Exhibit D. Defendants did not receive a response from 

Mr. Owens regarding the relief requested. 

/s/ Mark A. Platt 

Mark A. Platt 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing pleading has been furnished 

to Plaintiff and all parties of record via the CM/ECF system, and by first-class mail to the pro se

plaintiff on February 23, 2023, as follows: 

Sean Owens 

6009 W. Parker Rd., No. 299 

Plano, TX 75093 

(469) 522-3371 

Pro se Plaintiff 

Sean Owens 

1055 West 7th Street, 33rd Floor 

Los Angeles, California 90017 

(323) 412-8516 

Pro se Plaintiff 

/s/ Mark A. Platt 

Mark A. Platt 

0008587.0738502 4885-1820-9105v1 

Case 4:23-cv-00079-SDJ-KPJ Document 40 Filed 02/23/23 Page 9 of 9 PageID #: 132