Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

BEN POITEVINT, SR., 

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:11-cv-00076-MP-GRJ

UNITED RECOVERY SYSTEMS, LP, 

Defendant.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 25, plaintiff's Motion to Compel Better

Answers to Discovery. A telephonic hearing was held on the motion on January 18,

2012, in which attorney Matthew Sullivan represented the plaintiff and attorney Dale

Golden represented Defendant. The Court reviewed each discovery request and

response with counsel during the hearing, and made the following rulings. The motion

to compel is denied with regard to Requests to Produce 1, 2, 6, 8 and 9, as defendant

indicated during the hearing that no documents relating to plaintiff's account exist

beyond the account notes and the recordings already provided. 

To the extent that Request to Produce 4 requests addresses of employees or

former employees to facilitate service, the defendant will confirm in writing that it will

produce without subpoena all witnesses requested who are still employees of

defendant. Also, defendant will provide last known addresses for those no longer

employees. To the extent that Request to Produce 4 relates to disciplinary history of

employees and former employees, the motion to compel is denied without prejudice to

plaintiff serving focused requests for disciplinary histories of employees involved with

Case 1:11-cv-00076-MP-GRJ Document 32 Filed 01/19/12 Page 1 of 3
Page 2 of 3

this account. 

The motion to compel regarding Requests for Production 17, 19 and 20 is

denied. Defendant stated during the hearing that it does not possess any documents

therein requested, in electronic or paper format, beyond the account notes which have

already been produced.

The motion to compel regarding Request to Produce 11 is granted to the extent

that Defendant's counsel shall contact defendant to determine if a glossary of the

abbreviations, short-hand, codes, etc., in the account notes exists. If so, defendant

shall produce the glossary; if not, defendant shall so inform plaintiff. The motion to

compel is denied with regard to Requests to Produce 13, 14, 15 and 21, as defendant's

policies and procedures are not relevant to the instant case. 

With regard to Request for Production 16, the Court finds that an organizational

chart is relevant to the issues in this case. However, the Court also notes that if no

chart already exists, the Rules do not require defendant to create one for plaintiff's

benefit. Therefore, defendant's counsel is directed to contact defendant to determine if

such a corporate organizational chart exists. If so, defendant shall produce the chart; if

not, defendant shall so inform plaintiff. The motion to compel is denied with regard to

Request to Produce 24. Prior litigation against defendant is not relevant to the issues in

the instant case. 

During the hearing, the plaintiff indicated that the supplemental disclosures

recently received from defendant rendered the motion to compel regarding Interrogatory

7 moot. Accordingly, the motion is denied regarding that interrogatory. The motion to

compel relating to Interrogatory 8 is denied for the same reasons above regarding

Case No: 1:11-cv-00076-MP-GRJ

Case 1:11-cv-00076-MP-GRJ Document 32 Filed 01/19/12 Page 2 of 3
Page 3 of 3

policies and procedures of defendant. As stated during the hearing, the defendant shall

respond in writing to Interrogatory 11, indicating who the owner of the debt was, when

the debt was acquired and who currently owns the debt. Likewise, defendant shall

answer Interrogatory 12 and identify and describe the amount allegedly owed by

Plaintiff on the debt, itemizing the principal balance, interest, and any other charges.

With regard to interest and other charges, the defendant shall describe the basis

therefore. 

During the hearing, the defendant expressly waived all of its affirmative defenses,

in addition to the bona fide error defense waived in Doc. 29. Therefore, Interrogatory 15

is denied as moot. Interrogatory 17 was withdrawn by plaintiff during the hearing. 

Finally, the Court denies the motion to compel with regard to Interrogatory 23 because

the date, time, and phone number called can be determined from the account notes,

and defendant indicated that the phone numbers were found through a skip tracer

search.

DONE AND ORDERED this 18th day of January, 2012. 

áBZtÜç eA ]ÉÇxá 

GARY R. JONES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case No: 1:11-cv-00076-MP-GRJ

Case 1:11-cv-00076-MP-GRJ Document 32 Filed 01/19/12 Page 3 of 3