Opinion ID: 874219
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Did the District Court Improperly Dismiss Cardholder's Motion to Show Cause?

Text: On April 4, 2008, Cardholder filed a motion to compel discovery. He sought an answer to an interrogatory asking Bank to identify and describe each of its record-keeping systems and to provide information regarding each document in its possession, custody, or control that contains, references, or identifies Cardholder's account. He contended that this information was necessary to permit him to properly identify documents in Bank's possession. Cardholder also demanded responses to requests for production seeking communications relating to any studies made by Bank regarding bill stuffers, including the number, or percentage, of customers reading material included in the same envelope as the monthly statement; all documents regarding such studies; and all documents from any source that regarded bill stuffers and that were used or referenced by Bank. He contended that this information was relevant to his fraud claim because it would show that cardholders do not receive proper notice of contract changes when they are put into the envelope containing the monthly statement. The district court heard the motion on April 24, 2008, and entered an order five days later granting the motion and requiring Bank to comply within sixty days. However, Bank asked the court to reconsider the order, and on June 26, 2008, it stayed the order pending the outcome of the requested reconsideration. By order entered on July 22, 2008, the district court denied that requested reconsideration and ordered Bank to answer the interrogatory and requests for production. On September 11, 2008, Cardholder filed a motion to have Bank held in contempt for allegedly failing to comply with the July 22, 2008, order compelling discovery. On October 30, 2008, the court entered an order dismissing Cardholder's complaint, and on the same day it entered an order denying the motion to have Bank held in contempt because the issue was moot based upon the dismissal of the complaint. On appeal, Cardholder argues that Bank's answers to the discovery ordered were evasive and incomplete, but the answers are not in the record on appeal. He has not shown that the district court abused its discretion in refusing to hold Bank in contempt for allegedly failing to provide adequate answers to the discovery ordered.