Istvan v. Portfolio Recovery Associates LLC
ORDER denying 72 Motion to Compel, as further set out. Signed by Honorable Judge Charles S. Coody on 10/17/14. (scn, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
MARK E. ISTVAN,
CIVIL ACT. NO. 2:13cv539-CSC
Before the court Plaintiff Mark E. Istvan’s motion to compel attorney James Sears to
respond to deposition questions concerning his representation of Portfolio Recovery
Associates, LLC., in a debt collection action against Istvan in the Circuit Court of
Montgomery County, Alabama. (Doc. 72).
Having carefully reviewed the motion and the transcript of Sears’s deposition, and for
the reasons stated at oral argument held this day on the motion, the court finds that the
deposition questions that are the subject of the motion to compel are irrelevant and
impermissibly seek to violate the attorney-client privilege and the protection afforded an
attorney’s trial preparation materials and work product. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) (“Parties
may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim
or defense. . . . For good cause, the court may order discovery of any matter relevant to the
subject matter involved in the action.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3) (“Ordinarily, a party may
not discover documents and tangible things that are prepared in anticipation of litigation or
for trial by or for another party or its representative” unless those materials “are otherwise
discoverable under Rule 26(b)(1) and the party shows that it has substantial need for the
materials to prepare its case and cannot, without undue hardship, obtain their substantial
equivalent by other means.” (emphasis added)). Accordingly, and for good cause, it is
ORDERED that the motion to compel (Doc. 72) be and is hereby DENIED.
Done this 17th day of October, 2014.
/s/Charles S. Coody
CHARLES S. COODY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?