Basham v. Midland Funding, LLC et al

Filing 43

ORDER denying 41 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin on 12/20/2019. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(jms)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13

IN RE: MIDLAND CREDIT
MANAGEMENT, INC.,
TELEPHONE CONSUMER
PROTECTION ACT LITIGATION

Case No.: 11md2286-MMA-MDD
Member Case Nos.: 15cv1479-MMAMDD and 15cv2282-MMA-MDD

15

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF
BASHAM’S MOTION TO COMPEL
DISCOVERY

16

[ECF No. 721]

14

17
Plaintiff Angela Basham (“Basham”) in member case numbers

18
19

15cv1479-MMA-MDD and 15cv2282-MMA-MDD moves to compel Midland1

20

to supplement certain discovery responses. (ECF No. 721). Midland opposes

21

Basham’s motion and moves to strike certain pages from her motion that it

22

contends violate the protective order. (ECF No. 732).
Pursuant to the Court’s September 5, 2018 Order, Midland was

23
24

required to produce certain “Plaintiff-specific information,” including a list of

25
26
27

1

The Court refers to all Defendants in this case as “Midland.”
1
11md2286-MMA-MDD

1

calls made to Basham on the accounts identified to cellular telephone

2

numbers identified by Basham, account notes or other records relating to

3

Basham’s account, and any consent evidence currently in Midland’s

4

possession. (ECF No. 608 at 4). Basham contends that Midland’s production

5

of such information was insufficient.

6

Specifically, Basham avers that: (1) the call log produced by Midland to

7

Basham was incomplete because it “included only a partial list of telephone

8

calls, missing years” and it “had many sequencing errors”; (2) the documents

9

produced by Midland to Basham contained 31 pages that were either blank or

10

contained only a header; (3) the documents produced by Midland contained

11

some redactions; and (4) Midland did not provide employee names and

12

contact information “of each person who had any involvement in any effort on

13

behalf of defendant to collect or attempt to collect the debt which forms the

14

basis of [Basham’s] action and the nature of any such involvement

15

undertaken by such person in behalf of defendant.” (ECF No. 721 at 5, 8-9).

16

Midland opposes Basham’s motion, contending: (1) it produced a call log

17

to Basham showing 39 calls to the numbers provided by Basham and there

18

are no other calls in it’s records; (2) the blank pages are separator pages and

19

the pages containing headers and footers are not missing any information; (3)

20

the redactions are protected by the attorney-client privilege or work product

21

doctrines, or are covering highly confidential and irrelevant financial

22

information; and (4) Midland is not required to produce individual discovery,

23

such as the names and contact information of employees involved in

24

attempting to collect Basham’s debt. (ECF No. 732 at 2-6). Further, Midland

25

argues Basham violated the protective order by not filing documents under

26

seal that were designated as “CONFIDENTIAL” or “ATTORNEYS EYES

27

ONLY.” (Id. at 6). To remedy this error, Midland asks the Court to strike
2
11md2286-MMA-MDD

1

pages 12 through 20 and 32 through 34 of Basham’s motion. (Id.).
Upon due consideration, the Court finds that Midland has sufficiently

2
3

shown the call log is complete, the blank pages and pages containing only

4

headers and footers are not missing any data or information, and that the

5

redactions are appropriate. Further, Midland is correct that Basham’s

6

request for employee names and contact information are outside the scope of

7

discovery in this multi-district litigation (“MDL”). (See ECF No. 608 at 6).

8

The Court explained that other than the discovery set forth in its September

9

5, 2018 Order, “no discovery is permitted at this time in connection with . . .

10

any member case in this MDL or any related case.” (Id. at 6).
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Basham’s motion. In addition, the

11
12

Court STRIKES ECF pages 12 through 20 and 32 through 34 of Basham’s

13

motions (11md2286-MMA-MDD, ECF No. 721 at 12-20, 32-34; 15cv1479-

14

MMA-MDD, ECF No. 41 at 12-20, 32-34; and 15cv2282-MMA-MDD, ECF No.

15

45 at 12-20, 32-34) pursuant to the protective order in this MDL. (ECF No.

16

609).

17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 20, 2019

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
3
11md2286-MMA-MDD