Acorin v. Trans Union, LLC

Filing 34

ORDER Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Deposition of Defendant Trans Union (ECF No. 27 ) Redacted . Signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara Lynn Major on 2/27/2025. (maq)

1

28-1, Declaration of Ritika Singh ESQ In Support of Trans Union LLC’s Response and Opposition

2

to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Deposition of Trans Union; Motion for Sanctions; and Motion for

3

Protective Order (“Singh Decl.”) at ¶ 6, Exhibit D. The Notice contained twenty-six deposition

4

topics. Id.

5

On December 24, 2024, Trans Union served confidential documents regarding Trans

6

Union’s policies and procedures regarding consumer disputes and identity theft to Plaintiff.

7

Oppo. at 7; see also Singh Decl., at ¶ 8, Exhibit F.

8

On December 26, 2024, Trans Union informed Plaintiff that its initially designated

9

30(b)(6) witness had a death in the family and alternative dates for Trans Union’s 30(b)(6)

10

deposition may be necessary. Id.; see also Singh Decl., at ¶ 9, Exhibit G; Tatar Decl. at ¶ 9.

11

On January 2, 2025, Plaintiff’s counsel responded that a stipulation would need to be filed

12

with a new deposition date by January 3, 2025. Id.; see also Singh Decl., at ¶ 10; Tatar Decl.

13

at ¶ 10. Trans Union responded that it could move forward with the deposition on January 8,

14

2025 and identified Andrew Montella as Trans Union’s 30(b)(6) witness. Singh Decl. at ¶ 10.

15

On January 6, 2025, Trans Union served Objections to Plaintiff’s Notice of Deposition

16

Topics and requested to meet and confer with Plaintiff. Oppo. at 7; see also Singh Decl., at ¶

17

¶ 11 and 13, Exhibit I; Tatar Decl. at ¶ 12, Exh. 5. Plaintiff’s counsel did not respond. Oppo. at

18

7; see also Singh Decl., at ¶ ¶ 11, 13.

19

On January 8, 2025, Plaintiff deposed Trans Union’s 30(b)(6) witness, Andrew Montella.

20

Id. at 8; see also Singh Decl., at ¶ 14. Afterwards, Plaintiff requested that Trans Union stipulate

21

to extending the fact discovery cut off for a second 30(b)(6) witness deposition. Id.; see also

22

Singh Decl., at ¶ 15. Trans Union declined. Id.

23

On January 9, 2025, Plaintiff’s counsel called counsel for Trans Union to meet and confer

24

regarding sanctions for Trans Union’s failure to present a witness at the 30(b)(6) deposition. Id.

25

at 8; see also Singh Decl., at ¶ 16. Trans Union argued that they had presented a witness who

26

was deposed and testified appropriately. Id. Later that day, Plaintiff’s counsel served Plaintiff’s

27

conformed Ex Parte Application to Amend the Scheduling Order and Plaintiff’s Request for

28

Sanctions. Id. at 9; see also Singh Decl., at ¶ 17, Exhibit J.
2
24CV38-AJB(BLM)

1

On January 13, 2025, the Court held a videoconference Mandatory Settlement

2

Conference. See ECF No. 50 in 24CV34-AJB(BLM). After the conference, the Court discussed

3

the instant dispute and informed Plaintiff’s Counsel that the appropriate motion was a motion to

4

compel and not a motion to amend the scheduling order. The Court then issued a briefing

5

schedule. ECF No. 23. In accordance with the briefing schedule, Plaintiff filed her motion on

6

January 21, 2025 and Defendant filed its opposition on January 28, 2025. MTC; see also Oppo.

7

PLAINTIFF’S POSITION

8

Plaintiff seeks an order compelling “Trans Union to designate a corporate witness for

9

testimony on sixteen topics crucial to establishing Trans Union's unreasonable and reckless

10

investigation of Plaintiff's disputes.” MTC at 7. Plaintiff argues that Trans Union failed to obtain

11

a protective order, has waived its objections, and failed to appear for its 30(b)(6) deposition by

12

sending a deponent who was inadequately prepared. Id. at 10- 21. Specifically, Plaintiff argues

13

that Trans Union’s last-minute objections to the 30(b)(6) deposition were procedurally improper

14

and do not excuse its refusal to testify. Id. at 11-12. Additionally, Trans Union’s failure to seek

15

a protective order cannot be remedied without a showing of excusable neglect which does not

16

apply here. Id. Plaintiff further argues that Trans Union’s objections to the 30(b)(6) deposition

17

were boilerplate and unsubstantiated. Id. at 12. Finally, Plaintiff argues that Trans Union’s

18

30(b)(6) witness was so unprepared for the deposition, that it constitutes a failure to appear.

19

Id. at 17. Accordingly, Plaintiff requests permission to file a motion for sanctions in the event

20

the Court grants the instant motion. Id. at 22-23.

21

TRANS UNION’S POSITION

22

Trans Union contends that Plaintiff's motion should be denied because even after

23

Plaintiff's refusal to meet and confer regarding deposition topics prior to the deposition, "Trans

24

Union properly produced and Plaintiff’s counsel deposed Trans Union’s 30(b)(6) witness for

25

approximately 6 hours." Oppo. at 6. Additionally, Plaintiff refused to meet and confer prior to

26

filing the instant motion as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Fed. R. Civ. P.”) 30 and

27

failed to include a statement pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 that Plaintiff’s counsel meaningfully

28

conferred about the disputes raised in the instant motion. Id. at 6, 10. Trans Union notes that
3
24CV38-AJB(BLM)

1

it presented a 30(b)(6) witness who testified on all of the non-objectionable topics, it timely

2

served its objections to the Notice of Deposition but instead of responding, Plaintiff opted to go

3

forward with the deposition, and that the instant motion is Plaintiff’s attempt to compensate for

4

her lack of diligence as she had ample time “to obtain discoverable information through written

5

discovery but failed to do so.” Id. at 10-11.

6

Trans Union also contends that it has not waived its objections and was “not required to

7

prepare a detailed privilege log until the parties [] conferred and the court [] ruled on Trans

8

Union’s objections to Plaintiff’s Requests. Id. at 12. Finally, Trans Union contends that Plaintiff’s

9

request for sanctions is not warranted. Id. at 20-21. Trans Union seeks permission to file a

10

motion for sanctions if Plaintiff’s motion is denied. Id. at 21-22. Trans Union also seeks a

11

protective order pursuant to Rule 26(c) as to deposition Topics 10, 13-17, and 23-26. Id. at 22-

12

23.

13

LEGAL STANDARD

14

The scope of discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is defined as follows:

15

Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant
to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case,
considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in
controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’
resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether
the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.
Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to
be discoverable.

16
17
18
19
20
21

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).

22

District courts have broad discretion to determine relevancy for discovery purposes. See

23

Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002). District courts also have broad discretion

24

to limit discovery to prevent its abuse. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(c)(i-iii)(instructing that

25

courts must limit discovery where the party seeking the discovery “has had ample opportunity

26

to obtain the information by discovery in the action” or where the proposed discovery is

27

“unreasonably cumulative or duplicative,” “obtain[able] from some other source that is more

28
4
24CV38-AJB(BLM)

1

convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive,” or where it “is outside the scope permitted by

2

Rule 26(b)(1)”).

3

Depositions

4

Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a)(1) provides that “[a] party may, by oral questions, depose any

5

person, including a party, without leave of court except as provided in Rule 30(a)(2). 1” Fed. R.

6

Civ. P. 30(a)(6) requires that a notice or subpoena directed towards an organization “describe

7

with reasonable particularity the matters for examination” and “set out the matters on which

8

each person designated will testify.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a)(6) also requires that the organization

9

“designate one or more officers, directors, or managing agents, or designate other persons who

10

consent to testify on its behalf” and that “the serving party and the organization must confer in

11

good faith about the matters for examination.” “The persons designated must testify about

12

information known or reasonably available to the organization.” Id.

13
14

DISCUSSION
A.

Meet & Confer

15

Trans Union contends that Plaintiff fails to address the fact that she failed to meet and

16

confer before seeking court intervention as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6). Oppo. at 10.

17

This is evidenced by Plaintiff’s failure to include a statement confirming that the parties met and

18

conferred in good faith as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 37. Id. at n1.

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

1 Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a)(2) states that “[a] party must obtain leave of court, and the court must

grant leave to the extent consistent with Rule 26(b)(1) and (2): (A) if the parties have not
stipulated to the deposition and: (i) the deposition would result in more than 10 depositions
being taken under this rule or Rule 31 by the plaintiffs, or by the defendants, or by the thirdparty defendants; (ii) the deponent has already been deposed in the case; or (iii) the party seeks
to take the deposition before the time specified in Rule 26(d), unless the party certifies in the
notice, with supporting facts, that the deponent is expected to leave the United States and be
unavailable for examination in this country after that time; or (B) if the deponent is confined in
prison.”

28
5
24CV38-AJB(BLM)

1

Plaintiff argues that Trans Union’s decision to wait until January 6, 2025, two days before

2

the deposition to serve objections when it was aware of the deposition topics on November 14,

3

2024 did not leave the parties sufficient time to meet and confer. MTC at 8.

4

Fed. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) states that “[b]efore or promptly after the notice or subpoena is

5

served, the serving party and the organization must confer in good faith about the matters for

6

examination.” Plaintiff served a new Notice of Trans Union’s 30(b)(6) deposition on November

7

19, 2024. Oppo. at 7.

8

two days before the deposition, on January 6, 2025, Trans Union served its objections to the

9

deposition topics and requested a meet and confer. Id. at 7-8; Singh Decl. at ¶ 13. Plaintiff’s

10

counsel did not respond. Id. While the parties failed to meet and confer prior to the deposition

11

as required Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6), the Court finds that this is not a sufficient reason for denying

12

Plaintiff’s motion. Trans Union provides no explanation for waiting until the last minute to serve

13

its objections to the deposition topics and requesting a meet and confer. Contrary to Trans

14

Union’s statement that “Plaintiff’s Motion fails to address a threshold issue: the parties must

15

meet and confer in good faith prior to seeking court intervention[,]” Plaintiff did address the

16

issue by stating that due to the timing of Trans Union’s request, “time did not permit to confer

17

on such short notice.” Oppo. at 10; MTC at 8. The Court will not reward Trans Union’s lack of

18

diligence in objecting and seeking a meet and confer by denying Plaintiff’s motion on this ground.

19

Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1) states that “[o]n notice to other parties and all affected persons,

20

a party may move for an order compelling disclosure or discovery. The motion must include a

21

certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the person

22

or party failing to make disclosure or discovery in an effort to obtain it without court action.”

23

The instant motion does not include the required certification, however, during the deposition

24

on January 8, 2025, the parties met and conferred on the record. MTC at 10; Tatar Decl. at ¶

25

20. Trans Union states that the meet and confer only addressed a potential stipulation to extend

26

the discovery cutoff that Trans Union rejected due to its objections to the deposition topics.

27

Opp. at 8; Singh Decl. at ¶ 15. Plaintiff states that the meet and confer addressed Trans Union’s

28

failure to obtain a protective order and the potential stipulation to extend the discovery cutoff.

The notice contained 26 deposition topics. Id. Forty-eight days later,

6
24CV38-AJB(BLM)

1

Tatar Decl. at ¶¶ 20-22. Accordingly, the Court will not reject the instant motion for its lack of

2

a meet and confer certification.

3

B.

Trans Union’s Objections

4

Plaintiff argues that Trans Union has waived its objections to the deposition topics at

5

issue. MTC at 12- 17. Plaintiff argues that Trans Union’s objections were boilerplate and

6

unsubstantiated and that without additional explanation or specificity, the objections are waived.

7

Id. at 12-13. Plaintiff notes that Trans Union’s behavior appears to be an attempt to “conceal[]

8

relevant information while running out the discovery clock.” Id. at 13.

9
10

Trans Union contends that it has not waived its objections because Plaintiff did not
attempt to meet and confer prior to filing the instant motion. Oppo. at 12.

11

As an initial matter, the Court notes that Trans Union’s objections to the discovery topics

12

were procedurally improper. See Cancino Castellar v. McAleenan, 2020 WL 1332485, at *3 (S.D.

13

Cal., Mar. 23, 2020) (The “proper procedure to object to a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice is not

14

to serve objections on the opposing party, but to move for a protective order[,]”) (quoting

15

Rembrandt Diagnostics, LP v. Innovacon, Inc., 2018 WL 692259, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 2, 2018)

16

(“A corporate deponent cannot simply make ‘objections and then provide a witness that will

17

testify only within the scope of its objections. Unlike the procedure with respect to

18

interrogatories, requests for production of documents and requests for admissions, there is no

19

provision in the rules which provides for a party whose deposition is noticed to serve objections

20

so as to be able to avoid providing the requested discovery until an order compelling discovery

21

is issued.’”) (quoting Beach Mart, Inc. v. L & L Wings, Inc., 302 F.R.D. 396, 406 (E.D.N.C. 2014)

22

and New England Carpenters Health Benefits Fund v. First Databank, Inc., 242 F.R.D. 164, 165-

23

66 (D. Mass. 2007)). Trans Union failed to move for a protective order prior to the deposition

24

and, instead, served objections two days before the deposition. Singh Decl. at ¶ 11. Given the

25

facts, including that the parties failed to meet and confer regarding Trans Union’s objections

26

and Plaintiff deposed the Rule 30(b)(6) witness at length, the Court declines to find that Trans

27

Union has waived its objections.

28

///
7
24CV38-AJB(BLM)

1

1. Topic 10

2

Topic 10 is “[t]he costs or expenses incurred by You in conducting each investigation into

3

any dispute made by Plaintiff.” Sing Decl. at Exh. H. Trans Union objected to the topic

4

on the grounds that it is overbroad and unlimited in time. FED. R. CIV.
P.26(b)(1). This Topic seeks information beyond the scope of the claims and
defenses in this case. Furthermore, this Topic does not identify the subject
matter with reasonable particularity and could involve many different subject
matters. FED. R. CIV. P. 30. Moreover, requiring Trans Union to retrieve, review,
and produce the information requested would impose undue burden and
expense on Trans Union, overwhelm Trans Union’s resources, and far outweigh
any possible benefit. FED. R. CIV. P. 26(c)(1). Trans Union also objects to
providing information that constitutes confidential, proprietary, and trade secret
information of Trans Union and third parties. FED. R. CIV. P. 26(c). Trans Union
objects to this Topic on the grounds that the information sought is subject to
the joint defense, work product, and attorney-client privileges. FED. R. EVID.
502.

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

Id. Plaintiff argues that this topic is relevant to potential punitive damages and that Trans Union

14

has failed to meet its burden of demonstrating how this topic is unduly burdensome or

15

expensive. MTC at 13. Plaintiff notes there is a protective order in place which should alleviate

16

Trans Union’s objections regarding confidentiality or the proprietary nature of the information.

17

Id. at 13-14. Finally, Plaintiff argues that Trans Union’s objections based on privilege are unclear

18

given that Trans Union has yet to produce a privilege log as required by Fed. R. Civ. P.

19

26(b)(5)(A). Id. at 14.

20

Trans Union contends that it “does not track costs or expenses incurred in conducting

21

each investigation” and that Mr. Montella testified that investigators are not paid for each

22

dispute. Oppo. at 13. Trans Union further contends that Plaintiff has not shown that the Topic

23

is relevant to Plaintiff’s claim and that Plaintiff’s questions should be directed towards

24

Teleperformance f/k/a Intelenet Global Services Private Ltd., “a non-party, foreign entity []

25

vendor hired by Trans Union to process credit disputes.” Id. Teleperformance is located in

26

India and unaffiliated with Trans Union and the information Plaintiff seeks is within the custody

27

and control of Teleperformance and not Trans Union as testified to by Mr. Montella. Id.

28
8
24CV38-AJB(BLM)

1

Trans Union’s objections to Topic 10 are SUSTAINED IN PART and OVERRULED IN

2

PART. Mr. Montella testified that Trans Union uses a customer relations department located in

3

Mumbai, India called Teleperformance f/k/a Intelenet. Tatar Decl. at Exh. 6 at 5. He further

4

testified that Intelenet dispute agents are not paid per dispute and that Intelenet is its own

5

entity separate from Trans Union. Id. at 8. When Plaintiff’s counsel asked Mr. Montella if he

6

was prepared to discuss Topic 10, “[c]osts or expenses incurred by TransUnion in conducting

7

each investigation[,]” Mr. Montella responded “no.” Tatar Decl. at Exh. 6, 19.

8

Trans Union is ORDERED to produce a 30(b)(6) witness to discuss the costs and

9

expenses incurred by Trans Union to have Intelenet perform the relevant investigations. Given

10

that (1) Trans Union and Mr. Montella have stated that Teleperformance/Intelenet is a separate

11

entity that Trans Union uses to conduct investigations, (2) Mr. Montella testified that he did not

12

know the inner workings of Intelenet, and (3) Trans Union has stated that Teleperformance and

13

its employees have knowledge about the services provided by Teleperformance to Trans Union

14

and that individual Teleperformance Operators processed the related dispute(s) received by

15

Trans Union, the 30(b)(6) witness is not expected or required to testify as to the inner workings

16

of Teleperformance 2. Tatar Decl. at Exh. at 6, 19; see also Oppo. at 13, Singh Decl. at Exh. L

17

(Trans Union’s First Supplemental Rule 26(a)(1) Initial Disclosures). The 30(b)(6) witness is

18

required to testify about the costs incurred by Trans Union to conduct or have conducted the

19

relevant investigation, including for example, the amount of money paid by Trans Union to

20

Teleperformance. Because Mr. Montella was not prepared to testify on this topic as to Trans

21

Union’s costs or expenses, Trans Union must prepare and produce a new 30(b)(6) witness.

22

///

23

///

24
25
26
27
28

2 Including but not limited to the operating hours of Intelenet, how much the Intelenet agents

are paid per hour, whether the agents are hourly, salaried, paid weekly or monthly, whether the
agents receive incentives or bonuses to complete a certain number of disputes (except from
Trans Union), number of dispute agents employed in India, number of supervisors employed in
India, whether the dispute agents are employees or contractors, names of current employees
of Intelenet, or disciplinary actions taken against Intelenet dispute agents or terminations.
9
24CV38-AJB(BLM)

1

2. Topics 13-15

2

Topic 13 is “[t]he names and contact information of all of the fraud and/or identity theft

3

department manager(s), assistants, and other person(s) responsible for creating, reviewing,

4

conducting training on, inspecting, and implementing the fraud and identity theft related policies

5

and practices of Defendant.” Singh Decl. at Exh. H. Topic 14 is “[t]he names and contact

6

information of all of fraud and/or identity theft department manager(s), assistants, and other

7

person(s) responsible for creating, reviewing, conducting training on, inspecting, and

8

implementing the debtor identification and verification policies and practices of Defendant.” Id.

9

Topic 15 is “[t]he names and contact information of all of Defendant’s employees and other

10

person(s) who communicated with Plaintiff or anyone posing as Plaintiff, in writing, verbally, or

11

otherwise, regarding the tradelines or accounts at issue.” Id. Trans Union’s objected to Topics

12

13-15

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

on the grounds that [they are] overbroad and unlimited in time. FED. R. CIV.
P.26(b)(1). Th[ese] Topic[s] seek[] information beyond the scope of the claims
and defenses in this case. Furthermore, th[ese] Topic[s] do[] not identify the
subject matter with reasonable particularity and could involve many different
subject matters. FED. R. CIV. P. 30. Moreover, requiring Trans Union to retrieve,
review, and produce the information requested would impose undue burden
and expense on Trans Union, overwhelm Trans Union’s resources, and far
outweigh any possible benefit. FED. R. CIV. P. 26(c)(1). Trans Union also
objects to providing information that constitutes confidential, proprietary, and
trade secret information of Trans Union and third parties. FED. R. CIV. P. 26(c).
Trans Union objects to th[ese] Topic[s] on the grounds that the information
sought is subject to the joint defense, work product, and attorney-client
privileges. FED. R. EVID. 502.

21
22

Id. Plaintiff argues that these topics are relevant because the individuals may have information

23

that speaks to whether dispute agents are properly trained to handle FCRA disputes and that

24

Trans Union’s overbroad objection is unfounded. MTC at 14. However, Plaintiff notes that she

25

“is amenable to limiting the timeframe for these topics to 2018-2024.” Id.

26

Trans Union contends that “Plaintiff’s Motion fails to address the relevancy or necessity

27

of contact information of individuals responsible for training on identity theft.” Oppo. at 14.

28

This is especially concerning here, where Plaintiff has not brought a negligent training claim. Id.
10
24CV38-AJB(BLM)

1

Trans Union produced written discovery on its policies and procedures surrounding consumer

2

disputes and identity theft.

3

procedures specific to identity theft. Id. Plaintiff’s counsel did not ask Mr. Montella for the

4

contact information for individuals responsible for creating, implementing, and training on

5

identity theft. Id.; see also Singh Decl. at ¶ 20. Trans Union notes that Plaintiff cites to Fed. R.

6

Civ. P. 26(a)(i) for support which is “improper and meritless.” Oppo. at 14.

7

Trans Union’s objections to topics 13-14 are SUSTAINED.

Id.

Mr. Montella also testified about Trans Union’s training

Topics 13 and 14 are

8

overbroad as written. The topics contain no time frame, fraud encompasses many different

9

types of interactions or situations that are not relevant to the instant dispute, and the group of

10

individuals described in the topics is also overbroad. Even considering Plaintiff’s willingness to

11

limit the timeframe for these topics to 2018-2024, the Court finds the requests overbroad.

12

Trans Union’s objections to Topic 15 are SUSTAINED IN PART AND OVERRULED IN

13

PART. Topic 15 as written is overbroad and will be limited so as to only include Trans Union’s

14

employees and not “other person(s).”

15

witness prepared to testify about the “names and contact information of all of Defendant’s

16

employees [] who communicated with Plaintiff or anyone posing as Plaintiff, in writing, verbally,

17

or otherwise, regarding the tradelines or accounts at issue” or provide the requested information

18

in a declaration signed under penalty of perjury. If Trans Union wants to provide the requested

19

information via declaration, it must provide the declaration to Plaintiff by March 14, 2025.

Accordingly, Trans Union must produce a 30(b)(6)

20

3. Topics 16-17

21

Topic 16 is “[a]ll of the oral and written training provided to employees of Defendant

22

from 2017 through the present regarding Defendant’s policies, procedures, methods,

23

techniques, tactics, rules, and regulations regarding fraud/identity theft.” Singh Decl. at Exh.

24

H. Topic 17 is “[a]ll of the oral and written training provided to employees of Defendant from

25

2017 through the present regarding state and federal laws regarding credit reporting and

26

fraud/identity theft.” Id. Trans Union objects to Topics 16-17

27
28

on the grounds that [they are] overbroad and unlimited in time. FED. R. CIV.
P.26(b)(1). Th[ese] Topic[s] seek[] information beyond the scope of the claims
11
24CV38-AJB(BLM)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

and defenses in this case. Furthermore, th[ese] Topic[s] do[] not identify the
subject matter with reasonable particularity and could involve many different
subject matters. FED. R. CIV. P. 30. Moreover, requiring Trans Union to retrieve,
review, and produce the information requested would impose undue burden
and expense on Trans Union, overwhelm Trans Union’s resources, and far
outweigh any possible benefit. FED. R. CIV. P. 26(c)(1). Trans Union also
objects to providing information that constitutes confidential, proprietary, and
trade secret information of Trans Union and third parties. FED. R. CIV. P. 26(c).
Trans Union objects to th[ese] Topic[s] on the grounds that the information
sought is subject to the joint defense, work product, and attorney-client
privileges. FED. R. EVID. 502.

8

Id. Plaintiff argues that Trans Union improperly objects to Topics 16-17 as the topics are highly

9

relevant to both Plaintiff’s claims and Trans Union’s affirmative defenses, specifically

10

“reasonableness and recklessness” and Plaintiff’s claim that “Trans Union negligently and willfully

11

violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the California Credit Reporting Agencies Act.” MTC at

12

15. Plaintiff notes that “Trans Union has put this topic at issue by asserting its policies and

13

procedures were adequate.” Id.

14

Trans Union contends that “Topic 16-17 are overly broad, not defined with reasonable

15

particularity, and beyond the scope of Plaintiff’s claims and defenses.” Oppo. at 16. Trans

16

Union notes that Mr. Montella testified about Trans Union’s training procedures implemented on

17

identity theft but was asked questions about information outside of Trans Union’s custody and

18

control with respect to the training of individuals employed by Teleperformance. Id. Trans

19

Union contends that this is something that could have been addressed with a meaningful meet

20

and confer. Id. Trans Union notes that it produced written discovery responses regarding

21

“Trans Union’s training provided to its employees regarding fraud, identity theft and credit

22

reporting with respect to deposition topics 16 and 17” and that Plaintiff’s counsel did not ask Mr.

23

Montella any questions regarding those documents. Id.

24

Trans Union’s objections to Topics 16-17 are OVERRULED. Initially, the Court notes

25

that the language of Topics 16 and 17 is limited to Defendant’s employees and, therefore, any

26

questions regarding Teleperformance f/k/a Intelenet are not permitted. Second, the Court finds

27

that the requested time frame is overbroad. The Court limits the time frame for Topics 16 and

28

17 to January 2019 (the year Plaintiff alleges that fraudulent activity began [see ECF No. 1 at 5;
12
24CV38-AJB(BLM)

sought is subject to the joint defense, work product, and attorney-client
privileges. FED. R. EVID. 502.

1
2
3

Id. Plaintiff argues that Trans Union has been ordered to produce this information in other cases

4

and that the information is relevant to Plaintiff’s “§1681i reinvestigation claim and willfulness.”

5

MTC at 15. Plaintiff notes that Trans Union’s knowledge of other lawsuits shows that Trans

6

Union knew Wells Fargo was not a reliable source of information and that Trans Union acted

7

recklessly in its investigation. Id. at 16. Plaintiff further argues that these objections are not

8

supported by evidence specifying the undue burden or expense Trans Union claims. Id. at 16-

9

17.

10

Trans Union contends that Plaintiff is relying on Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 for her position which

11

is specific to written discovery, not 30(b)(6) deposition topics. Oppo. at 17. Trans Union further

12

contends that the topics are overbroad and “should not be discoverable as each lawsuit is unique

13

in that they all are based on their own set of facts and circumstances.” Id. at 18. Trans Union

14

contends the topics are overbroad as to scope and time.

15

information Plaintiff is seeking in Topic 23 is publicly available and not proportional to the needs

16

of the case. Id. at 19.

Id.

Additionally, much of the

17

Trans Union’s objections to Topic 23 are SUSTAINED. Topic 23 is overbroad and seeks

18

irrelevant or minimally relevant information (such as allegations in online review forums) that is

19

not proportional to the needs of this case.

20

Trans Union’s objections to Topic 24 are OVERRULED, however, Topic 24 is limited to

21

the time period between January 2019 and December 2023. Topic 24 is also limited to lawsuits

22

served on Trans Union. Accordingly, Trans Union must produce a 30(b)(6) witness prepared to

23

testify about all lawsuits served on You against You based on alleged violations of the CCRAA

24

Cal. Civ. Code §1785 et seq., and Fair Credit Reporting Act 15 U.S.C. §1681 from January 2019

25

through December 2023 or provide the requested information in a declaration signed under

26

penalty of perjury. If Trans Union wants to provide the information by declaration, it must

27

provide the declaration to Plaintiff by March 14, 2025.

28
16
24CV38-AJB(BLM)

1

Trans Union’s objections to Topics 25 and 26 are SUSTAINED. The requests as written

2

are overbroad and not proportional to the claims in this case. This is not a class action case; it

3

is an individual claim. The requests seek a broad array of types of studies or investigations and

4

are focused on “frequency” of disputes, rather than focusing on facts of this case. The requests

5

are not proportional because they seek to obtain information about studies, audits, analyses and

6

investigations rather than, for example, the number of identity theft disputes (similar to Topic

7

24 which seeks number and identity of lawsuits). Also, while Plaintiff’s brief explains why the

8

lawsuits are relevant, she does not explain why the array of studies, audits, analyses and

9

investigations are relevant.

10

Protective Order

11

Trans Union seeks a protective order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) with respect to

12

deposition Topics 10, 13-17, and 23-26. Oppo. at 22. Trans Union contends that the deposition

13

topics are “improper attempts to shoehorn interrogatories and requests for production into a

14

deposition” and “beyond the scope of the claims and defenses in this case and do not identify

15

the subject matter.” Id. at 23. Trans Union requests that Plaintiff’s motion be denied, and it

16

not be required to produce a second 30(b)(6) witness. Id.

17

Plaintiff argues that Trans Union’s failure to seek a protective order previously cannot be

18

rectified. MTC at 12. For the Court to grant a protective order, Trans Union would have to

19

demonstrate excusable neglect since the time proper for requesting a protective order has

20

passed, and Trans Union is unable to do so. Id.

21

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1) allows a party to “move for a protective order . . . . on matters

22

relating to a deposition, in the court for the district where the deposition will be taken.” Where

23

good cause is shown, the court may “issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance,

24

embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.” Id. If the motion for a protective

25

order is denied in whole or part, the court may order that the discovery be provided. Fed. R.

26

Civ. P. 26(c)(2).

27

In reviewing Trans Union’s objections to the various deposition topics, the Court has

28

considered Trans Union’s request for a protective order. While the Court understands Plaintiff’s
17
24CV38-AJB(BLM)

1

position, the Court does not find that request to be untimely because Trans Union appeared for

2

the January 8, 2025 deposition and is now seeking a protective order to prevent a continuation

3

of that 30(b)(6) deposition. In accordance with the discussion above, Trans Union’s request for

4

a protective order is GRANTED as to Topics 13, 14, 23, 25, and 26.

5

Failure to Appear & Sanctions

6

Plaintiff argues that Trans Union’s inadequate preparation of its 30(b)(6) witness

7

constitutes a failure to appear. MTC. at 17. Mr. Montella was unable to answer numerous

8

questions for which he was the designated witness. Id. Mr. Montella responded “I don’t know”

9

to several questions related to Topics 1-2 and 6-9 which covered the factual basis for Trans

10

Union's affirmative defenses, Trans Union's policies, procedures, methods, techniques and rules

11

regarding investigations, Trans Union's communications regarding the Wells Fargo accounts,

12

and Trans Union's investigation into Plaintiff's disputes. Id. at 17-21; see also Tatar Decl. at

13

Exh. 6. Considering Trans Union’s unprepared 30(b)(6) deponent and boilerplate objections,

14

Plaintiff argues that Trans Union cannot justify its behavior and that she should be permitted to

15

file a motion for sanctions if her motion to compel is granted. MTC at 21. Specifically, Trans

16

Union’s behavior has increased costs and delayed discovery and warrants compelled testimony

17

and monetary sanctions. Id.

18

Trans Union contends that Plaintiff is not entitled to sanctions given that Plaintiff failed

19

to meet and confer, Plaintiff waited until the end of the discovery period to conduct the 30(b)(6)

20

deposition, Plaintiff sought to amend the scheduling order for a second deposition on an ex

21

parte basis, Trans Union did not act improperly, Trans Union produced a 30(b)(6) witness who

22

was adequately prepared and deposed for six hours despite Trans Union’s written objections,

23

and Plaintiff’s counsel failed to meet and confer prior to the deposition despite knowing that

24

Trans Union objected to some of the noticed topics. Oppo. at 20-21. Trans Union further

25

contends that it is entitled to recover attorney’s fees if the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion as

26

Plaintiff’s motion and request for sanctions “is an attempt to mislead the Court as to Plaintiff’s

27

claims and the deposition testimony provided by Mr. Montella” and “a tactic designed to gain

28

settlement advantage and exploit the discovery process, all while failing to meaningfully meet
18
24CV38-AJB(BLM)

1

and confer prior to filing the Motion.” Oppo. at 20-22.

2

If a motion to compel discovery is granted, Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A) requires a court to

3

order the “party or deponent whose conduct necessitated the motion, the party or attorney

4

advising that conduct, or both to pay the movant’s reasonable expenses incurred in making the

5

motion, including attorney’s fees” unless the movant failed to meet and confer, the objection

6

was substantially justified, or other circumstances militate against awarding expenses. See

7

Brown v. Hain Celestial Group, Inc., 2013 WL 5800566, *5 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 28, 2013) (“[t]he

8

party that loses the motion to compel bears the affirmative burden of demonstrating that its

9

position was substantially justified”) (internal citations omitted). If a motion to compel is denied,

10

the court must, after giving an opportunity to be heard, require the movant, the attorney filing

11

the motion, or both to pay the party or deponent who opposed the motion its reasonable

12

expenses incurred in opposing the motion, including attorney's fees unless the motion was

13

substantially justified or other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust. Fed. R. Civ.

14

P. 37(a)(5)(B). If a motion to compel discovery is granted in part and denied in part, the court

15

may issue any protective order authorized under Rule 26(c) and may, after giving an opportunity

16

to be heard, apportion the reasonable expenses for the motion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(C).

17

Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(d)(2) provides that a court “may impose an appropriate sanction -

18

including the reasonable expenses and attorney’s fees incurred by any party - on a person who

19

impedes, delays, or frustrates the fair examination of the deponent.” Bicek v. C & S Wholesale

20

Grocers, Inc., 2013 WL 5673418, *6-8 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2013) (finding sanctions appropriate

21

under both Rules 30 and 37 as a result of counsel’s delaying, impeding and frustrating

22

depositions, and for causing opposing counsel to seek the court’s intervention to resolve the

23

dispute). “To determine if sanctions are warranted under Rule 30, the court's inquiry is twofold.

24

First, the court must determine whether a person's behavior has impeded, delayed, or frustrated

25

the fair examination of the deponent.” Lucas v. Breg, Inc., 2016 WL 2996843, at *2 (S.D. Cal.

26

May 13, 2016) (quoting Dunn v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2013 WL 5940099 (D. Nev. Nov. 1,

27

2013), citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(d)(2)). Second, the Court must determine an appropriate

28

sanction.

Id.

“The Ninth Circuit provides District Courts with wide discretion to fashion
19
24CV38-AJB(BLM)

1

employees of Defendant from 2017 through the present regarding state and federal laws

2

regarding credit reporting and fraud/identity theft.”) and when discussing Topic 2, Plaintiff cites

3

to the same portions of the deposition that were discussed above. See supra at 11-12. The

4

Court has already found that Mr. Montella failed to adequately prepare for his testimony on

5

Topics 16-17 and that Trans Union must provide a new 30(b)(6) witness for those topics. Id.

6

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for a new 30(b)(6) witness to respond to Topic 2 is GRANTED.

7

As with Topics 16-17, the witness is required to answer questions about Trans Union; and

8

questions regarding the internal policies and procedures of Teleperformance f/k/a Intelenet are

9

not permitted.

10

Topic No. 6 addresses “[a]ll communications, written, verbal, or otherwise between

11

Defendant and its staff regarding the tradelines at issue Defendant was reporting or publishing

12

about Plaintiff, including all internal notes, records, and communications.” Singh Decl. at Exh.

13

H. Topic No. 7 addresses “[a]ll communications, written, verbal, or otherwise, internally within

14

Defendant regarding the investigation(s) into dispute(s) received by Defendant from Plaintiff or

15

from a CRA regarding the account(s) at issue in this case.” Id. Plaintiff highlights two instances

16

from a six-hour deposition where Mr. Montella did not respond thoroughly to Topics 6-7. MTC.

17

at 20 (citing Depo Transcript at 49:19-50:4) and (103:5-12). In the first instance, Plaintiff’s

18

counsel asked:

19
20
21
22
23
24

Q· · Okay.· Since Plaintiff's filing of the lawsuit, has TransUnion blocked the two
Wells Fargo accounts from her credit reports? A· · They are currently not on
the file.
Q· · Were they suppressed? A· · They were suppressed.
Q· · Why were they suppressed? A· · I don't recall off the top of my head. But
they are no longer on file. I apologize for my faulty memory, but I know they
are no longer there, but they were suppressed.

25

Tatar Decl. at Exh. 6 at 3-4. Plaintiff’s counsel asked follow-up questions and Mr. Montella

26

responded and testified that (1) the accounts will not “pop back up on” Plaintiff’s credit report

27

if she loses the instant matter, (2) the decision to suppress the Wells Fargo accounts was a

28

business decision by Trans Union, not Wells Fargo, (3) if it had been a decision by Wells Fargo,
24
24CV38-AJB(BLM)

1

that he was prepared to testify on Topic 9 [id. at 19], he was not. Mr. Montella admitted that

2

he did not review anything prior to December 2020 despite Plaintiff’s allegations of fraud dating

3

back to August 2019 and that despite having the ability to do so, he chose not to investigate

4

which specific documents Trans Union sent to Wells Fargo regarding Plaintiff’s dispute. Id. at

5

13. This testimony and Trans Union’s failure to address Topic 9 support a finding that Mr.

6

Montella was not adequately prepared to testify regarding Topic 9. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s

7

request for a new 30(b)(6) witness to respond to Topic 9 is DENIED IN PART AND GRANTED

8

IN PART. Trans Union must produce a 30(b)(6) witness prepared to testify about Topic 9.

9

However, the deponent is not expected or required to testify as to Teleperformance/Intelenet.

10

CONCLUSION

11

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Deposition of Defendant Trans Union is GRANTED IN PART

12

AND DENIED IN PART as follows:

13

Trans Union must produce a 30(b)(6) witness on Topics 1, 2, 9, 10, 15, 16, 17, and 24

14

as amended or limited by the Court. The deposition time will be limited to four hours. The

15

deposition must take place by March 24, 2025.

16

If Trans Union prefers, it may provide a declaration signed under penalty of perjury in

17

place of providing a 30(b)(6) deponent for Topics 15 and 24. Trans Union must produce the

18

declaration(s) signed under penalty of perjury by March 14, 2025.

19
20
21
22

Trans Union does not have to produce a 30(b)(6) deponent or declaration for Topics 6,
7, 13, 14, 23, 25, or 26.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 2/27/2025

23
24
25
26
27
28
28
24CV38-AJB(BLM)