Guzman v. The Consumer Law Group, P.A. et al

Filing 180

ORDER that denies Defendants' 178 Motion for Hearing; that grants Plaintiff's 174 Motion to Compel Discovery; and, that orders Defendants to provide all information responsive to the disputed interrogatory on or before Wednesday, March 25, 2015. If Plaintiff wants to pursue recovery of reasonable expenses incurred in filing the motion to compel, then she may file proof of such expenses on or before Wednesday, April 1, 2015, and Defendant shall have fourteen (14) days after such proof is filed to submit any rebuttal evidence or briefs. Signed by Magistrate Judge Brian K. Epps on 03/18/2015. (jah)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
AUGUSTA DIVISION
JUDY GUZMAN, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated,

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
THE CONSUMER LAW GROUP, P.A.,
)
et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_________

CV 111-187

ORDER
_________
The Court DENIES Defendants’ motion for hearing, (doc. no. 178), GRANTS Plaintiff’s
motion to compel discovery, (doc. no. 174), and ORDERS Defendants to provide all
information responsive to the disputed interrogatory on or before Wednesday, March 25, 2015.
I.

DISCUSSION

On June 6, 2014, the presiding District Judge certified the following class:
All persons who, while residing in the State of Georgia, received Debt Adjusting
services from ACCI, after July 1, 2003, and from whom any of the defendants
accepted, either directly or indirectly, either (1) any up front charge, fee,
contribution, or combination thereof, which was not used to make payment to
their creditors, or (2) any fee in an amount in excess of 7.5 percent of the amount
paid monthly by such person for distribution to his/her creditors.
(Doc. no. 154, p. 22.) The District Judge also certified a subclass of persons from whom CLG
accepted such fees or charges either directly or indirectly. (Id. at 22-23.) On February 12, 2015,
Plaintiff moved to compel a fulsome response to the following interrogatory:

Interrogatory No. 6. To the extent such information is not contained in the
table produced in response to Interrogatory No. 5, identify all fees charged to
any class member by any of the following entities or individuals (a) Consumer
Law Group, PA; (b) Consumer Attorneys of America, PC; (c) American Credit
Counselors, Inc.; (d) American Debt Negotiators, Inc.; (e) Betouch
Management Venture Company; (f) Law Office of Richard A. Brennan; (g) Any
entity owned or controlled by Richard A. Brennan; (h) Any entity owned or
controlled by Defendant Michael Metzner; (i) Any entity owned or controlled
by Henry N. Portner; (j) US Credit.
(Doc. no. 174, pp. 1, 12.) Defendants claim that fees charged by nonparties are irrelevant. (See
generally doc. no. 177.)
The class includes any person from whom any defendant accepted the alleged fees, either
directly or indirectly. Because the class is not limited to persons directly charged a fee by a
defendant, information concerning fees charged to class members by nonparties is relevant and
discoverable under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Defendants point out that Ms. Guzman only paid
fees to CLG and ACCI, and they appear to make the absurd argument that discovery is limited to
class members who match Ms. Guzman’s experience. The argument ignores the broad scope of
the class certified, and the Court’s finding at certification of a sufficient nexus between Ms.
Guzman’s claims and the class members’ claims. (Doc. no. 154, pp. 10-12, 22.) The Court
found Plaintiff “has demonstrated that (a) she was charged a similar up-front fee as each putative
class and subclass member . . . (b) as a result of Defendants’ similar use of alleged sham ‘law
firms’ with each class and subclass member . . . .” (Id. at 12.) Although the name of the entity
that charged the fee may differ among the class members, the injury and cause of that injury are
alleged to be a direct result of Defendants’ actions. (Doc no. 78, ¶¶ 3, 11, 13, 25.)

2

III.

CONCLUSION
The Court DENIES Defendants’ motion for hearing, (doc. no. 178), GRANTS Plaintiff’s

motion to compel, (doc. no. 174), and ORDERS Defendants to provide a fulsome response to
the disputed interrogatory on or before Wednesday, March 25, 2015. Because Defendants’
position was not substantially justified, Plaintiff is entitled to recover reasonable expenses
incurred in making the motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5). Accordingly, if Plaintiff
wants to pursue recovery, she may file proof of such expenses on or before Wednesday, April 1,
2015, and Defendant shall have fourteen days after such proof is filed to submit any rebuttal
evidence or briefs.
SO ORDERED this 18th day of March, 2015, at Augusta, Georgia.

3