Ensminger v. Credit Law Center, LLC a/k/a Thomas Andrew Addleman L.L.C., d/b/a Credit Law Center et al

Filing 117

ORDER regarding 116 Motion to Clarify. Signed by Magistrate Judge James P. O'Hara on 10/16/20. (jc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
MARK ENSMINGER, on behalf of himself
and those similarly situated,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 19-2147-JWL
v.
CREDIT LAW CENTER, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER
Defendants, Credit Law Center, LLC (“CLC”) and Thomas Addleman, have filed a
motion (ECF No. 116) to clarify or, in the alternative, amend the court’s September 14,
2020 order (ECF No. 115). The court’s prior order ruled on plaintiff’s motion to amend
the scheduling order and plaintiff’s motion to compel defendants’ discovery responses.
Relevant to defendants’ motion are the portions of the order ruling on Request Nos.
5 and 6. Request No. 5 seeks “all credit report audits for each CLC client identified in the
spreadsheet.”1 The court granted a narrowed request to compel the production of the first
and last audits for each class member.2 Request No. 6 seeks “the client file for each CLC
client identified in the spreadsheet,”3 which plaintiff limited to “production of each putative
class member’s invoices and transaction logs, and an exemplar of each non-identical
version of the engagement agreement entered into between CLC and the members of the

1

ECF No. 109-1 at 6.
ECF No. 115 at 9.
3
ECF No. 109-1 at 6.
2

O:\ORDERS\19-2147-JWL-116.DOCX

proposed class.”4

The court directed defendants to produce the transaction logs, at

plaintiff’s cost, but not the invoices or additional versions of the engagement agreements.5
The parties now dispute whether both sets of information (from Request No. 5 and
Request No. 6) are to be produced at plaintiff’s expense. Defendants’ interpretation is
correct, although the court concedes it did not explicitly clarify this directive in its prior
order.

Plaintiff has consistently represented he would pay for an expert to extract

information from defendants’ client files: “plaintiff has mooted any purported undue
burden and expense by offering to have his expert perform the work so long as defendants
provide access to their systems;”6 “plaintiff has already mooted [defendants’ undue burden
argument] by offering to pay an independent expert to extract the relevant client files from
defendants’ database and image defendants’ database table.”7
Plaintiff is directed to use the independent expert he offered to hire to extract the
relevant information from defendants’ client files. This is to be done at plaintiff’s expense
and includes both the credit report audits requested in Request No. 5 and the transaction
logs requested in Request No. 6.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated October 16, 2020, at Kansas City, Kansas.
s/ James P. O’Hara
James P. O’Hara
U. S. Magistrate Judge

4

ECF No. 110 at 5.
ECF No. 115 at 11.
6
ECF No. 116, Ex. F at 4.
7
ECF No. 116, Ex. G at 6.
5

2