800 COOPER FINANCE, LLC v. LIU et al
Filing
146
OPINION & ORDER Granting in part and Denying in part 138 Motion for Reconsideration re 138 MOTION for Reconsideration re 135 Opinion,, Order, filed by 800 COOPER FINANCE, LLC, Katharina M Gregorio, Jimmy Kwong. Signed by Magistrate Judge Sharon A. King on 11/10/2021. (rtm, )
[ECF No. 138]
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
CAMDEN VICINAGE
800 COOPER FINANCE, LLC,
Plaintiffs,
Civil No. 16-736
v.
SHU-LIN LIU et al.,
Defendants.
KL HOLDINGS, INC. et al.,
Plaintiffs,
Civil No. 17-456
v.
800 COOPER FINANCE, LLC et al.,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court by way of a Motion for Reconsideration (“Motion”) [ECF
No. 138] by Counterclaim Defendants/Plaintiffs 800 Cooper Finance, LLC (“800 Cooper
Finance”), Jimmy Kwong and Katharina M. Gregorio (collectively “Counterclaim Defendants”).
The Court received Counterclaim Plaintiffs/Defendants Shu-Lin Liu and Jolin Chiaolin Tsao
(“Counterclaim Plaintiffs”) opposition [ECF No. 139]. 1 The Court exercises its discretion to
decide the motion without oral argument. See FED. R. CIV. P. 78; L. CIV. R. 78.1. For the reasons
1 Counterclaim Plaintiffs opposition was filed one-day late due to a power glitch in Counterclaim Plaintiffs
counsel’s home office. See Letter from Peter J. Boyer, Esquire dated Oct. 5, 2021 [ECF No. 140]. The Court finds
that a one-day delay is not prejudicial and will consider the filing. The Court will note that Counterclaim
Defendants did not file any responsive pleading to Counterclaim Plaintiffs opposition or letter.
1
set forth herein, it is hereby Ordered that Counterclaim Defendants motion is GRANTED in part
and DENIED in part.
BACKGROUND
Counterclaim Plaintiffs seek to recover alleged excessive fees charged to them during the
collection of a debt by 800 Cooper Finance. Discovery in this matter has been ongoing and
contentious. On March 3, 2021, the Honorable Joseph H. Rodriguez, U.S.D.J., issued an Order
and Opinion [ECF Nos. 115, 116] requiring Counterclaim Defendants Kathryn Gregorio and
Jimmy Kwong to participate in a deposition by March 31, 2021. As a result of these depositions,
on or about April 30, 2021, Counterclaim Plaintiffs served Counterclaim Defendants with a request
to produce copies of documents that were identified during the depositions. See Apr. 30, 2021
Letter Notice to Produce [ECF No. 125-1]. Of relevance are the requests for the:
Id.
1. Operating Agreement for Kvest Camden, LLC (“Item 1”);
2. Tax returns for Kvest Camden LLC and 800 Cooper Finance LLC
(“Item 2”);
3. K-1’s received by Kwong, Gregorio and members of Kvest LLC for
2016 and 2017 (“Item 3”);
4. Documents evidencing names and address of members of Kvest
Camden LLC and their respective ownership interests in Kvest Camden
LLC (“Item 4”);
5. Documents evidencing amounts actually received by each of the
members of Kvest Camden LLC when that entity was the subject of a
Certificate of Cancellation (“Item 5”);
Counterclaim Defendants objected to the production of the documents stating, inter alia,
that the requests were “excessively broad . . . unduly burdensome . . . and not reasonably calculated
to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” See Resp. of 800 Cooper Finance [ECF No. 1252]. On August 17, 2021, the Court held a discovery hearing and heard arguments on each item in
dispute. The Court then permitted the parties to submit supplemental briefings. Counterclaim
Plaintiffs submitted an additional letter brief on August 18, 2021 [ECF No. 130] and Counterclaim
2
Defendants filed a response on August 20, 2021 [ECF No. 133]. After considering the various
letter briefs and oral arguments presented, on September 3, 2021 the Court issued an Opinion and
Order (“Opinion and Order") [ECF No. 135] compelling a limited production of discovery.
Shortly thereafter, on September 17, 2021, Counterclaim Defendants filed the instant
motion for reconsideration.
Counterclaim Defendants solely seek reconsideration of the
requirement to produce the full names, addresses, and other personal identifiers of the individual
members of Kvest contained in the: (1) Operating Agreement for Kvest, and (2) K-1 forms. See
Countercl. Defs.’ Mot. at 1 [ECF No. 138-1]. Counterclaim Defendants argue the production of
the names, addresses, and tax identifiers of Kvest members is premature and not relevant to the
litigation. Id. at 5-7. Counterclaim Plaintiffs oppose the motion and argue that the issues have
been “raised, briefed, considered, and rejected by this Court in reaching its determination to
compel the disclosure of the names and identifying information of the Kvest members who
ultimately received distributions.” See Countercl. Pls.’ Br. at 3. [ECF No. 139]. The Court agrees
with Counterclaim Plaintiffs.
ANALYSIS
Counterclaim Defendants motion is governed by L. Civ. R. 7.1(i) which states:
Unless otherwise provided by statute or rule, a motion for
reconsideration shall be served and filed within 14 days after the
entry of the order or judgment on the original motion by the Judge
or Magistrate Judge. A brief setting forth concisely the matter or
controlling decisions which the party believes the Judge or
Magistrate Judge has overlooked shall be filed with the Notice of
Motion.
It is well settled that a motion for reconsideration is an “extremely limited procedural vehicle” that
is granted very sparingly. Resorts Int’l, Inc. v. Greate Bay Hotel & Casino, Inc., 830 F. Supp. 826,
831 (D.N.J. 1992); see also, United States v. Jones, 158 F.R.D. 309, 314 (D.N.J. 1994). The
3
purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present
newly discovered evidence. Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir. 1985). The
movant has the burden of demonstrating either: “(1) an intervening change in the controlling law;
(2) the availability of new evidence that was not available when the court [issued its order]; or (3)
the need to correct a clear error of law or fact or to prevent manifest injustice.” Andreyko v. Sunrise
Sr. Living, Inc., 993 F. Supp. 2d 475, 478 (D.N.J. 2014) (quoting Max’s Seafood Cafe v. Quinteros,
176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999)). A court will grant a motion for reconsideration where there
has been a showing that dispositive factual matters or controlling decisions of law were overlooked
by the court. United States v. Compaction Sys. Corp., 88 F. Supp. 2d 339, 345 (D.N.J. 1999). The
operative term in the rule is overlooked. Id. Conversely, a court will not grant a motion for
reconsideration “where a party simply asks the court to analyze the same facts and cases it had
already considered in reaching its original decision.” Tehan, 111 F. Supp. 2d at 549. A motion
for reconsideration is “not an opportunity to argue what could have been, but was not, argued in
the original set of moving and responsive papers.” Bowers v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 130
F. Supp. 2d 610, 613 (D.N.J. 2001).
Here, Counterclaim Defendants’ motion must be granted in part and denied in part. In the
Court’s September 3, 2021 Opinion and Order, the Court limited the scope of discovery to protect
the various privacy interests, including those associated with tax documents. However, as argued
by Counterclaim Defendants, the Court did not specify what, if any, personal identifiers on the tax
forms should be redacted. This non-dispositive factor was overlooked by the Court. As such, to
the extent that Counterclaim Defendants’ motion for reconsideration seeks clarification on the
ability to redact personal tax identifiers—i.e., social security numbers—of Kvest members
contained in the limited documents Ordered in the Court’s September 3, 2021 Opinion and Order,
4
Counterclaim Defendants’ motion is GRANTED. In all other respects, Counterclaim Defendants’
motion is DENIED. Counterclaim Defendants’ motion includes no new arguments of law or fact,
no new evidence, nor omissions in the evidence considered by Court. Rather, Counterclaim
Defendants seek to have the Court analyze the same facts and arguments that were considered
when it determined that the disclosures of the full names and addresses of the Kvest members was
not premature and relevant to Counterclaim Plaintiffs’ claims. Thus, Counterclaim Defendants
motion for reconsideration is DENIED.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED this 10th day of November 2021, that Counterclaim
Plaintiffs motion for reconsideration [ECF No. 138] is Granted in part, as specified below, and
Denied in part; it is further
ORDERED that Counterclaim Defendants may redact tax identifiers—i.e., social security
numbers—of Kvest members contained in the limited documents Ordered in the Court’s
September 3, 2021 Opinion and Order [ECF No. 135]; it is further
ORDERED that Counterclaim Defendants shall produce the full names and addresses of
Kvest members contained in the limited documents Ordered in the Court’s September 3, 2021
Opinion and Order [ECF No. 135] within five (5) days of this Order; it is further
ORDERED that all other requests by Counterclaim Defendants not specified above, are
DENIED.
s/ Sharon A. King
.
SHARON A. KING
United States Magistrate Judge
5
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?