MARGULIS v. THE HERTZ CORPORATION
Filing
99
OPINION. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark Falk on 7/25/16. (DD, )
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
DANIEL MARGULIS, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated,
Civil Action No. 14-1209 (JMV)
Plaintiff,
v.
THE HERTZ CORPORATION,
OPINION
Defendant.
FALK, U.S.M.J.
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for the issuance of letters rogatory
compelling the deposition of four witnesses in the United Kingdom. [ECF No. 81.]
The Court has considered the submissions in support of and in opposition to the
motion. No oral argument was heard. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b). Based on the reasons
that follow, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff, Daniel Margulis, commenced this action on February 25, 2014,
alleging that Hertz is conducting a broad-ranging currency conversion scheme, which
he labels “dynamic currency conversion” (“DCC”), to defraud its customers who rent
vehicles abroad. Plaintiff alleges that Hertz quotes customer rates for vehicle rentals
without including any currency conversion fee, charges the fee directly to the
customer’s credit card, and then falsely claims the customer specifically chose the
currency conversion and subsequent overcharge. Plaintiff claims that he was the
victim of Hertz’s DCC practices in connection with two car rentals—one in the United
Kingdom and one in Italy. The operative Complaint contains claims based on this
alleged scheme for (1) breach of contract; (2) unjust enrichment; (3) fraud; and (4)
violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.
On August 1, 2014, Hertz moved for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to
Rule 12(c) and for failure to join indispensable parties pursuant to Rule 12(b)(7),
claiming that two Hertz subsidiaries—Hertz U.K. Ltd. and Hertz Italiana S.r.l.—were
necessary parties to the action because they were the entities that contracted with
Plaintiff. Hertz also contends that these entities, not Hertz, provide DCC service in
foreign countries.
On April 30, 2015, the Honorable Madeline C. Arleo, U.S.D.J., denied Hertz’s
Rule 12 motion.
Discovery technically closed on January 23, 2016. However, the parties have
put a series of discovery disputes before the Court and an extension of the discovery
period will be necessary. Included in those disputes is Plaintiff’s current motion, filed
on March 30, 2016, seeking to issue letters rogatory to compel the depositions of four
non-party, Hertz-related individuals in the United Kingdom: Nick Horne; John
Whitley; Nuns Moodliar; and Nicole Strathdee.
2
Plaintiff contends that these witnesses have crucial information relating to
Hertz’s currency conversion practices, and that Hertz has refused to voluntarily
produce these witnesses, resulting in a need to proceed through the letters rogatory
process.
Hertz counters that Plaintiff’s proposed discovery is expensive, time
consuming and irrelevant. Hertz claims that the currency conversion arrangement
alleged in the Complaint is comprised of the procedures and practices of Hertz’s
foreign subsidiaries located in Europe, who are not defendants in the case. Hertz
further claims that it does not have control over the witnesses at issue.
LEGAL STANDARD
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 28(b)(2)(A) provides that a deposition may be
taken in a foreign country pursuant to a letter rogatory “on appropriate terms after an
application and notice of it.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 28(b)(2)(A). In effect, the party seeking
to issue letters rogatory is asking the United States, through this Court, to request the
United Kingdom’s assistance in obtaining discovery:
A letter rogatory is defined as the medium, in effect, whereby
one country, speaking through one of its courts, requests
another country, acting through its own courts and by
methods of court procedure peculiar thereto and entirely
within the latter’s control, to assist the administration of
justice in the former country; such request being made, and
being usually granted, by reason of the comity existing
between nations in ordinary peaceful times.
3
DBMS Consultants Limited v. Computer Associates, Int’l, 131 F.RD. 367, 369 (D.
Mass. 1990) (internal quotes omitted).1
“On an application for the issuance of a letter rogatory seeking a deposition in a
foreign country, the Court will not ordinarily weigh the evidence to be elicited by
deposition and will not determine whether the witness will be able to give the
anticipated testimony.” Id. “[S]ome good reason must be shown by the opposing
party for a court to deny an application for a letter rogatory.” Jovanovic v. Northrop
Grumman Corp., 2008 WL 4950064, at *1 (D.N.J. Nov. 18, 2008). Ultimately, the
decision to issue letters rogatory is a discretionary one. Id.; see also Leasco Data
Processing Equip. Co. v. Maxwell, 63 F.R.D. 94 (S.D.N.Y. 1973).
ANALYSIS
Plaintiff claims that the letters rogatory process is necessary in this case
because, during discovery, it has become apparent that “many witnesses” with
“important information” about Hertz’s currency conversation practices are located
overseas.
Plaintiff initially attempted to gather information about Hertz’s currency
conversation program by deposing a witness Hertz offered on the subject—Mr. Robert
Evans—but claims that Mr. Evans could not “answer the simplest of questions,
1 The
United States and the United Kingdom are signatories to the Hague Evidence
Convention. The Hague Evidence Convention allows a court in one Contracting State
to request another Contracting State to “obtain evidence, or to perform some other
judicial act” by use of a Letter Request. See 23 U.S.T. 2555; see also 28 U.S.C. §
1781.
4
including how DCC works; how the DCC conversion is implemented; and how Hertz
determines the exchange rate for DCC.” (Pl.’s Br. 4.) Since Mr. Evans could not
provide the information needed, Plaintiff requests leave to seek the depositions,
through letters rogatory, of the following individuals:
•
Nick Horne: Vice President of Counter Sales & Services, Hertz Europe.
Plaintiff claims that Mr. Horne was identified during Mr. Evans’s
deposition as someone who would have knowledge of how DCC works, and
that he is the “point person” for DCC.
•
John Whitley: European Revenue Director, Hertz Europe. Plaintiff claims
that Mr. Whitley succeeded Mr. Horne as the “point person” for DCC, and
has important knowledge “about how the DCC calculation is made,
including how the exchange rate is calculated . . . .”
•
Nuns Moodliar: Vice-President, Legal & Corporate Affairs, Hertz Europe.
Plaintiff claims that “emails demonstrate that Mr. Moodliar is closely
involved with the DCC program and keeps track of DCC transactions and
revenues.”
•
Nicole Strathdee: Area Operations Manager, Heathrow & Luton. Plaintiff
claims that Ms. Strathdee is familiar with, inter alia, Hertz’s DCC training
and how DCC is disclosed to customers.
(Pl.’s Br. 5.)
Plaintiff claims that the witnesses identified above all will provide relevant
5
evidence by showing how the DCC program works and how its allegedly misleading,
not disclosed to the consumer, and unauthorized—all in violation of industry
standards and credit card rules. Moreover, given Mr. Evans’s incomplete testimony,
Plaintiff claims that the witnesses will provide information that will show that Hertz’s
DCC practices have a “U.S. nexus,” which will rebut Hertz’s allegation that
everything in the case occurred in Europe through non-party European subsidiaries.
Hertz’s opposition is really not about the discovery being sought but its general
view about the case as a whole. Specifically, Defendant’s argument section is
comprised of a few pages that continue to assert it is essentially the wrong party in this
case and seek to raise the issue on a summary judgment motion.
The Court agrees that Plaintiff has shown a basis to proceed with the
issuance of the letters rogatory.
First, Plaintiff has sufficiently established that they are seeking relevant
information. DCC is at the heart of the case. From what has been submitted, it seems
as though Mr. Evans was unable to answer a number of questions that are important to
how DCC works. Taking the next step to pursue the information from individuals in
the United Kingdom, some of whom were discussed during Mr. Evans’s deposition, is
reasonable under the circumstances, relevant, and proportional to the needs of the
case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).
Second, Hertz’s opposition to Plaintiff’s request is almost entirely merits
6
based.2 Claiming that a case lacks merits is not a basis to oppose discovery, especially
where, as here, Defendant’s Rule 12 motion was unsuccessful. While the parties
dispute the impact, Judge Arleo denied a motion to dismiss in which Hertz alleged the
foreign subsidiaries were necessary parties to this case. Obviously Hertz believes that
it should not be named in the Complaint and that it is not involved in DCC. But that is
what discovery is for. The Court cannot simply accept the argument that the
discovery produced to date exonerates Hertz and that summary judgment should
proceed without allowing Plaintiff full discovery. Plaintiff has a different view and
claims that the specific and targeted proposed depositions will further establish his
claim. Having failed to have the case dismissed, discovery is the next step, and
2
A sample of Hertz’s argument is:
“[A]ll of the discovery taken in this case demonstrates what [Hertz] has
maintained all along: The Hertz Corporation is not involved in providing DCC to
customers in the United States or elsewhere; DCC is a service provided in foreign
countries by separately incorporated foreign subsidiaries of The Hertz Corporation”;
“[A]ll of the events material to Plaintiff’s claims . . . transpired at the rental
counters of The Hertz Corporations subsidiaries located in Italy and Wales.”
“[P]laintiff’s search has not revealed any evidence that The Hertz Corporation
has any direct involvement in, or bears any responsibility for, the wrongdoing alleged
in Plaintiff’s complaint.”
“[A] good reason not to issue the sought-after Letters of Request is that it
would be more reasonable and efficient for the Hertz Corporation to file a motion for
summary judgment . . . .”
(Def.’s Opp’n 7-9.)
7
Plaintiff’s request for discovery is reasonable and focused on the issues in the case.
Perhaps Hertz will ultimately be correct about which entity is responsible for DCC.
But that is a determination that cannot be made until after discovery is complete.
Third, the standard for the issuance of letters rogatory is relatively lenient and
discretionary, and the Court is satisfied that serving the letters will not unduly delay
the case, as there remains other discovery to complete before the case is ready for
motion practice and trial.
CONCLUSION
Based on the above, Plaintiff’s motion for the issuance of letters rogatory [ECF
No. 81] is GRANTED. An appropriate order will be entered.
s/Mark Falk
MARK FALK
United States Magistrate Judge
DATED: July 25, 2016
8
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?