Federal Trade Commission v. Bluehippo Funding, LLC et al

Filing 138

OPINION & ORDER. Since discovery into all of Rensin's proposed offsets is either unnecessary or improper, entry of final judgment is warranted. Rensin has made his showing of proposed offsets; there is no denial of due process. The Court directs the Clerk to enter the attached Final Judgment and terminate 08 cv 1819. (As further set forth in this Order) (Signed by Judge Paul A. Crotty on 4/19/2016) (lmb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

FILED

------------------------------------------------------------)(
FEDERAL TRADE COMISSION,
Plaintiff,

08 Civ. 1819 (PAC)

-againstOPINION & ORDER

BLUEHIPPO FUNDING, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.

------------------------------------------------------------)(
HONORABLE PAUL A. CROTTY, United States District Judge:
On April 13, 2016, the FTC submitted a Proposed Final Judgment Imposing
Compensatory Contempt Sanctions. Two days later, Defendant Joseph Rensin filed written
objections. Dkt. 136. The Court adopts the Proposed Final Judgment (with a few typographical
corrections), since it is an accurate recitation of the procedural history and the Court's oral order
of April 6, 2016, which resolved all open disputes. Rensin's objections are denied as meritless.
Rensin asserts that the Court is not complying with the mandate of the Second Circuit
and that he is being "deprived of due process." Dkt. 136 at 2. On August 12, 2014, the Second
Circuit held that if this Court found that the presumption of consumer reliance applies (which it
later did), then the Court should give Rensin "the opportunity to rebut the determined baseline
loss calculation, allowing [him] to put forth evidence showing that certain amounts should offset
the sanctions assessed against [him]." FTC v. BlueHippo Funding, LLC, 762 F.3d 238, 246 (2d
Cir. 2014) (internal quotations marks omitted).
Contrary to the implication ofRensin's objections, the Second Circuit did not grant him a
right to put forth evidence (and take discovery) for its own sake and without limit. Rather, he
1

was allowed do so only in compliance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b) and where necessary to "show[]
that certain amounts should offset the sanctions assessed against [him]." !d.
On December 11, 2015, Rensin proffered four categories of proposed offsets: (i)
consumers who ordered merchandise other than computers; (ii) cash refunds; (iii) payments to
settle state enforcement actions; and (iv) consumers residing in states where no fees were
charges. Dkt. 107. First, Rensin abandoned an offset for consumers who ordered non-computer
merchandise. Second, the parties agreed on the proper offset for cash refunds, rendering
discovery on this category unnecessary. Third, at the Court's urging, the FTC conceded the full
amount that Rensin sought in state settlement payments, rendering discovery unnecessary for
that category. Fourth, the Court denied Rensin's motion to seek discovery to support his
assertion that there were some states in which no consumers were charged fees as speculative
and irrelevant, in violation of Fed. R . Civ. P. 26(b)(l). See Callens v. City of New York, 222
F.R.D. 249, 253 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) ("While Rule 26(b)(l) still provides for broad discovery, courts
should not grant discovery requests on pure speculation that amount to nothing more than a
'fishing expedition."').
Since discovery into all ofRensin's proposed offsets is either unnecessary or improper,
entry of final judgment is warranted. Rensin has made his showing of proposed offsets; there is
no denial of due process. The Court directs the Clerk to enter the attached Final Judgment and
terminate 08 cv 1819.
SO ORDERED

Dated: New York, New York
April19, 2016

PAUL A. CROTTY
United States District Judge

2