Summary
finding that discovery requests relating to the net worth of defendant were relevant to determining class damages under 15 U.S.C. § 1692 k(B) and finding an affidavit in lieu of the requested documents to be insufficient as "plaintiff need not accept defendant's interpretation of its financial data through representations in an affidavit, but is entitled herself to examine the data underlying defendant's statement of net worth"
Summary of this case from Hill v. Asset Acceptance, LLCOpinion
01 CV 2000 (DGT) (RML)
February 21, 2002
ORDER
Plaintiff in this Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") action has moved to compel responses to discovery requests relating to the net worth of defendant Arrow Financial Services ("Arrow"). Plaintiff correctly contends that this information is relevant to determining class damages under 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(2)(B), which provides for a maximum recovery" not to exceed the lesser of $500,000 or 1 per centum of the net worth of the debt collector. . . ." Plaintiff also seeks other information, including Arrow's tax returns and "financial reports" under 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(2)(b), which directs the court to consider inter alia "the resources of the debt collector" in determining the amount of any liability. Plaintiff argues that the information she seeks is relevant to calculating Arrow's resources.
In opposition, Arrow, citing two oases from the Southern District of New York and one from the Seventh Circuit, urges the court to accept an affidavit in lieu of the requested documents relating to net worth. As plaintiff points out, however, these cases are not directly on point and, under FDCPA, net worth is an absolute cap on all recovery to the class and thus critical to a determination of potential damages. Thus, the materials plaintiff seeks are unquestionably relevant and discoverable. In any event, plaintiff need not accept defendant's interpretation of its financial data through representations in an affidavit, but is entitled herself to examine the data underlying defendant's statement of net worth.
Accordingly, plaintiff's motion to compel is granted. Defendant shall produce the requested documents, subject to a mutually satisfactory protective order, by March 8, 2002.
SO ORDERED.