A Magistrate Court judge in Utah is calling for civility and professionalism from both sides in a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act case, noting that arguments between the two sides is getting personal. Despite the bad feelings, the judge denied motions from both sides — a motion for sanctions filed by the plaintiff and a motion from the defendant for a protective order limiting the scope of discovery during a deposition.
The background: The plaintiff filed this lawsuit, accusing the defendant of attempting to collect a debt from her that was actually owed by a different person with the same name. This appears to be the sixth lawsuit that the plaintiff’s attorney has filed against the defendant in the past year, according to the ruling.
- During a “contentious” deposition of the defendant, the defendant’s attorney began filing objections to the line of questioning from the plaintiff’s attorney, which had to do with how the defendant collected debts in general, as opposed to asking how the defendant attempted to collect from the plaintiff specifically. The deposition was eventually suspended so the defendant could seek a protective order.
The ruling: Ultimately, Judge Daphne A. Oberg of the District Court for the District of Utah denied both motions and ordered the deposition to resume.
- With respect to the defendant’s motion for a protective order, Judge Oberg noted that questioning how the defendant collects debts generally speaks to whether the defendant meets the FDCPA’s definition of a debt collector, which is under dispute in this case.
- The defense attempted to argue that the FDCPA excludes officers of the state, like constables, but the statute does not exclude officers whose debt collection efforts exceed their official duties, the judge ruled.
- Similarly, the judge denied the plaintiff’s motion for sanctions, saying that “most of [the defendant’s attorney’s] objections stemmed from his incorrect assessment of relevance and case scope, they were not so unnecessary as to be sanctionable,” while acknowledging that the defendant’s attorney’s conduct was “borderline.”
- Judge Oberg then reminded both sides that she has already had to discuss the importance of civility and professionalism and that any bad feelings between the parties needs to be left at the door. “All counsel in this case must avoid discourteous behavior, personal characterizations, impugning motives, and obstructing or impeding any aspect of this case,” Judge Oberg wrote. “Anything less than full compliance with the Utah Standards of Professionalism and Civility risks sanctions — particularly now, after this second warning.”
