A Magistrate Court judge in North Carolina has granted a plaintiff’s motion compelling the defendant in a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act case to provide unredacted copies of its compliance and procedure manuals and details of communications between the defendant and its clients, but did deny the plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees and costs.
The background: The case was initially brought by the plaintiff on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, alleging that the defendant had violated several laws, including the FDCPA and the North Carolina Collection Agency Act. The plaintiff’s claims centered on the defendant’s debt collection activities, specifically regarding how the defendant communicated with its clients. The plaintiff argued that the defendant’s procedures and communications contained practices that ran afoul of debt collection laws, which prompted her request for the defendant’s internal manuals and email records.
- During the discovery phase, the plaintiff learned, through depositions, that the defendant possessed various procedure-related documents and communications that had not been produced in full or had been redacted. The plaintiff subsequently filed a motion to compel, seeking complete and unredacted copies of the defendant’s procedure and compliance manuals, along with the defendant’s communications with its clients related to debt collection activities.
The ruling: Judge Brian S. Meyers of the Eastern District of North Carolina found that the defendant’s redactions were not justified, especially given the existence of a protective order in place to safeguard sensitive information. Judge Meyers emphasized that redacting non-privileged information — such as procedures applicable to other states or internal policies — was not permissible under the circumstances. He also noted that the entirety of the compliance manual was necessary for the plaintiff to properly understand the defendant’s practices, especially in light of the limited scope of the original disclosure.
- In addressing the communications between the defendant and its clients, Judge Meyers directed the defendant to work with the plaintiff to identify a more manageable subset of emails to produce, recognizing the burden that a complete production would impose on the defendant. The defendant was ordered to provide information to help narrow the search, and the plaintiff was instructed to provide specific search terms and criteria for a limited set of communications.
- Judge Meyers did deny the plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees and costs associated with bringing the motion. Judge Meyers found that the defendant’s partial compliance and efforts to negotiate a compromise were substantially justified, making an award of fees unjust under the circumstances.
