Chery v. Conduent Education Services, LLC
1:18-cv-00075-DNH-CFH
N.D.N.Y.Aug 18, 2020Background:
- Plaintiff Jeffrey Chery (Virginia resident) held nine FFELP loans and applied in Feb 2016 for a Direct Consolidation Loan to qualify for PSLF; FedLoan requested Loan Verification Certificates (LVCs) from Conduent, which did not provide an LVC until ~10 months later, allegedly costing Chery qualifying payments and money.
- Chery filed a putative class action against Conduent (servicer), Access Group, and Access Funding asserting statutory and common-law claims including GBL § 349, breach of contract, negligence, and unjust enrichment.
- In discovery Chery served broad RFPs seeking Conduent policies/procedures on LVCs, processing metrics and explanations for delays, borrower complaints and agency communications, loan documents (disclosures/MPNs), communications with Direct Loan Servicers, and materials related to CFPB and NYSDFS consent orders.
- Defendants produced limited materials (a 2007 LVC Processing Guidelines document, reports, and a large spreadsheet with per-loan LVC request/response dates and loan-status data) and objected as overbroad, irrelevant, or protected/confidential; they also argued agency materials are confidential.
- The court denied most of Chery’s compel requests where defendants’ spreadsheet and disclosures were adequate or the requests were overbroad/irrelevant, but granted a limited production of documents related to the CFPB and NYSDFS consent orders concerning Conduent’s servicing/LVC practices during remediation, subject to non-duplication, redaction of non-party PII/confidential settlement information, and privilege-logging for withheld privileged materials.
- Defendants’ motion for a protective order was denied; the court conditioned disclosure to protect privacy/confidentiality while permitting relevant agency-related materials held by defendants to be produced under limits.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| RFPs 1–3 (policies/procedures for LVCs) | Needed to test adequacy, compliance, and any post-2007 changes tied to remediation | Already produced LVC Processing Guidelines and reports; no further responsive documents exist; requests overbroad | Denied — production already satisfied by defendants’ disclosures; plaintiff failed to show incompleteness |
| RFP 5 (time to respond / explanations for delay) | Seeks documents showing response times and reasons for delay | Spreadsheet contains dates and timing; no separate documents necessary | Denied — spreadsheet suffices to show response timing |
| RFPs 7–8 (borrower complaints / agency or servicer inquiries) | Relevant to defendant’s knowledge, remedial steps, and damages | Irrelevant or premature; seeks non-party PII and class-identifying information | Denied — overbroad and unnecessary given produced spreadsheet; non-party privacy concerns |
| RFPs 9–11 (disclosure statements, MPNs, borrower repayment rights) | Needed to show typicality/commonality for class certification | Loan terms are uniform under federal law; relevant term differences already in spreadsheet | Denied — statutory uniformity and spreadsheet obviate further production |
| RFP 12 (communications with Direct Loan Servicers) | Relevant to knowledge and scope of delays/damages | Irrelevant; duplicates information provided; contains non-party info | Denied — spreadsheet provides necessary information; communications not required |
| RFPs 15–17 (materials related to CFPB and NYSDFS consent orders) | Documents defendants gave to agencies are relevant to servicing/LVC practices during remediation | Agency statutory confidentiality limits access to agency-held materials; defendant resists broad collection from agencies | Granted in part — defendants must produce documents they provided to agencies that concern servicing/LVC practices during remediation, subject to non-duplication, redaction of non-party PII/confidential settlement info, and valid privilege claims supported by a privilege log; plaintiff cannot compel agency files directly |
| Defendants’ motion for protective order | N/A (defendants sought protection from broad discovery) | Sought to prevent plaintiff from obtaining non-party PII and agency materials | Denied — court tailored production limits instead of blanket protection; privacy addressed via redaction and privilege log requirements |
Key Cases Cited
- EM Ltd. v. Republic of Argentina, 695 F.3d 201 (2d Cir.) (district court has broad latitude to determine discovery scope)
- In re Agent Orange Prod. Liab. Litig., 517 F.3d 76 (2d Cir.) (same principle on discovery management)
- Stratford Factors v. New York State Banking Dep’t, 10 A.D.2d 66 (N.Y. App. Div. 1960) (state agency privilege under Banking Law § 36 not subject to blanket assertion; in-camera review may be required)
- Morgan Drexen, Inc. v. Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau, 979 F. Supp. 2d 104 (D.D.C. 2013) (discussion of CID materials and privilege assertions to CFPB)
- Frank LLP v. Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau, 288 F. Supp. 3d 46 (D.D.C. 2017) (CFPB disclosure obligations analyzed under FOIA context)