1:22-cv-00029
W.D.N.Y.Sep 2, 2025Background
- The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) sued multiple corporate defendants and three executives; discovery disputes arose over requests for production (RFPs).
- Defendants served 812 RFPs on the CFPB (averaging many granular and overlapping requests across eight defendants).
- Magistrate Judge H. Kenneth Schroeder, Jr. limited each defendant to 40 RFPs (320 total), concluding the original requests were excessive and could be consolidated.
- Defendants objected to the magistrate’s limit, arguing the Federal Rules impose no per-party cap and that the CFPB — a large agency with multiple attorneys — can respond.
- The CFPB argued courts may impose reasonable limits to prevent cumulative, duplicative, or unduly burdensome discovery and that the requests could be reconfigured into broader categories.
- The district court reviewed the magistrate’s non-dispositive discovery ruling under the “clearly erroneous or contrary to law” standard and affirmed; it ordered defendants to serve revised RFPs within 21 days and CFPB to respond within 45 days.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the magistrate abused discretion by limiting each defendant to 40 RFPs | Courts may and should limit discovery that is cumulative, duplicative, or unduly burdensome; the requests could be consolidated | No rule limits the number of RFPs; limitation unfairly hampers defense and is inappropriate given CFPB’s prior investigatory access | Magistrate's limit affirmed: discovery is broad but not unfettered; requests were excessive and could be consolidated into 40 per defendant; no clear error or legal error |
Key Cases Cited
- Germann v. Consol. Rail Corp., 153 F.R.D. 499 (N.D.N.Y. 1994) (magistrate judge afforded broad discretion resolving non-dispositive discovery disputes)
- Thai Lao Lignite (Thailand) Co. v. Gov't of Lao People's Democratic Republic, 924 F. Supp. 2d 508 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (magistrate rulings set aside only if clearly erroneous or contrary to law)
- Garcia v. Teitler, 443 F.3d 202 (2d Cir. 2006) (definition and standard for "clearly erroneous" review)
- Lurensky v. Wellinghoff, 258 F.R.D. 27 (D.D.C. 2009) (acknowledging courts may protect litigants from responding to unjustified numbers of requests)