Lynn v. Monarch Recovery Mgmt., Inc.
285 F.R.D. 350
D. Maryland2012Background
- Plaintiff Kevin M. Lynn sues Monarch Recovery Management for TCPA/MD-related calls using an ATDS or prerecorded voice.
- Plaintiff moves to compel responses to interrogatories, document requests, and requests for admission; Defendant opposes.
- Court applies Rule 26, 33, 34, and 36 with proportionality under Rule 26(b)(2)(C) to resolve discovery disputes.
- Stipulated confidentiality order governs production of sensitive financial/non-party information.
- Court grants in part and denies in part the motion, with specific timeframes for production and fee rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Interrogatories 1 and 6 require subject matter of knowledge and contact details. | Lynn wants subjects’ knowledge and full contact info (phone numbers). | Responses were supplemented; two former employees’ numbers lacking. | GRANTED; must provide relevant telephone numbers within 14 days. |
| Interrogatories 9 and 12 require call-origin and detailed communications data. | Need exact call origins to match with numbers and subpoena carrier if needed. | Cannot provide beyond current response; confidentiality concerns. | GRANTED; provide detailed call-origin information and produce documents within 14 days; 12 granted due to confidentiality order. |
| Interrogatory 15 is vague/ambiguous; requires clarification before response. | Seeks full description of involvement with calls; not just personnel. | Vague/ambiguous; seeks identity of dialer-related roles. | GRANTED; allow seven-day clarification period; respond within 14 days after clarification. |
| Requests for Admission 4, 5, 9; whether responses were proper and if fees are warranted. | Defendant’s initial responses were deficient; seeks fees for compelled responses. | Initial responses insufficient but later supplemented; some fee awards warranted per rule. | 4, 5 denied or limited with fee awards for compelled portions; 9 denied with fee award for motion to compel; see fees order. |
Key Cases Cited
- Victor Stanley, Inc. v. Creative Pipe, Inc., 250 F.R.D. 251 (D.Md. 2010) (proportionality and limits on discovery</)
- Hall v. Sullivan, 231 F.R.D. 468 (D.Md. 2005) (specificity required for interrogatory objections)
- McCoo v. Denny’s Inc., 192 F.R.D. 675 (D.Kan. 2000) (avoid boilerplate objections; need specificity)
- United Oil Co., Inc. v. Parts Assocs., Inc., 227 F.R.D. 404 (D.Md. 2005) (scope of Rule 33(d) and production of records)
- Data-Quick Info. Sys., Inc. v. Steele Software Sys., Corp., 237 F.R.D. 561 (D.Md. 2006) (control and discovery from non-parties; subpoena route)