Ryan v. United Recovery and Remarketing, LLC
4:21-cv-01324
E.D. Mo.Jun 27, 2022Background
- Camille Ryan sued United Recovery and Remarketing, LLC and EMVLP II, LLC alleging her vehicle was repossessed without proper notice of default and right to cure, asserting FDCPA, MMPA, conversion, Mo. Rev. Stat. §408.555, and UCC Article 9 claims.
- Defendant EMVLP filed a motion to compel seeking communications between EMVLP and Ryan, recordings of State Farm Bank/EMVLP representatives, and certain documents identified in multiple RFPs and interrogatories (including RFPs 2,4,5,6,18-22,26-28; Interrogatories 4 and 9).
- Ryan objected across several grounds, principally that requested materials were equally available to EMVLP and thus not discoverable, and asserted overbreadth and work-product objections for some requests.
- The court rejected the "equally available" objection as improper, citing precedent that such an objection is meritless for discovery refusals.
- Ryan amended several responses representing no recordings or other responsive documents were being withheld; the court accepted these representations and denied the motion as to those requests.
- The court sustained Ryan's objections to requests for federal/state tax returns and broad banking records, finding EMVLP had not shown relevance or a compelling need given available payment documentation; overall the motion was granted in part and denied in part (order dated June 27, 2022).
Issues
| Issue | Ryan's Argument | EMVLP's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of objection that information is "equally available" to propounding party | Objection proper because EMVLP as party already has or could obtain the materials | Such an objection is not a proper basis to resist discovery | Overruled; courts treat "equally available" objection as meritless |
| Production of audio/video recordings of State Farm/EMVLP representatives | No such recordings are being withheld; none exist | Seeks any recordings of employees/representatives | Ryan amended responses stating none withheld; court accepts and denies motion on this point |
| RFP for documents supporting Ryan's contention vehicle was illegally repossessed (contention request) | Overbroad and implicates counsel's work product and mental impressions | Contentions requests are permissible to clarify basis of claims | Contention requests permissible; work-product objection lacks merit given Rule 26(a) disclosures; Ryan amended to say none withheld |
| RFPs seeking documents about sale/purchase and materials authored by State Farm/EMVLP not produced by defendants (RFPs 18-21) | Overbroad and equally available to EMVLP; no withholding claimed | Seeks assurance of ongoing duty to supplement and production of such documents | Court declined to overrule objections; noted Rule 26(e) supplementation duty and denied motion as to these RFPs |
| Requests for federal/state tax returns and personal/business bank records (2017-2020 etc.) | Irrelevant to central issue (whether proper notice was sent); no lost wages claim; Ryan already produced payment/loan servicing records | Relevant to whether Ryan could have paid for vehicle and thus probative; seeks compelling need | EMVLP failed to show relevance and compelling need; objections sustained and motion denied |
Key Cases Cited
- St. Paul Reinsurance Co. v. Commer. Fin. Corp., 198 F.R.D. 508 (N.D. Iowa 2000) (holding objection that information is "equally available" to propounding party is meritless)
- City Consumer Servs. v. Home, 100 F.R.D. 740 (D. Utah 1983) (refusing to permit objection based on information being equally available to interrogator)
- Petruska v. Johns-Manville, 83 F.R.D. 32 (E.D. Pa. 1979) (same conclusion about availability-based objections)