CASE 0:13-cv PJS-LIB Document 59-1 Filed 02/27/14 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA COURT FILE NO.

Transcription

1 CASE 0:13-cv PJS-LIB Document 59-1 Filed 02/27/14 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Harvey Duranseau, Plaintiff, v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC Defendant. PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO DEFENDANT COURT FILE NO.: 13-CV TO: Portfolio Recovery Associates, L.L.C., through its attorney, Jennifer Robbins, 800 LaSalle Avenue, 2800 LaSalle Plaza, Minneapolis, MN INTERROGATORIES The Plaintiff requests that the Defendant answer under oath, in accordance with Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the following interrogatories. INSTRUCTIONS AND DEFINITIONS A. Answers to the Interrogatories must be furnished within forty-five (45) days of the service of the Summons and Complaint or within thirty (30) days of the service of these Interrogatories, whichever is later. B. Each Interrogatory should be answered upon your entire knowledge from all sources and all information in your possession or otherwise available to you, including information from your officers, employees, agents, i:epresentatives or consultants and infom1ation which is known by each of them. An incomplete or evasive answer is a failure to answer. C. If any answer is qualified, state specifically the terms of each qualification and the reasons for it. If an Interrogato1y cannot be answered in full, state the p~u-t which can be answered and answer the same in full to the extent possible; state further and specifically the reason(s) why the remainder cannot be answered. D. Unless otherwise specified in a particular paragraph, provide the information and documents requested for the period of one year prior to the date of filing 1 EXHIBIT I A

2 CASE 0:13-cv PJS-LIB Document 59-1 Filed 02/27/14 Page 2 of 10 the complaint to the present. Each Interrogatory is considered continuing, and if Defendant obtains information which renders its answers or one of them, incomplete or inaccurate, Defendant is obligated to serve amended answers on the undersigned. E. The terms "document" or "documents" in these Interrogatories shall refer to all wdtings and recorded materials, of any kind, that are or have been in the possession, control or custody of Defendant of which Defendant has knowledge, whether originals or copies. Such wdtings or recordings include, but are not limited to, contracts, documents, notes, interoffice memoranda, memoranda for the files, letters, research materials, correspondence, logs, diaries, forms, bank statements, tax returns, card files, books of account, journals, ledgers, invoices, diagrams, drawings, computer files, records, documents, data, print-outs or tapes, reports, statistical computations, studies, graphs, charts, minutes, manuals, pamphlets, or books of all nature and kind whether handwritten, typed, pdnted, mimeographed, photocopied or otherwise reproduced, all tape recordings (whether for computer, audio, or visual replay) or other written, printed, and recorded matter or tangible things on which words, phrases, symbols or information are recorded. F. A request to identify a document is a request to state as applicable: 1. The date of the document; 2. The type of document; 3. The names and present addresses of the person or persons who prepared the document and of the signers and addressers of the document; 4. The name of the employer or principal whom the signers) addressers and preparers were representing; 5. T'he present location of the document; 6. The name and current business and home addresses of the present custodians of the original document, and any copies of it; 7. A summary of the contents of the document; and 8. If the original document was destroyed, the date and reason for or circumstances under which it was destroyed. G. If any Interrogatory may be answered fully by a document, the document may be attached in lieu of an answer if the document is marked to refer to the Interrogatory to which it responds. 2

3 CASE 0:13-cv PJS-LIB Document 59-1 Filed 02/27/14 Page 3 of 10 INTERROGATORIES 1. For each and every communication between Defendant and Plaintiff, state the following: a. the date, time, the location, and phone number (if applicable) from where the communication took place; b. the duration of the communication; c. the name, title, business address, personal address and job description of each director, partner, shareholder, employee, officer, manager, debt collector, and agent of Defendant who directly communicated with Plaintiff; d. the name, title, business address, personal address and job description of each director, partner, shareholder, employee, officer, manager, debt collector, and agent of Defendant who authodzed, approved, or was aware of the communication with Plaintiff; and e. whether Defendant used profanities and/ or insults during the communication; f. whether Plaintiff told Defendant that he was not Thomas; g. whether Plaintiff told Defendant that Thomas did not live there; and h. whether Plaintiff told Defendant to stop calling him. i. whether Defendant recorded tl1e conversation or at one point in time had document'ltion evidencing the communication. j. whether Defendant still possess the recording and/ or documentation. 2. State the names, aliases, job title, business and home addresses and telephone numbers, date of initial employment and date of and reason for termination of employment of each of your directors, partners, shareholders, employees, officers, managers, and debt collectors: a. who contacted Plaintiff or another person regarding this debt; and b. who have left your employ within the last two years. 3. Does Defendant have a policy regarding recording phone calls with purported debtors? a. if so, describe the policy and all documentation relating to the policy. b. if so, state the purpose of the policy. c. if so, the name, title, address, and phone number for the person responsible for implementing and enforcing this policies? 4. Did Defendant record all conversations with Plaintiff? if not, why not? 5. Were any documents or recordings related to the collection of a debt owed by "Thomas Duranseau" and/ or Plaintiff destroyed?" if so, please identify: 3

4 CASE 0:13-cv PJS-LIB Document 59-1 Filed 02/27/14 Page 4 of 10 a. the manner, descdption of each document or recording, and date in which they were destroyed; and b. the reason for their dest1uction. 6. Provide the name, address, and telephone number for the company(ies) that provided telephone services to Defendant for every communication with Plaintiff. 7. Describe fully any system(s) Defendant maintains or operates to record contacts of its employees with consumers or third parties in connection with the collection of consumer accounts, and Defendant's policies for operating such a system. 8. Describe the maintenance of all procedures utilized by the Defendant to avoid violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, specifically including the procedures for veri~ring the purported debts and describe how Defendant verified or attempted to verify the debt of "Thomas Duranseau". 9. Please st'lte in detail the facts upon which you base your denial of Paragraphs 15, 20, and 24 of Plaintiffs Amended Complaint. 10. If your response to the Requests for Admissions served simultaneously here\vith is anything other than an unqualified admission, then please state as to each denial the specific facts forming the basis for such denial and identify each witness and document upon which you will rely to support your denial. This Request shall be deemed continuing so as to require further and supplemental responses between the time of Defendant's initial responses and the time of trial. Dated: October 31, 2013 GILBERT LAW OFFICE PLLC Matthew J. Gifuert, Esq. Attorney I.D.# Girard Ave. S. #25 Minneapolis, MN (612) MGilbert@GilbertLawOfficePLLC.com Attorney for Plaintiff 4

5 CASE 0:13-cv PJS-LIB Document 59-1 Filed 02/27/14 Page 5 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Harvey Duranseau, V. Plaintiff, Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC Defendant. PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR DEFENDANT'S PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS COURT FILE NO.: 13-CV TO: Portfolio Recovery Associates, L.L.C., through its attorney, Jennifer Robbins, 800 LaSalle Avenue, 2800 LaSalle Plaza, Minneapolis, MN Pursuant to Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff requests that Defendant produce within (30) days, the documents described herein to Plaintiff, through his attorney, Jvlatthew]. Gilbert, GILBERT LAW OFFICE PLLC, 3300 Girard Ave. S. #25, Niinneapolis, MN As used in this request, the term "documenr>' means every wti.ting or record of every type and description that is in the possession, control or custody of Defendant, including but without limitation to, correspondence, memoranda, stenographic or handwritten notes, studies, publications, books, pamphlets, pictures, films, voice recordings, reports, surveys; minutes or statistical compilations, data processing cards or computer records, files, disks, or tapes or print-outs; agreements, communications, state and federal governmental hearings, and reports, correspondence, telegrams, memoranda, summaries or records of telephone conversations, summaries or records of personal conversations or interviews, diaries, graphs, reports, notebooks, note charts, plans, drawings, sketches, maps, summaries or records of meetings or conferences, summaries or reports of investigations or negotiations, opinions or reports of consultants, photographs, motion picture film, brochures, pamphlets, advertisements, circulars, press releases, drafts, letters, any marginal comments appearing on any document, and all other writings. Please produce the following: REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION 1

6 CASE 0:13-cv PJS-LIB Document 59-1 Filed 02/27/14 Page 6 of All documents relating to the alleged debt of Plaintiff and/ or "Thomas Duranseau". 2. All documents relating to Defendant's activities to collect the debt purportedly owed by Plaintiff and/ or "Thomas Duranseau", specifically including records of all recorded phone conversations and the underlying data therefore. 3. Defendant's organizational chart. 4. For every communication between Defendant and Plaintiff, all internal call logs and call logs/ statements produced by Defendant's telephone service provider which document any and all phone calls between Defendant and Plaintiff. 5. A list of all employees engaged in the collection of debts that Thomas Duranseau and/ or Plaintiff allegedly owes, their positions and responsibilities. 6. Any insurance policies covering the Defendant for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. 7. All documents in the Defendant's possession sent to or received from the creditor or owner of the debt. 8. All internal documents, memoranda, etc., of the Defendant regarding communications with Plaintiff. 9. All operation manuals or similar documents, etc., utilized by the Defendant. 10. All documents relating to the maintenance of procedures by the Defendant adapted to avoid any violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, specifically including documents relating to recording phone calls with consumers. 11. All documents relating to the Defendant's procedures to provide verification of the alleged debt. 12. All documents related to collecting the debt owed by "Thomas Duranseau", specifically including any correspondence or complete or incomplete legal pleadings. 13. Copies of all reports and documents utilized by an expert which Defendant proposes to call at trial. 14. All exhibits which Defendant proposes to introduce at ttial. 15. Copies of all correspondence, specifically including notices under 1692(g),sent to Plaintiff and/or "Thomas Duranseau". 16. All documentation related to Defendant's communications with regulatory authorities, including but not limited to the :CVfinnesota Department of Commerce and the Minnesota Attorney General's Office regarding Plaintiff and Plaintiff's complaints filed with the Minnesota Department of Commerce and the IYfinnesota Attorney General's Office. 2

7 CASE 0:13-cv PJS-LIB Document 59-1 Filed 02/27/14 Page 7 of 10 This Request shall be deemed continuing so as to require further and supplemental' production if Defendant obtains additional documents required to be produced herein between the time of the initial production and the time of trial. Dated: October 31, 2013 GILBERT LAW OFFICE PLLC :tvlatthew J&ert, Esq. Attorney I.D.# Girard Ave. S. #25 Minneapolis, MN (612) :tvigilbert@gilbertlawofficepllc.com Attorney for Plaintiff 3

8 CASE 0:13-cv PJS-LIB Document 59-1 Filed 02/27/14 Page 8 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Harvey Duranseau, Plaintiff, v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, ILC Defendant. PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR DEFENDANT'S ADMISSIONS COURT FILE NO.: 13-CV TO: Portfolio Recovery Associates, L.L.C., through its attomey,jennifer Robbins, 800 LaSalle Avenue, 2800 LaSalle Plaza, Minneapolis, MN REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS Pursuant to Rule 36 of The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff requests Defendant to admit or deny the truth of the following: 1. Plaintiff Harvey Duranseau is a "consumer" as defined at 15 U.S.C. 1692a(3). 2. The obligation allegedly due is a "debt" as defined at 15 U.S.C. 1692a(S). 3. Defendant Portfolio Recovery Associates, L.L.C. is engaged in the business of collecting consumer debts and regularly attempts and collects consumer debts allegedly owed to another and is a ''debt collector" as defined at 15 U.S.C. 1692a(6). 4. Defendant placed fourteen (14) or more phone calls to Plaintiff from October 2012 to Iviarch of A purpose for Defendant's phone calls to Plaintiff was to collect a debt owed by Thomas Duranseau. 6. Defendant requested Plaintiff pay the debt in the name of "Thomas Duranseau" on one or more occasion. 7. Plaintiff, Harvey Duranseau, is not Thomas Duranseau. 8. Plaintiff, Harvey Duranseau, does not owe any debts to Defendant. 9. The notice required by 15 U.S.C. 1692g was not sent by the Defendant to the Plaintiff's address in Big Falls Minnesota within five days after Defendant's initial communication to the Plaintiff. 10.Defendant's initial communication with Plaintiff was in October of

9 CASE 0:13-cv PJS-LIB Document 59-1 Filed 02/27/14 Page 9 of Whether in the name of Plaintiff or "Thomas Duranseau", Defendant did not send any correspondence directly to Plaintiff at his home in Big Falls, Minnesota. 12. Defendant and/or one of its agents used profane language when conununicating with Plaintiff. 13. Defendant and/ or one of its agents called Plaintiff a "nigger." 14. Defendant and/or one of its agents told Plaintiff to "suck our clicks" or "suck my dick". 15. Plaintiff advised Defendant that he was not Thomas Duranseau on one or more occasion. 16. Plaintiff advised Defendant that Thomas Duranseau did not live at his house on one or more occasion. 17. Plaintiff advised Defendant to stop calling him on one or more occasion. 18. On more than one occasion, Defendant placed two (2) or more calls to Plaintiff on the same day. 19. Defendant hung up the phone on Plaintiff on one or more occasion. 20. Io or about December 2012, Plaintiff called Defendant and advised Defendant that he was not Thomas Duranseau. 21. Io or about December 2012, Defendant advised Plaintiff that he would no longer receive phone calls from Defendant. 22. Plaintiff received eleven (11) or more phone calls from Defendant after January 1, On January 19, 2013, Defendant and or one of its agents advised Plaintiff that she "will call back when an adult is home." 24. Defendant or one its agents served or attempted to serve a Summons and Complaint on Thomas Duranseau at 1700 E. Heath rd., Rose City, Michigan Pfaintiff has a phone number with a Minnesota area code. 26. Plaintiff lives in Minnesota. 27. Defendant has possession of more than fourteen (14) phone recordings between Defendant and Plaintiff. 28. Defendant has destroyed phone recordings between Defendant and Plaintiff. 29. Defendant has lost phone recordings between Defendant and Plaintiff. 30. Defendant has not communicated with "Thomas Duranseau" by phone. 31. Defendant does not know where "Thomas Duranseau" is located. 32. Defendant has a policy to record all phone calls between Defendant and pu1-ported debtors. 33. Defendant recorded all phone calls placed by Defendant to Plaintiff. 34. Defendant did not alter in anyway the fourteen (14) phone recordings set forth in the Declaration of Natalie DeBoer dated August 19,

10 CASE 0:13-cv PJS-LIB Document 59-1 Filed 02/27/14 Page 10 of 10 Dated: October 31, 2013 GILBERT LAW OFFICE PLLC Matthew [Gilbert, Esq. Attorney I.D.# Girard Ave. S. #25 Minneapolis, MN (612) Attorney for Plaintiff 3