A Magistrate Court judge in Utah has partially granted a plaintiff’s motion to compel several collection operations to comply with subpoenas in a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act case in which the defendants are attempting to argue they do not meet the statute’s definition of a debt collector. The ruling, delivered by Judge Daphne A. Oberg, found that while most of the plaintiff’s requests were valid and relevant, some limitations were necessary to avoid undue burdens on the non-party collection operations.
The background: The lawsuit alleges the defendants violated the FDCPA and Utah’s Consumer Sales Practices Act by wrongfully attempting to collect a debt owed by a different individual with the same name as the plaintiff. The case has been on rocky ground for some time, with Judge Oberg having to previously call for civility and professionalism from both sides.
- Central to the defendants’ defense is the argument that they do not qualify as “debt collectors” under the FDCPA.
- The plaintiff served subpoenas on a number of non-party collection firms seeking records related to their collection activities in collaboration with the defendants, including writs of execution, property sale records, training materials, and payment records.
The ruling: In her ruling, Judge Oberg found that most of the plaintiff’s requested documents were relevant to determining whether the defendants met the FDCPA’s definition of debt collectors. This includes documents showing defendants’ general debt collection practices, which are critical to evaluating the threshold question of whether they regularly engaged in debt collection activities.
- However, the judge imposed limitations on some requests. The collection firms were allowed to redact sensitive debtor information, such as names and case numbers, to avoid privacy violations under the FDCPA. Additionally, the judge ruled that the firms are not required to create new documents, such as compiling spreadsheets of payment data, unless such records already exist.
