clp10_04

8/3/2019 clp10_04

1/113

1

Chapter 4 Debt Collection Harassment of Identity Theft Victim

Peter F. Barry is a licensed attorney admitted to practice in the State of Minnesota and theowner of The Barry Law Office, Ltd. His practice is dedicated exclusively to protecting

consumers against illegal debt collection activity. He was recently named by his peers as a SuperLawyer for 2003 by Minnesota Law & Politics Magazine.

In 1996, Barry graduated from William Mitchell College of Law in St. Paul, Minnesotawhere he competed nationally on the schools trial advocacy team and won top honors for hisappellate work. Barry did extensive clinical work with several organizations including theRamsey County Public Defenders Office, Legal Assistance to Minnesota Prisoners, and the St.Paul Tenants Union. He opened his law practice directly out of law school and has been enjoyinghis private plaintiff's practice ever since.

Barry volunteers annually with Habitat for Humanity and the Minnesota State BarAssociation's High School Mock Trial Program as a judge. He also devotes volunteer time tovarious William Mitchell clinical programs and maintains an ongoing pro-bono legal services

commitment in the area of consumer rights. In 2003, Barry was named an adjunct Professor ofLaw at William Mitchell College of Law where he now teaches Consumer Rights Law.

In addition to being admitted to practice in Minnesota and Wisconsin state and federalcourts, Barry was also recently admitted in the Northern District of Texas and the 8th CircuitCourt of Appeals. He was born in San Jose, California in 1964 and lives in St. Paul, Minnesota.

Section 4.1 is a complaint in which the consumer alleges that the debt collector could notprovide written verification1 of a thirteen year old debt allegedly taken out by an imposter in hername and social security number. The debt collector persistently misrepresented that theconsumer was responsible for this debt and must fill out an affidavit to support her claim ofidentity theft and fraud. The complaint is based on the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act andthe tort of invasion of privacy.2 Section 4.2 is a combined discovery request including

interrogatories, admissions, and production of documents. Section 4.3 is the consumers requestto inspect the debt collectors premises. Section 4.4 is a form for consumers to use to keep notesof collection contacts.

Section 4.5 is the deposition of a consumer class representative in a FDCPA class actionwhere the defense attorney seeks to question her adequacy as a class representative.

1 See Id. 5.7.2 See Id. 10.3.

8/3/2019 clp10_04

2/113

2

4.1 Collecting and Failing to Verify Old Identity Theft Claim, Complaint

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

[CONSUMER],Plaintiff,

v.

CAPITAL ACQUISITIONS & MANAGEMENT COMPANY, D/B/A CAMCO, HENRY GOLD,JACK WEBB, MARIO DOE, AND ISAIAH COOPER,

Defendants.

COMPLAINT

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

JURISDICTION

1. Jurisdiction of this Court arises under 28 U.S.C. 1331 and pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1692k(d), and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367 for pendent state law claims.

2. This action arises out of Defendants violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act,15 U.S.C. 1692 et seq. (FDCPA) and the invasions of Plaintiffs personal privacy by theseDefendants in their efforts to collect a consumer debt.

3. Venue is proper in this District because the acts and transactions occurred here, Plaintiffresides here, and Defendants transact business here.

PARTIES

4. Plaintiff [Consumer] is a natural person who resides in the City of Golden Valley,County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, and is a consumer as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. 1692a(3).

5. Defendant Capital Acquisitions & Management Company, d/b/a CAMCO, (hereinafterDefendant CAMCO) is a collection agency operating from an address of P.O. Box 5087,Rockford, Illinois 61125, and is a debt collector as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. 1692a(6).

6. Defendant Henry Gold (hereinafter Defendant Gold) is a natural person employed byDefendant CAMCO as a collection agent and is a debt collector as that term is defined by 15

U.S.C. 1692a(6).7. Defendant Jack Webb (hereinafter Defendant Webb) is a natural person employed byDefendant CAMCO as a collection agent and is a debt collector as that term is defined by 15U.S.C. 1692a(6).

8. Defendant Mario Doe (hereinafter Defendant Doe) is a natural person employed byDefendant CAMCO as a collection agent and is a debt collector as that term is defined by 15U.S.C. 1692a(6).

8/3/2019 clp10_04

3/113

3

9. Defendant Isaiah Cooper (hereinafter Defendant Cooper) is a natural person employedby Defendant CAMCO as a collection agent and is a debt collector as that term is defined by 15U.S.C. 1692a(6).

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

10. In or around 1990, Plaintiff allegedly incurred a debt as that term is defined by 15U.S.C. 1692a(5), namely, two Bank of America credit cards which were fraudulently obtainedand used in her name by Plaintiffs ex-husband, and which were primarily for personal, family,or household purposes, in the approximate amount of $14,000.

11. Sometime thereafter, the alleged debts were consigned, placed or otherwisetransferred to Defendants for collection from the Plaintiff.

CONVERSATION WITH DEFENDANT HENRY GOLD

12. On or around July 25, 2003, Plaintiff received a telephone message from Defendant

Gold with regard to this debt and on that day, Plaintiff returned the call to Defendant Gold atextension 4035.13. Plaintiff told Defendant Gold that she had not received a letter from Defendant

CAMCO per her request in a previous conversation. The letter had previously been promised toPlaintiff by Defendants to help establish the legal basis for this debt.

14. Defendant Gold responded by telling Plaintiff that he could not send a letter to Plaintiff,because by the time Plaintiff got the letter, their office would have forwarded out the account.Despite this statement, and the fact that First Class U.S. Mail generally takes no more that 3-4 days,as of April 1, 2004, 251 days laterDefendants office was still collecting on this account.Therefore, Defendant Golds statement on this occasion was a false and deceptive communicationin violation of numerous and multiple provisions of the FDCPA, including but not limited to 15U.S.C. 1692e, 1692e(10), and 1692f.

15. Defendant Gold then told Plaintiff that the unpaid debt information would be sent toTransUnion and appear on her personal credit report as a public record and not a trade line, thusimplying that Defendants would report false credit information and/or obtain a judgment againstPlaintiff, despite the fact that this debt was far beyond the applicable statute of limitations.Therefore, this statement was a false and deceptive communication in violation of numerous andmultiple provisions of the FDCPA, including but not limited to 15 U.S.C. 1692e,1692e(8),1692e(10), and 1692f.

16. Plaintiff again explained to Defendant Gold that these Bank of America accounts werenot her debts, but rather that she believed that they belonged to her ex-husband who hadfraudulently opened these accounts under Plaintiffs name, and without her knowledge or consent.

17. Defendant Gold told Plaintiff that she was still liable for these debts because they wereunder her social security number and because she never pressed charges against her ex-husband. Infact, Plaintiff has no liability for a credit card account which was fraudulently obtained in her nameand without her knowledge. Moreover, Plaintiff is not required to press criminal charges against theperson whom she suspects of the credit card fraud in order to avoid this civil liability since she is notthe financial victimthe credit card company is. Therefore, Defendant Golds statement on thisoccasion was a false and deceptive communication in violation of numerous and multiple provisionsof the FDCPA, including but not limited to 15 U.S.C. 1692e, 1692e(10), and 1692f.

8/3/2019 clp10_04

4/113

4

18. Plaintiff told Defendant Gold that she had never received any information regarding thisdebt until 2003 and she could not have filed a fraud claim on it, unless she had first known that iteven existed.

19. Defendant Gold then told Plaintiff that he could only send her an Affidavit stating thatthe money was delinquent, was owed, and had to be paid, but could not send out further proof of the

debt. Defendant Gold explained that the FTC had bailed out the creditors by passing a law whichallowed creditors to submit defaulted account information to a national debt database, rather thanmaking these creditors have to hold on to all the original paperwork from the credit card accounts.A search of the FTC website located at www.ftc.gov reveals no such national debt database andrelevant statutes, and therefore this statement by Defendant Gold was a false and deceptivecommunication in violation of numerous and multiple provisions of the FDCPA, including but notlimited to 15 U.S.C. 1692e, 1692e(1), 1692e(2), 1692e(5), 1692e(9), 1692e(10), and 1692f.

20. Defendant Gold threatened Plaintiff that when the debts got forwarded out of theDefendants office, it was a lot of money, and that Plaintiff had assets, so it was up to her. WhenPlaintiff pressed Defendant Gold on what he meant by this statement, Defendant Gold told Plaintiffthat he did not know what Defendant CAMCO was going to do but that they usually would not let a

debt like this slide. This statement was a false and deceptive communication and a threat to takeunspecified legal action against Plaintiffs assets on a stale debt, in violation of numerous andmultiple provisions of the FDCPA, including but not limited to 15 U.S.C. 1692e, 1692e(2),1692e(4), 1692e(5), 1692e(10), and 1692f.

21. Defendant Gold then said that Plaintiff did not have enough proof that this was not herdebt in eyes of a court, and then placed Plaintiff on hold to get his manager, Defendant Webb, onthe phone. This statement was a false and deceptive communication and a threat to take legal actionagainst Plaintiff on a stale debt in violation of numerous and multiple provisions of the FDCPA,including but not limited to 15 U.S.C. 1692e, 1692e(2), 1692e(5), 1692e(10), and 1692f.

CONVERSATION WITH DEFENDANT JACK WEBB

22. Defendant Webb initially told Plaintiff that if she had a hold harmless clause in herdivorce decree, that Plaintiff could go after her ex-husband for the full amount after settling the debtshortin essence committing fraud against her ex-husband by misrepresenting the amount of thedebt Plaintiff actually paid off. This statement by Defendant Webb was a false and deceptivecommunication in violation of numerous and multiple provisions of the FDCPA, including but notlimited to 15 U.S.C. 1692e, 1692e(2), 1692e(5), 1692e(10), and 1692f.

23. Defendant Webb stated that courts are very reluctant to do anything with spouses andcredit card fraud because it was a he-said-she-said situation and that Plaintiff would have theburden of proof.

24. Defendant Webb then tried to convince Plaintiff to criminally charge her ex-husbandfor this fraudulent account because in his opinion the court would throw the charge out.

25. Defendant Webb told Plaintiff that the issue of consent to incur credit in yourspouses name was a very fuzzy one, and that married people basically have co-responsibilityfor all of each others expenses, barring a prenuptial agreement.

26. Defendant Webb again suggested that Plaintiff overstate the amount she had paid toDefendant CAMCO in order to sue her ex-husband. This statement by Defendant Webb was afalse and deceptive communication in violation of numerous and multiple provisions of the

8/3/2019 clp10_04

5/113

5

FDCPA, including but not limited to 15 U.S.C. 1692e, 1692e(2), 1692e(5), 1692e(10), and1692f.

27. Defendant Webb told Plaintiff that the time to report this debt as a fraud account toBank of America had passed, despite the fact that Defendant Webb also told Plaintiff that shesounded very believable and that he did not doubt that she was telling the truth.

28. Defendant Webb told Plaintiff that if she did not pay this debt, that the accountwould go to the involuntary payment stage which consisted of verifying assets, bank accountsand employment.

29. Defendant Webb told Plaintiff that the federal validation process ended on the daythe Defendants acquired this debt for collection, June 13, 2003. This statement by DefendantWebb was a false and deceptive communication in violation of numerous and multiple provisions ofthe FDCPA, including but not limited to 15 U.S.C. 1692e, 1692e(2), 1692e(5), 1692e(6)(b),1692e(9), 1692e(10), 1692f, and 1692g, et seq.

30. Defendant Webb told Plaintiff that Defendant CAMCO was a creditor which gavethem all the full rights as the original creditors, but that the previous companies were collectionagencies, and that Defendant CAMCO had a right to do things to locate her which regular

collection agencies were not entitled to do. This statement by Defendant Webb was a false anddeceptive communication in violation of numerous and multiple provisions of the FDCPA,including but not limited to 15 U.S.C. 1692e, 1692e(2), 1692e(5), 1692e(6), 1692e(9),1692e(10), and 1692f.

31. Defendant Webb told Plaintiff that Defendant CAMCO would sue her for the$14,000 debt, despite the fact that she had reported the account as fraudulent and that it wasmore than 14 years old. When Plaintiff challenged Defendant Webb about this statement andasked who would be suing her, Defendant Webb retreated by saying that he was not sure whomight do whatto Plaintiff. These statements on this occasion by Defendant Webb were false anddeceptive communications in violation of numerous and multiple provisions of the FDCPA,including but not limited to 15 U.S.C. 1692e, 1692e(2), 1692e(5), 1692e(10), and 1692f.

CONVERSATION WITH DEFENDANT MARIO DOE

32. Sometime on or around April 2004, Plaintiff received a phone call from Defendantsin an effort to collect this debt.

33. After speaking with one of Defendant CAMCOs floor supervisors for some timewith regard to the debt, Plaintiff again explained that these Bank of America credit card accountshad been fraudulently opened by her ex-husband, without her permission or knowledge,approximately 14 years before.

34. The floor supervisor then placed Plaintiff on hold for a few moments, after whichDefendant Doe, got on the telephone line and identified himself as from loss prevention.

35. Defendant Doe wanted to know whether or not Plaintiff ever pressed charges againsther ex-husband and advised Plaintiff to file a police report against her ex-husband.

36. Defendant Doe then advised Plaintiff that these credit card accounts had now beenclassified as a willful and deliberate evasion of a debt, and that the original creditor, Bank ofAmerica, had rights only against the Plaintiff in this matter. These were false and deceptivestatements because Plaintiff was not willfully evading any debt and the original creditor does nothave any rights against the Plaintiff, especially given that this debt was more than 14 years old,was beyond the applicable statute of limitations, and had been fraudulently obtained in her name

8/3/2019 clp10_04

6/113

6

without her knowledge. Therefore, these statements were made in violation of numerous andmultiple provisions of the FDCPA including but not limited to 15 U.S.C. 1692d, 1692e,1692e(2), 1692e(10), and 1692f.

37. Defendant Doe also told Plaintiff that the only person who could go after her ex-husband for these debts was the Plaintiff, and that Plaintiff could simply pay the $500 demand

and then later bring suit against her ex-husband for claiming the approximately $7,000 balanceon these Bank of America accounts. The suggestion by Defendant Doe that the Plaintiff engagein pursuing a fraudulent lawsuit against her ex-husband, seeking reimbursement for amounts shehad not paid, was a communication made in violation of numerous and multiple provisions of theFDCPA including but not limited to 15 U.S.C. 1692d, 1692e, 1692e(2), 1692e(10), and1692f.

38. Defendant Doe told Plaintiff that Defendants had to take action against only herand could not sue her ex-husband. This communication was a threat to sue Plaintiff for thesedebts, far beyond the applicable statute of limitations, and therefore was a false and deceptivethreat made in violation of numerous and multiple provisions of the FDCPA including but notlimited to 15 U.S.C. 1692d, 1692e, 1692e(2), 1692e(5), 1692e(10), and 1692f.

39. Defendant Doe told the Plaintiff that because this [debt] is in your name, youre theperson thats gonna be held responsible for it. So as far as Bank of Americas concerned its nota question of if youre gonna pay, its a question of how much are you gonna pay and when, andby what means. Its much cheaper for you this way. Because once it goes to the refusal to paydepartment they assign an investigator to it. That investigator is gonna make a decision on howmuch money he feels you can pay, based on your assets, how much money you spend, or taxrecords or whatever else he can get his hands on. Okay, if he says [Consumer] has the ability topay $3,000, then theyre not gonna accept a penny less than that.

40. Defendant Doe again told Plaintiff that she should sue her ex-husband for creatingthese debts, and then asked Plaintiff what she was doing about the damage that was being doneto her permanent record as a result of not paying these debts. This communication to Plaintiffthat damage would be done to her permanent record for the non-payment of debts which werebeyond the applicable statute of limitations was a false and deceptive threat to report false anddisputed credit information, and a communication made in violation of numerous and multipleprovisions of the FDCPA, including but not limited to 15 U.S.C. 1692d, 1692e, 1692e(2),1692e(5), 1692e(8), 1692e(10), and 1692f.

41. Defendant Doe then told Plaintiff after that day, Defendants would no longer honorthe $500 settlement offer made by Defendants, and that if Plaintiff did not want to accept theoffer, that the Defendants would then go ahead and turn you over to Loss Prevention and theylldeal with it.

42. Loss Prevention is defined as the stopping or reducing loss from shoplifting,employee theft, paperwork errors and poor safety procedures. Guarding and securing the assetsof a company. Seehttp://retailindustry.about.com/library/terms/l/bld_lp.htm.

43. The use of the phrase Loss Prevention combined with the threat that Plaintiffwould be turned over to them, is an implied threat of criminal action against Plaintiff inviolation of numerous and multiple provisions of the FDCPA, including but not limited to 15U.S.C. 1692d, 1692e, 1692e(2), 1692e(4), 1692e(5), 1692e(7), 1692e(10), and 1692f.

44. Defendant Doe then told Plaintiff that everything is in play and that the Defendantshad done everything they were required to do under the laws of Minnesota, that they had doneeverything that they were required to do in Hennepin County, and that the only thing needed

8/3/2019 clp10_04

7/113

7

now was to document Plaintiffs account to indicate that Defendants had expired every option,and that Defendants would then request assistance in resolving the account. Defendant Doeintended and Plaintiff interpreted these statements to suggest that the Defendants were eithergoing to criminally prosecute Plaintiff, or civilly sue her, for these unpaid debts. Therefore,these statements made on this occasion by Defendant Doe were illegal threats of criminal and/or

action civil action against Plaintiff in violation of numerous and multiple provisions of theFDCPA, including but not limited to 15 U.S.C. 1692d, 1692e, 1692e(2), 1692e(4), 1692e(5),1692e(7), 1692e(10), and 1692f.

ADDITIONAL COLLECTION CALLS

45. In addition to the above detailed calls, Plaintiff and Plaintiffs family members havereceived numerous and multiple other harassing and threatening collection calls from DefendantCAMCO and its debt collectors within the past year, and which demanded payment for thesealleged debts.

46. Plaintiff also received the following collection calls at her home from Defendant

CAMCO and its collection agents:

Date Time(s)

02/21/2004 10:46 a.m., 12:26 p.m., 1:32 p.m., 1:58 p.m., 2:11 p.m., 2:31 p.m.

02/23/2004 12:23 p.m.

02/24/2004 2:40 p.m.

02/25/2004 2:28 p.m., 7:10 p.m., 7:16 p.m.

03/05/2004 1:43 p.m.

03/09/2004 11:53 a.m., 6:45 p.m.

03/11/2004 1:46 p.m.,7:58 p.m.

03/24/2004 6:45 p.m.

04/01/2004 12:35 p.m.

47. These collection calls, as well as the other collection calls described herein, were aninvasion of Plaintiffs privacy and communications in violation of numerous and multipleprovisions of the FDCPA, including but not limited to 15 U.S.C. 1692b(1), 1692b(3),1692c(a)(1), 1692c(b), 1692d, 1692e, 1692e(2), 1692e(5), 1692e(7), 1692e(10), and 1692f.

CALLS FROM DEFENDANT ISAIAH COOPER TO PLAINTIFFS TENANTS

48. Plaintiff and her husband own rental housing in which unrelated tenants reside.49. On at least two occasions, Plaintiffs tenants received phone calls from Defendant

Cooper stating that he had repeatedly called Plaintiff, but that he kept getting a busy signalwhen he called the Plaintiffs number.

50. Defendant Cooper then asked the tenant to hand carry a message back to Plaintiffinstructing [Consumer and her husband] to call Isaiah at extension 1877.

51. In fact, the Plaintiff has voice mail through her phone company which answers hertelephone in the event that the telephone is in use and therefore no busy signal would ever bereceived at Plaintiffs residence.

8/3/2019 clp10_04

8/113

8

52. Minnesota law recognizes that this collection tactic, namely, the enlistment of athird-party to contact a person with regard to the collection debt, is a violation of a consumersright to be free from abusive collection practices. See Minn. Stat. 332.37(15).

53. These third-party contacts were an invasion of Plaintiffs privacy, an undermininginterference with Plaintiffs business relationships with her tenants, an attempt to embarrass

Plaintiff, and communications in violation of numerous and multiple provisions of the FDCPA,including but not limited to 15 U.S.C. 1692b(1), 1692b(3), 1692c(a)(1), 1692c(b), 1692d,1692e, 1692e(2), 1692e(5), 1692e(7), 1692e(10), and 1692f.

SUMMARY

54. Plaintiff has suffered actual damages as a result of all of these Defendants illegalcollection communications in the form of embarrassment, relationship stress, anger, anxiety,emotional distress, fear, humiliation, and frustration, amongst other negative emotions, as well assuffering from unjustified and abusive invasions of personal privacy at Plaintiffs home and withher tenants.

55. These invasions of privacy occurred even after Plaintiff had advised the Defendants thatthese debts were fraudulently obtained accounts, that Plaintiff would not pay these debts, and afterPlaintiff and Plaintiffs husband had demanded that they stop calling her.

FTC ACTION TAKEN AGAINST DEFENDANT CAMCO FOR SIMILAR ABUSES

56. The Federal Trade Commission, Defendant CAMCO, and related companies andindividuals recently entered into a public settlement which required the companies and theirprincipals to pay a $300,000 civil penalty for alleged widespread violations of the FDCPA. Seeattached as Exhibit 1 fromhttp://www.ftc.gov/opa/2004/03/camco.htm.

57. The FTC alleged that Defendant CAMCO and the others threatened and harassedthousands of consumers to get them to pay old, unenforceable debts or debts they did not owe.

58. The public settlement agreement prohibits the companies alleged abusive debtcollection practices in the future, requires disclosure to consumers of their rights in thecompanies collection notices and communications with consumers, and requires the payment ofa $300,000 civil penalty.

59. Despite this agreement, Defendant CAMCO has continued to collect these debtsfrom Plaintiff in violation of its public settlement with the Federal Trade Commission.TRIAL BY JURY

60. Plaintiff is entitled to and hereby respectfully demands a trial by jury. US Const.amend. 7. Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 38.

CAUSES OF ACTION

COUNT I. VIOLATIONS OF THE FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT: 15

U.S.C. 1692 et seq.

61. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the above paragraphs of this Complaint asthough fully stated herein.

8/3/2019 clp10_04

9/113

9

62. The foregoing acts and omissions of each and every Defendant constitute numerousand multiple violations of the FDCPA including, but not limited to, each and every one of theabove-cited provisions of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. 1692 et seq.

63. As a result of each and every Defendants violations of the FDCPA, Plaintiff istherefore entitled to actual damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1692k(a)(1); statutory damages in an

amount up to $1,000.00 pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1692k(a)(2)(A); and, reasonable attorneys feesand costs pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1692k(a)(3) from each and every Defendant herein.

COUNT II. INVASION OF PRIVACY BY INTRUSION UPON SECLUSION AND

REVELATION OF PRIVATE FACTS

64. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the paragraphs of this Complaint as thoughfully stated herein.

65. Defendants intentionally interfered, physically or otherwise, with the solitude,seclusion and or private concerns or affairs of the Plaintiff.

66. Defendants intentionally caused harm to Plaintiffs emotional well being by

engaging in highly offensive conduct in the course of collecting this debt thereby invading andintruding upon Plaintiffs right to privacy and revealing private facts about her to her tenants,namely, that she was being contacted by a debt collector.

67. Plaintiff had a reasonable expectation of privacy in Plaintiffs solitude, seclusion, andor private concerns or affairs.

68. These intrusions and invasions by Defendants occurred in a way that would be highlyoffensive to a reasonable person in that position.

69. As a result of such invasions of privacy, Plaintiff is entitled to actual damages in anamount to be determined at trial from each and every Defendant.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that judgment be entered against each and every Defendant for:

COUNT I. VIOLATIONS OF THE FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT:

15 U.S.C. 1692 et seq.

for an award of actual damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1692k(a)(1) against each and everyDefendant;

for an award of statutory damages of $1,000.00 pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1692k(a)(2)(A)against each and every Defendant;

for an award of costs of litigation and reasonable attorneys fees pursuant to 15 U.S.C.

1692k(a)(3) against each and every Defendant;

COUNT II. INVASION OF PRIVACY BY INTRUSION UPON SECLUSION

for an award of actual damages from each and every Defendant for the emotional distresssuffered as a result of the FDCPA violations and invasions of privacy in an amount to bedetermined at trial; and

for such other and further relief as may be just and proper.

8/3/2019 clp10_04

10/113

10

Dated: August 31, 2004

Respectfully submitted,

______________________________Attorney for Plaintiff

8/3/2019 clp10_04

11/113

11

4.2 Collecting and Failing to Verify Old Identity Theft Claim, Combined

Discovery Request




v.

WOLPOFF & ABRAMSON, LLP AND MS. DUVAL,Defendants.

PLAINTIFFS INTERROGATORIES, REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, REQUEST FORPRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF

STATEMENTS

TO: DEFENDANTS AND THEIR ATTORNEY OF RECORD MR. MICHAEL A.

KLUTHO, ESQ., BASSFORD & REMELE, P.A., 3800 MULTIFOODS TOWER, 33

SOUTH SIXTH STREET, MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402-3707:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffpropounds the following interrogatories and discovery requests:

INSTRUCTIONS

Any references to Defendant, Defendants, Defendants or Defendant(s) shall betreated as referring to Defendant Wolpoff & Abramson, L.L.P. and its employees or agents,including Nakisha Stovall and Muluwork Girma, individually and collectively, as may beappropriate. As used in these interrogatories and requests, any references indicating the use ofmasculine or feminine and any references indicating the use of singular or plural, shall be usedinterchangeably.

If any objection is made to any of the following interrogatories or discovery requests, theDefendant shall make any such objection and state the relevant legal basis for such objection. If

any objection is made based upon a claim of privilege as to any response, Defendant shall statethe legal basis for the privilege Defendant is invoking and provide a detailed privilege log tosupport the invocation of such privilege.

Each and every interrogatory and discovery request herein is deemed continuing in naturepursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and Defendant(s) are obligated to seasonablyamend and provide any updated information that renders the responses to one or more of theseinterrogatories and discovery requests, incomplete or inaccurate, and serve those amended responsesupon the undersigned Plaintiffs counsel.

8/3/2019 clp10_04

12/113

12

As used in these interrogatories and discovery requests, the term document ordocuments means every writing or recorded material of every type and description, of anykind, that is in the possession, control or custody of Defendants, which Defendants haveknowledge, whether originals, copies or facsimiles. Such writings or recordings include, but are notlimited to, collection notes, electronic computer collection records, printouts of collection records,

sample collection letters, Metro-data tapes, diskettes, computer hard drives, tape backups, Zip-typedisks, magnetic media of any kind, correspondence, memoranda, stenographic notes, handwrittennotes, contracts, documents, rough drafts, inter-office memoranda, memoranda for the files, letters,research materials, logs, diaries, forms, bank statements, tax returns, card files, books of account,journals, ledgers, invoices, diagrams, minutes, manuals, studies, publications, pamphlets, pictures,films, voice recordings, reports, surveys, minutes, statistical compilations, data processing cards,computer records, tapes, print-outs, agreements, communications, state and federal governmentalhearings, reports, correspondence, telegrams, memoranda, summaries or records of telephoneconversations, summaries or records of personal conversations or interviews, diaries, graphs,notebooks, note charts, charts, plans, drawings, sketches, maps, summaries or records ofmeetings or conferences, summaries or reports of investigations or negotiations, opinions or

reports of consultants, photographs, video tape, motion picture film, digital photographs,brochures, advertisements, circular, press releases, drafts, any marginal comments appearing onany document, all other writings, books of all nature and kind whether handwritten, typed, printed,mimeographed, photocopied or otherwise reproduced, all tape recordings (whether for computer,audio, or visual replay) and all other written, printed, and recorded matter or tangible things uponwhich words, phrases, websites, listservs, emails, symbols or information of any kind are recorded,encrypted or otherwise stored.

A request to identify a document is a request to state the following, as applicable:

a. The date of the document;b. The type of document;c. The names and present addresses of the person or persons who prepared the

document and of the signers and addressers of the document;d. The name of the employer or principal whom the signers, addressers and preparers

were representing;e. The present location of the document;f. The name and current business and home addresses of the present custodian of the

original document, and any copies of it;g. A summary of the contents of the document;h. If the original document was destroyed, the date and reason for or circumstances

under which it was destroyed; and

Plaintiff requests that the documents be made available for this inspection at the officesof counsel for Plaintiff at 342 East County Road D, St. Paul, Minnesota 55117-1275,or at suchoffice of the Defendants as may be the location of any of the documents requested, duringnormal business hours, with the least possible disruption to the ordinary course of Defendantsduties and responsibilities.

Plaintiff further requests that this inspection be permitted by Defendants immediatelyafter Defendants response to this request has been filed, and that Plaintiffs attorneys bepermitted to remove from Defendants custody such documents as they may desire to copy, on

8/3/2019 clp10_04

13/113

13

the understanding that Plaintiffs attorneys will be responsible for such documents so long asthey are in their possession, that copying will be done at Plaintiffs expense, and that thedocuments will be promptly returned after copying has been completed.

These interrogatories and discovery requests are intended to cover all documents inDefendants possession, or subject to their custody and control, regardless of location. If there

are no such documents, please so state. If there are such documents, please list and markappended documents responsive to each request. (Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 34(b)).Each interrogatory propounded herein should be answered upon your entire knowledge from

all sources and all information in your possession or otherwise available to you, includinginformation from your officers, employees, agents, representatives or consultants and informationwhich is known by each of them. An incomplete or evasive answer is deemed a failure to answer.

If any answer is qualified, state specifically the terms of each qualification and the reasonsfor it. If an interrogatory cannot be answered in full, state the part which can be answered andanswer the same in full to the extent possible; state further and specifically the reason(s) why theremainder cannot be answered.

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.For purpose of these requests, a statement is (a) a written statement signed or otherwiseadopted or approved by the person making it, or (b) stenographic, mechanical, electrical, or otherrecording, or a transcription thereof, which is substantially verbatim recital of an oral statementby the person making it and contemporaneously recorded.

INTERROGATORIES

Pursuant to Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff requests that

Defendant(s) answer, under oath, the following interrogatories:

1. For each individual person, officer, employee, agent, or other entity answering orproviding any information used to answer any Interrogatory, state the following:

a. First, last, and middle legal name;b. All DBA, fake, or alias name(s) used by this person;c. Job title or capacity;d. Business address and telephone number;e. Home address and telephone number;f. Age;

2. Identify each document referred to or consulted by Defendants in the preparation of theAnswers to these Interrogatories and discovery requests made within this entire document.

3. Identify all persons known to Defendants to have personal knowledge of any facts orissues involved in this lawsuit, state the following:

a. First, last, and middle legal name;b. All DBAs, fake, or alias name(s) used by this person;c. Job title or capacity;d. Business address and telephone number;

8/3/2019 clp10_04

14/113

14

e. Home address and telephone number;f. Age;

4. Identify and describe with particularity all training that Defendants provide or receive, inthe area of debt collection activities related to the collection of any accounts, including but not

limited to:

a. The training content, timing, and duration;b. All documents and audio or visual materials used in such training; andc. Each person involved in providing such training.

5. Identify and describe all manuals, instructions, restrictions or other documentation orinstructions Defendants use regarding how to, and how not to, collect debts from persons.

6. Identify and describe Defendants disciplinary policy for violating state and federaldebt collection laws, and for violating other state or federal laws in the course of collecting debtsof any kind.

7. Identify and describe any documents that describe, record, or establish each of theDefendants methods and techniques used to collect on debt collection accounts.8. Identify and describe fully any computer, manual, or other system(s) Defendant

maintains or operates to record any and all mail, telephone, in-person, or other forms ofcommunications, or attempted communications, with persons or other third parties in connectionwith the collection of accounts, and Defendants policies and procedures for operating such asystem of records.

9. Identify whether Defendants record telephone calls with any persons from who theyare collecting and what steps are taken to preserve these recordings.

10. Identify whether Defendants have recorded any telephone calls with the Plaintiff andwhether or not these recordings have been preserved, and/or the disposition of these recordings.

11. Identify the original creditor of the alleged debt(s) that Defendants were trying tocollect from Plaintiff. Please provide the full legal name, address, city, state and zip code, andphone number of the original creditor(s).

12. In the form of a chronology, identify and describe in detail and with particularity, theprocess and events by which, and the circumstances under which, the debt allegedly owed byPlaintiff was referred, placed or otherwise assigned to Defendants for collection, and identify alldocuments relevant to, related to, or reflecting such referral, placement or assignment.

13. Identify and describe each document known to Defendants, which are related to thecollection account(s) of Plaintiff.

14. Identify and describe each communication, or attempted communication, betweenthe Defendants with the Plaintiff, or any other person, which was made in connection with thecollection of Plaintiffs account, by stating the following:

a. The name of the individual initiating the communication or attemptedcommunication;

b. The date and time of the communication or attempted communication;c. The method of the communication or attempted communication (e.g. letter, phone

call, in-person);

8/3/2019 clp10_04

15/113

15

d. A detailed analysis of the substance of the communication or attemptedcommunication, (do not simply refer to collection notes);

e. Identify all witnesses to or participants in the communication or attemptedcommunication;; and,

f. Any actions taken by the Defendants as a result of the communication or

attempted communication.

15. State the name, address, telephone number, title, place of employment and field

of expertise of each person whom Defendants intend to call as an expert witness at a trial of

this case. For each expert witness, state, identify and/or provide:

a. The subject matter on which the expert is expected to testify;b. The substance of the facts and opinions to which the expert is expected to testify;c. A summary of the grounds for each opinion the expert is expected to testify; andd. All documents, treatises, books, studies, or other materials upon which the expert

may rely for information or support of facts and opinions.

e. A current curriculum vitae or rsum.

16. Identify by name, position, home address and telephone number, business address andtelephone number, all witnesses the Defendants intend to call or may call to testify at trial, andprovide a detailed summary of the expected testimony of each such person.

17. Identify and describe specifically all exhibits Defendants may introduce at the trial ofthis matter. Alternatively, you may respond by supplying copies of each such exhibit and markingthem as responsive to this interrogatory.

18. Identify by company name, business address, and telephone number, all of Defendantssuppliers of local and long distance telecommunications, wire communications, wireless or cellularcommunications, internet telephony or voice communications, or any other type of supplier of voicecommunications used by the Defendants, between the January 1, 2003 and December 31, 2003.

19. Identify and describe all processes, practices, procedures and methods used byDefendants to identify deceased accountholders.

20. Identify and describe all paper, electronic, or other resources used by Defendant toconfirm whether or not accountholders are deceased.

21. Identify and describe all collection practices, procedures and methods used byDefendants to collect on the accounts of deceased accountholders.

22. Identify and describe all facts relied upon to support the defense alleged withinParagraph 16 of Defendant Wolpoff & Abramson, L.L.P.s Answer to the Complaint filed herein,namely, that to the extent Plaintiff was/is the personal representative of [Consumers father],contact with her was authorized by statute.

23. Identify and describe all facts relied upon to support the defense alleged withinParagraph 20 of Defendant Wolpoff & Abramson, L.L.P.s Answer to the Complaint filed herein,namely, [Defendants] liability is excused because any such violation was unintentional andbecause the Defendant Wolpoff & Abramson, LLP has adopted procedures to avoid such errors.

REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION

8/3/2019 clp10_04

16/113

16

Pursuant to Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff demands thatDefendant(s) either admit or deny the following Requests for Admission within (30) days ofservice hereof:

1. Admit that Plaintiff [Consumer] is a natural person who resides in the City of GoldenValley, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, and is a consumer as that term is defined by 15

U.S.C. 1692a(3).2. Admit that Defendant Wolpoff & Abramson, LLP is a foreign limited liabilitypartnership and collection agency operating from an address of 702 King Farm Boulevard,Rockville, Maryland 20850 from a telephone number of (301) 407-4500.

3. Admit that at all times relevant to this cause of action, Defendant Wolpoff & Abramson,LLP transacted business in the District of Minnesota and at other locations throughout the UnitedStates, operating as a collection agency and as a debt collector as that term is defined by 15U.S.C. 1692a(6).

4. Admit that at all times relevant to this cause of action, Defendant Ms. Duval was anatural person employed by Defendant Wolpoff & Abramson, LLP as a collection agent and a debtcollector as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. 1692a(6).

5. Admit that Plaintiffs father, the late [Consumers father], allegedly incurred a debtwhich was primarily for personal, family or household purposes, and is therefore a debt as thatterm is defined by 15 U.S.C. 1692a(5), namely, a personal credit card with JCPenny incurredfor his personal purposes.

6. Admit that sometime on or about August 12, 2000, [Consumers father], Plaintiffsfather, passed away leaving behind this unsecured JCPenny debt.

7. Admit that sometime thereafter, this debt was consigned, placed, transferred, orotherwise obtained by Defendants for collection from Plaintiff.

8. Admit that on or about June 1, 2003, Defendant Wolpoff & Abramson, LLP and itscollection agents first began contacting Plaintiff regarding payment of the alleged debt by callingher home telephone number.

9. Admit that these telephone calls would occur generally every other day, and come intwo or more times on those days.

10. Admit that these collection calls from Defendant Wolpoff were sometimes made byan automated dialer machine.

11. Admit that these collection calls from Defendant Wolpoff were sometimes made by alive person employed by Defendant Wolpoff.

12. Admit that Plaintiff repeatedly advised Defendants of the fact that her father had diedthree years before.

13. Admit that Plaintiffs fathers estate had been probated.14. Admit that this was an unsecured debt which Plaintiff did not owe to her fathers

estate.15. Admit that Defendants continued to call Plaintiff at her home in an attempt to collect

this debt and thereby invaded her privacy.16. Admit that on or about September 24, 2003, Defendant Wolpoff and/or its agents

initiated a telephone call to Plaintiffs home at 7:02 p.m. from Defendant Wolpoffs telephonenumber (301) 407-4500.

17. Admit that on or about September 24, 2003, Defendant Wolpoff and/or its agentsinitiated a telephone call to Plaintiffs home at 3:05 p.m. from Defendant Wolpoffs telephonenumber (301) 407-4500.

8/3/2019 clp10_04

17/113

17

18. Admit that on or about September 26, 2003, at 4:52 p.m., Defendant Wolpoff and/orits agents initiated a telephone call to Plaintiffs home from its telephone number (301) 407-4500.

19. Admit that on or about September 26, 2003, at 2:30 p.m., Defendant Wolpoff and/orits agents initiated a telephone call to Plaintiffs home from its telephone number (301) 407-

4500. 20. Admit that on or about September 30, 2003, at approximately 4:15 p.m., Plaintiffcontacted Defendant Wolpoff.

21. Admit that during the conversation, Plaintiff told to Nakisha Stovall that her fatherhad been dead for more than 3 years and inquired as to the type and amount of debt whichDefendants were attempting to collect.

22. Admit that Nakisha Stovall indicated that before she could close out the late[Consumers father]s account, that she must know the name of the funeral home and city andstate where it was located.

23. Admit that Nakisha Stovall failed at any time during this conversation to state that shewas a debt collector, as required by 15 U.S.C. 1692e(11).

24. Admit that Defendant Wolpoffs, its agents, and its employees, course of conduct inattempting to collect this consumer debt by contacting Plaintiff amounted to an invasion of privacyby intrusion upon Plaintiffs seclusion.

25. Admit that Plaintiff did not consent to collection contacts by Defendant Wolpoff and/orits agents/employees.

26. Admit that Plaintiff had no prior personal, professional, or business relationship withDefendant Wolpoff, or its agents, or its employees.

If the Defendant(s) respond to any of these requests for admission with anything

other than an unqualified admission, then Plaintiff demands, pursuant to Rule 36 of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that the Defendant(s) answer the following interrogatory

within (30) days of service thereof, for each such request for admission to which an

qualified response was made:

1. If you have answered any of the foregoing Requests for Admission with anythingother than qualified admissions, then as to each such response, provide the following:

a. Identify each and every fact upon which you rely to support your response.b. Identify each and every document upon which you rely to support your response

and attach copies of such documents.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

Pursuant to Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff requests thatDefendant(s) produce within thirty (30) days, the documents described herein and permitPlaintiff and their attorneys to inspect and copy such documents as they may desire:

1. Any and all documents identified in Response to all sets of Plaintiffs Interrogatories,Plaintiffs Request for Admissions, and Plaintiffs Requests for Statements.

8/3/2019 clp10_04

18/113

18

2. Any and all documents summarizing, describing, instructing, detailing, or otherwisetraining any and all of Defendants employees in any and all of the following areas:

a. Defendants collection policies;b. Defendants collection procedures;

c. Defendants collection methods;d. Defendants collection techniques;e. Defendants collection tactics;f. Defendants collection rules;g. Defendants collection regulations; andh. Defendants compliance with local, state, or federal laws, codes, or regulations.

3. Any and all training, personnel, or other instruction manuals used by the collectionpersonnel who are employed by or supervised by Defendant(s).

4. Any and all collection software manuals and/or instruction guides for each and everycomputer system, software package, software system, or other electronic or non-electronic device

used in any manner by Defendant(s) in the collection process.5. Any and all documents related in any way to other lawsuits, legal or equitable claims,regulatory complaints or reports, or any other proceedings that have been brought against anyDefendant(s) from January 1, 1999, to the present.

6. Any and all personnel files, human resource department records, employment files,and other documents involving any Defendant, Nakashi Stovall, or Muluwork Girma, includingbut not limited to any disciplinary notices, reprimands, incident reports, and electronicrecordings of collection communications that were the subject of private or other complaints byany person.

7. Copies of each Defendant Wolpoffs Minnesota collection agency license and theindividual collectors licenses of each Defendant, if any, as issued by the Minnesota Departmentof Commerce.

8. Copies of any and all post office box registrations and postage meter permits held byDefendants, or other persons or entities, which are used in any manner by the Defendants forpurposes of consumer debt collection.

9. Any and all documents in the possession or control of the Defendant(s), whichDefendant(s) claim are in any way relevant to the subject matter of the instant lawsuit.

10. Any and all documents recording, documenting, or otherwise tracking the collectionefforts related of the Defendant(s) in any way related to Plaintiffs alleged debt that is the subjectof this lawsuit, from January 1, 1999, to the present, including but not limited to:

a. Records of all inbound or outbound telephone calls, to or from Plaintiff or anyother person or entity;

b. Records of all inbound or outbound United States mail, to or from Plaintiff anyother person or entity;

c. Records of all other inbound or outbound communication of whatever kind, to orfrom Plaintiff any other person or entity.

11. Any and all printouts computer, mechanical or other reports printed, prepared, orotherwise created using any computer system, software package, software system, or other

8/3/2019 clp10_04

19/113

19

electronic or non-electronic device used in any manner in Defendants collection process, whichinclude Plaintiffs name, address, telephone number(s), account number, or any other informationwhich is personally identifiable to the Plaintiff.

12. A plain-English description or glossary for any and all lists, legends, codes,abbreviations, collector initials, or other non-obvious terms, words, or data contained in any of the

documents produced above.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF STATEMENTS

Pursuant to Rule 26 and 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff

demands that copies of the following be made available within thirty (30) days:

1. All statements made by parties and non-parties, which are in the possession or controlof any Defendant, Nakisha Stovall, or Muluwork Girma, concerning the above action or itssubject matter which are discoverable pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Date:_______________ By: _________________________[Attorney for Plaintiff]

8/3/2019 clp10_04

20/113

20

4.3 Collecting and Failing to Verify Old Identity Theft Claim, Request to

Inspect Premises




v.

RISK MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES, INC.,BRIAN KAPLAN, AND DAVID SLATER,

Defendants.

PLAINTIFFS REQUEST FOR A RULE 34 INSPECTION OF DEFENDANT RISKMANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES, INC.S SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS COLLECTION

CENTER

TO: DEFENDANTS AND THEIR ATTORNEY, GEORGE SERDAR, ESQ., MESSERLI

& KRAMER, P.A., 1800 - 5TH STREET TOWERS, 150 SOUTH 5TH STREET,

MINNEAPOLIS, MN, 55402:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffpropounds the following:

INSTRUCTIONS

Any references to Defendant, Defendants, Defendants or Defendant(s) shall betreated as referring to each and every Defendant named within this lawsuit, individually andcollectively, as may be appropriate. As used in this request, any references indicating the use ofmasculine or feminine and any references indicating the use of singular or plural, shall be usedinterchangeably.

If any objection is made to any of the following request, the Defendant shall make anysuch objection and state the relevant legal basis for such objection. If any objection is madebased upon a claim of privilege as to any response, Defendant shall state the legal basis for the

privilege Defendant is invoking and provide a detailed privilege log to support the invocation ofsuch privilege.

REQUEST FOR INSPECTION AT DEFENDANT RISK MANAGEMENT

ALTERNATIVES, INC.

Pursuant to Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff requests thatDefendant provide access to its collection center located at an address of 1100 NW Loop 410,

8/3/2019 clp10_04

21/113

21

Suite 201, City of San Antonio, State of Texas on Thursday, May 22, 2003, at 3:00 p.m., to thelocations or things described herein and permit Plaintiff and her attorneys to inspect:

1. The work areas and work stations, and/or former work areas and work stations of eachof the Defendants named herein;

2. The collection management offices of the managers of the individual Defendants

Brian Kaplan and David Slater;3. The physical phone systems, computer systems, and other manual or electronicsystems used to conduct collection activities within the premises occupied by the individualDefendants in their capacity as collectors with Defendant Risk Management Alternatives, Inc. orformer facilities thereof;

4. The personal files of the individual Defendants Brian Kaplan and David Slater;5. A seating chart defining each work area within the Defendants collection premises

located at the above address and an organizational chart indicating the various reportingrelationships between and amongst collection staff and management of Defendant RiskManagement Alternatives, Inc.;

6. Any and all recording equipment or call tracking equipment used or formally used by

Defendants in the course of their collection activities for Defendant Risk ManagementAlternatives, Inc.;7. Equipment, processes, or other electronic or manual methods whereby management

and supervisory personnel employed by Defendant Risk Management Alternatives, Inc. listen in,intercept, record, or otherwise monitor any and all collection calls made by individual collectorsat the address listed above;

8. Any and all time records, time clocks, electronic time keeping devices, computersystems, or other electronic or manual systems used designed for an employee to track theworking hours of individual debt collectors, including but not limited to Defendants BrianKaplan and David Slater.

Date:_________________ By: ____________________________[Attorney for Plaintiff]

8/3/2019 clp10_04

22/113

22

4.4 Collecting and Failing to Verify Old Identity Theft Claim, Clients

Contact Log

COLLECTION COMMUNICATIONS LOGINSTRUCTIONS:

1. DOCUMENT immediately every communication you have with any debt collector, whether byletter, by phone or by message. Make detailed notes of any conversations you have with a debtcollector during the conversation. Keep this log next to your phone.

2. SAVE every single voice mail, answering machine, collection letter, and paper message. Dontthrow anything away, including the envelopes that the collection letters come in or anythingincluded with the collection letter.

Dateof Call?(MM/DD/Y

Y)

TimeofCall?

(00:00AM)

HowManyMinutes Did

CallLast?(Approx.)

PhoneCall,VoiceMail,

Letter,PaperMessage?

Collectors

Name?

CollectionAgencyName and

TelephoneNumber?

What Did Collector Say?Amount Demanded?Payment Terms? Threats?Profanity? Harassment?Legal Action? Calls to

Friends or Neighbors?Abuse?(Use as many lines orpages as needed)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

8/3/2019 clp10_04

23/113

23

4.5 Deposition of FDCPA Class Representative (PDF format)

8/3/2019 clp10_04

24/113

11/6/02

JANIS ROGERS & ASSOCIATES 214/ 631-2655 DALLAS, TEXAS

Page 1

1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

2 DALLAS DIVISION

3 [ C ON S U ME R ] , a Minnesota )resident, on behalf of )

4 herself and of others )

similarly situated, )

5 )

Plaintiff, )

6 )

V. ) Civil Action Number

7 ) 3-01CV2658-D

ETAN GENERAL, INC., a Texas )8 corporation and CREDIT )

PROTECTION ASSOCIATION, L.P., )

9 a Texas domestic limited )

partnership, )

10 )

Defendants. )

11

12 ******************************************

ORAL DEPOSITION OF13 CONSUMER

NOVEMBER 6, 2002

14 ******************************************

15

16 ORAL DEPOSITION OF CONSUMER, produced as

17 a witness at the instance of the Defendants, and duly

18 sworn, was taken in the above-styled and numbered cause

19 on the 6th day of November, 2002, from 11:50 a.m. to

20 1:25 p.m., before Diana D. Thrash, CSR in and for the

21 State of Texas, reported stenographically, at Mateer &

22 Shaffer, 1300 Republic Center, 325 North St. Paul

23 Street, Dallas, Texas 75201, pursuant to the Federal

24 Rules of Civil Procedure and the provisions stated on

25 the record.

8/3/2019 clp10_04

25/113

11/6/02


Page 2

1 A P P E A R A N C E S

2

FOR THE PLAINTIFF:

3 Mr. Peter F. Barry

THE BARRY LAW OFFICE, LTD.

4 342 County Road D East

St. Paul, Minnesota 55117-1275

5

FOR THE DEFENDANTS:

6 Mr. Keith Wier

DAW & RAY, P.C.7 5718 Westheimer

Suite 1750

8 Houston, Texas 77057

9

10

11

12

1314

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

8/3/2019 clp10_04

26/113

11/6/02


Page 3

1 INDEX

PAGE

2 WITNESS [ CO NS UME R]

3

EXAMINATION

4 BY: Mr. Wier 6, 85

BY: Mr. Barry 82

5

EXHIBITS INDEX

6

EXHIBITS DESCRIPTION PAGE

7 1 Complaint - Class Action 18

8 2 December 20, 2000 Notice from Credit 25

Protection Association, L.P.

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

8/3/2019 clp10_04

27/113

11/6/02


Page 4

1 P R O C E E D I N G S

2 (Exhibits 1 and 2 marked)

3 MR. WIER: Take it pursuant to the rules.4 Is that okay, Mr. Barry?

5 MR. BARRY: Pursuant to the rules

6 meaning?

7 MR. WIER: Just the Federal Rules of

8 Civil Procedure. Just -- you need to go and make -- if

9 you make -- if you have an objection, you make it just

10 objection, form, and then...

11 MR. BARRY: Sure. Yeah. No speaking

12 objections.

13 MR. WIER: Right.

14 MR. BARRY: Yeah. Not a problem.

15 MR. WIER: And then what do you want to

16 do about signature?

17 MR. BARRY: We'll read and sign. She has

18 a right to read and sign.

19 MR. WIER: Okay. Because of the time

20 constraints, can we have an agreement we can use

21 this -- for purposes of the -- responding to the class

22 certification, if we don't have the signature page

23 back, can we use an unsigned copy of the transcript is

24 what I am saying?

25 MR. BARRY: Yeah, we can, subject to --

8/3/2019 clp10_04

28/113

11/6/02


Page 5

1 just with the provision that if we -- if she amends any

2 of her answers, she'll do so within the time permitted

3 under the rules and that we'll include that -- we'll4 file that with the Court if it affects -- obviously if

5 it's substantive and affects her testimony related to

6 your reply motion.

7 MR. WIER: Okay.

8 MR. BARRY: And then also, just as a

9 matter of making a record, off the record Mr. Wier and

10 I have discussed he'll have until November 18th, 2002,

11 to reply to our class certification memorandum. It was

12 due November 8th. We've extended it, 10-day extension

13 of time unconditional.

14 Also I have indicated on the record -- or

15 off the record to Mr. Wier that the plaintiff -- part

16 of this meeting today for this deposition included a

17 conference in which I advised Mr. Wier that we needed

18 the information on the numerocity of class members in

19 this case, as well as the net worth of the defendants

20 named in the case, Etan General and CPA, and that if

21 that information isn't provided to the plaintiff by

22 November 18th -- on or before November 18th, that the

23 plaintiff intends to bring a motion to compel the

24 production of that information.

25

8/3/2019 clp10_04

29/113

11/6/02


Page 6

1 [ CO NS U ME R] ,

2 having been first duly sworn, testified as follows:

3 EXAMINATION4 BY MR. WIER:

5 Q. State your complete name for the record,

6 please.

7 A. [ Co n s u me r ] .

8 Q. [ S p e l l i n g q u e s t i o n ] ?

9 A. Correct.

10 Q. [ Co n s u me r ] , my name is Keith Wier. I'm a

11 lawyer here defending a couple of companies that you

12 have sued in connection with a lawsuit here in --

13 pending here in federal district court in Dallas,

14 Texas. Are you aware of that lawsuit?

15 A. I am.

16 Q. You filed a lawsuit against two companies,

17 Etan General, Inc. and Credit Protection Association,

18 L.P.; is that true?

19 A. That's correct.

20 Q. And I -- I represent both of those entities,

21 and I'm here today to take your deposition. Do you

22 understand that?

23 A. I do.

24 Q. Have you ever given a deposition before?

25 A. I have not.

8/3/2019 clp10_04

30/113

11/6/02


Page 7

1 Q. Okay. You seem a little unsure. Is there

2 some question in your mind as to whether you have or

3 haven't?4 MR. BARRY: Just let the record reflect

5 she's given -- she's given a sworn statement in a

6 criminal case about 10 years ago. I don't know if it

7 would be --

8 MR. WIER: Okay.

9 MR. BARRY: -- technically a deposition,

10 but she did give a sworn statement in a case.

11 MR. WIER: All right.

12 MR. BARRY: Criminal case.

13 MR. WIER: Very well.

14 Q. Since you -- with that clarification from your

15 lawyer, which I appreciate, it appears that you have

16 not given a deposition before. So we both know what

17 we're doing here today, let me take a few minutes to

18 explain what we're all about here. You see that there

19 is a court reporter seated to my left and your right.

20 Do you see that?

21 A. I do.

22 Q. And you see she's got a little machine, and

23 she's taking down -- do you understand she's taking

24 down every spoken word in this room?

25 A. I do.

8/3/2019 clp10_04

31/113

11/6/02


Page 8

1 Q. So you understand that all of your answers are

2 being taken down and all of my questions, and if your

3 lawyer, Mr. Barry, chooses to speak, she'll take that4 down as well?


6 Q. Do you understand that you have been sworn and

7 given an oath to tell the truth to the questions that

8 I've asked?

9 A. I do.

10 Q. And you've agreed to do that?

11 A. I do.

12 Q. You are doing a good job so far. A couple of

13 ground rules, if you want to answer yes or no to a

14 question -- and I'm not trying to limit you to a yes or

15 no, but if you choose to respond to a question with

16 either a yes or a no, I'll ask that you use those words

17 rather than "uh-huh" or "huh-uh" because that makes the

18 record a little muddled. Okay?

19 A. Okay.

20 Q. And you're doing a good job with this too.

21 You're speaking out loudly and clearly. Continue to

22 try to do that. Okay?

23 A. Okay.

24 Q. And if you don't understand a question that I

25 ask today, I want a very clean record when we leave

8/3/2019 clp10_04

32/113

11/6/02


Page 9

1 this room, so please ask me to repeat or rephrase the

2 question, and I'll be glad to do that until you do

3 understand it. Okay?4 A. Thank you.

5 Q. And by the same token, if you give me an

6 answer today to a question and you haven't asked for

7 clarification, I'm going to assume that you understood

8 the question when I asked it. Is that fair?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. Okay. Are you a resident of Minnesota?

11 A. I am.

12 Q. How long have you resided in Minnesota?

13 A. Twenty-nine years.

14 Q. Okay. I need some background information for

15 you before we get into the heart of the matter. What

16 is your date of birth?

17 A. [Date].

18 Q. And your Social Security number?

19 MR. BARRY: I am going to object to that

20 on the grounds of relevance and instruct her not to

21 answer it. We'll seek a protective order on the Social

22 Security number if necessary, if we can't resolve it

23 otherwise.

24 MR. WIER: All right. So are you

25 instructing her not to give it? Did I understand you

8/3/2019 clp10_04

33/113

11/6/02


Page 10

1 to say that?

2 MR. BARRY: Yes.

3 MR. WIER: Okay.4 MR. BARRY: And so that -- I guess the

5 question would be why do you need it?

6 MR. WIER: To develop -- identify her

7 appropriately and develop background information to

8 make sure that when we get that information that we

9 have the right person.

10 MR. BARRY: We would agree to provide it

11 with the agreement that -- that it be -- if it's used,

12 that it's redacted, it's blacked out from any court

13 filing, any public filing, or if it needs to be

14 revealed in court filing, that it's filed under seal.

15 MR. WIER: That's fine.

16 MR. BARRY: The deposition pages are

17 filed under seal --


19 MR. BARRY: -- that contain the Social

20 Security number.


22 MR. BARRY: Her -- we've got a particular

23 concern with that. Her husband was a victim of

24 identity theft recently, and so she has markers

25 indicating that on her bureaus, and we don't want to --

8/3/2019 clp10_04

34/113

11/6/02


Page 11

1 and obviously we're not agreeing to permit a credit

2 report to be pulled or anything like that, but if it's

3 merely for identification purposes and it's sealed,4 then -- in fact, I think there may be a rule. I think

5 there is a rule now under -- there is a -- I believe

6 there is a local rule in Minnesota now requiring it to

7 be blacked out, redacted from any filed records, so as

8 long as we can black it out.

9 MR. WIER: Okay. That's fine.

10 MR. BARRY: Okay.

11 Q. All right. With that, would you give me your

12 Social Security number?

13 MR. BARRY: Go ahead and answer.

14 A. [SSN].

15 Q. All right. And you mentioned -- or your

16 lawyer mentioned earlier that you've given a sworn

17 statement one time in a criminal proceeding; is that

18 true?


20 Q. And that was about 10 years ago?

21 A. Roughly.

22 Q. Was that in the State of Minnesota?

23 A. It was.

24 Q. Have you always resided in the State of

25 Minnesota since your birth?

8/3/2019 clp10_04

35/113

11/6/02


Page 12

1 A. I have.

2 Q. Where were you born, city and state?

3 A. Edina, Minnesota.4 Q. Okay. Are you married?

5 A. I am.

6 Q. What's your spouse's name?

7 A. Todd.

8 Q. Ted?

9 A. Todd.

10 Q. Todd?

11 A. T-o-d-d.

12 Q. All right. Does Todd live with you in Edina?

13 A. No.

14 Q. Okay.

15 A. He lives --

16 MR. BARRY: Object as to form of the

17 question. Assumes facts not in evidence.

18 Q. All right. Let me go at it this way. I'm

19 just trying to get some background information. And

20 you may have said this, and if you did, I apologize.

21 Are you currently married to Todd?

22 A. I am.

23 Q. Okay. Have you ever been married to anyone

24 else?

25 A. No.

8/3/2019 clp10_04

36/113

11/6/02


Page 13

1 Q. Do you have any children?

2 A. No.

3 Q. Are you and Todd separated?4 A. No.

5 Q. Okay.

6 A. We -- we don't live in Edina.

7 Q. Oh, I'm sorry. I asked a poor question.

8 Where do you live?

9 A. St. Paul, Minnesota.

10 Q. Okay. Give me your physical address there,

11 please.

12 A. [Address].

13 Q. Okay. St. Paul, right?

14 A. St. Paul.

15 Q. Okay. And Edina is a suburb -- I may be

16 saying that wrong -- of Minneapolis, isn't it?

17 A. Correct.

18 Q. Okay. Are you currently employed?

19 A. I am.

20 Q. By whom?

21 A. Cooper Hamilton, Limited.

22 Q. What do they do?

23 A. High-end sporting goods, clothing.

24 Q. What is your position with Cooper?

25 A. I am a lead sales manager.

8/3/2019 clp10_04

37/113

11/6/02


Page 14

1 Q. Okay. How long have you been with Cooper?

2 A. Roughly two months.

3 Q. Okay. Where did you work before that?4 A. Restoration Hardware.

5 Q. What did they do?

6 A. Retail. Furniture, gift items, that type of

7 thing.

8 Q. Okay. How long were you with that company?

9 A. Two years.

10 Q. Okay. Give me your education level -- strike

11 that. Let me ask it in more basic terms.

12 Did you graduate from high school?

13 A. I did.

14 Q. When and where?

15 A. 1991, Apple Valley High School, Apple Valley,

16 Minnesota.

17 Q. All right. Where is Apple Valley in relation

18 to the Minneapolis/St. Paul area?

19 A. South of St. Paul.

20 Q. About how far? How many miles?

21 A. Thirty minutes.

22 Q. Okay. All right. And did you go to college

23 after graduating from high school?

24 A. I did.

25 Q. When and where?

8/3/2019 clp10_04

38/113

11/6/02


Page 15

1 A. College of St. Catherine, St. Paul, Minnesota.

2 Q. All right. How many years did you attend

3 college at College of St. Catherine?4 A. Four years.

5 Q. Did you obtain a degree?

6 A. I did.

7 Q. And what was your degree in?

8 A. Psychology and social issues.

9 Q. Is that a bachelor of science degree?

10 A. Bachelor of arts.

11 Q. Arts. Do you have any college education

12 beyond what you've just described for me?

13 A. No.

14 Q. Okay. Did you begin working full time upon

15 graduating college?

16 A. I did.

17 Q. And about what year would that have been?

18 A. Actually before I graduated college.

19 Q. All right.

20 A. It would have to be the mid nineties --

21 Q. Okay.

22 A. -- started working full time.

23 Q. All right. So you have been working full

24 time -- and I'm not -- just to ballpark it -- about

25 seven or eight years, something like that?

8/3/2019 clp10_04

39/113

11/6/02


Page 16

1 A. Roughly.

2 Q. Okay. And can you give me a ballpark estimate

3 about how many different jobs -- full-time jobs you've4 had since college?

5 A. Three.

6 Q. Okay. You've told me about two already. What

7 was the third?

8 A. Fairview Riverside Hospital, Adolescent

9 Chemical Dependency.

10 Q. Okay. What was your job -- what were your job

11 duties in that position?

12 A. I -- to counsel adolescents with chemical

13 dependency issues, milieu management on the unit. I

14 worked on a locked unit.

15 Q. Okay. How long did you do that?

16 A. I don't recall. Roughly a year, year and a

17 half --

18 Q. Okay.

19 A. -- two.

20 Q. Did you leave that employment voluntarily?

21 A. I did.

22 Q. Why?

23 A. I fell in love with sales.

24 Q. Okay. Who was your supervisor at the

25 hospital, or the adolescent center, whatever you want

8/3/2019 clp10_04

40/113

11/6/02


Page 17

1 to call it?

2 A. If you can wait a minute, I can pull up my

3 resume.4 Q. Let me --

5 MR. BARRY: No. Answer only from your

6 knowledge.

7 A. I don't know. I don't remember his name.

8 Q. All right. Do you believe that you left there

9 on good terms?

10 A. I did.

11 Q. Okay. And then your next position was with

12 which of the other companies that you --

13 A. Restoration Hardware.

14 Q. Okay. What was your job -- what were your job

15 duties with that employment?

16 A. Sales and management.

17 Q. And how long were you there?

18 A. Two years.

19 Q. Who was your supervisor?

20 A. Grant Dietrich.

21 Q. All right. Did you leave that employment

22 voluntarily?

23 A. I did.

24 Q. I've looked at your complaint, and we are

25 going to get that in a minute, but I don't see that

8/3/2019 clp10_04

41/113

11/6/02


Page 18

1 you're claiming any lost wages or loss of income with

2 respect to your employment because of the facts and

3 circumstances of this case. Would you agree with that?4 A. I would.

5 Q. Okay. Likewise, I don't see that you're

6 claiming any medical expense that you claim that you've

7 incurred because of having to deal with my client. Is

8 that true?


10 Q. Okay. Have you ever been arrested for

11 anything?

12 A. Never.

13 Q. Okay. Now, I understand that before -- strike

14 that.

15 I'm going to hand you -- or actually,

16 you've got a copy in front of you of what I've marked

17 as Exhibit 1. Do you see that?

18 A. I do.

19 Q. And I'll represent to you that's a

20 file-stamped copy of the complaint that your lawyer has

21 filed. And I'm going to let you have a couple of

22 minutes just to look over it. When I say look over it,

23 I mean just to verify that that is indeed what that

24 document is.

25 A. (Witness complies.)

8/3/2019 clp10_04

42/113

11/6/02


Page 19

1 MR. BARRY: I would just note for the

2 record that we've got two of the Exhibit 1s. Did you

3 want to...4 MR. WIER: On your copy?

5 MR. BARRY: Yeah. I've got -- well,

6 we've got this copy here, and then we've got the one

7 stapled to the back.

8 MR. WIER: Right. And I did that --

9 MR. BARRY: Okay.

10 MR. WIER: I thought that's what you

11 wanted me to do.

12 MR. BARRY: Sure. No, that's fine. I

13 just didn't want to -- I didn't want to separate the

14 two unless you had some reason to do it.

15 MR. WIER: Okay.

16 Q. All right. So Exhibit Number 1 appears to be

17 the complaint that put the lawsuit on file down here in

18 Texas, and the very last page is a copy of an alleged

19 offending letter attached as Exhibit 1 to that

20 complaint; is that true?


22 Q. Now, I understand -- and we'll get into the

23 allegations a little more in a minute, and I'll give

24 you a chance to even read over that if you need to, but

25 I understand that this lawsuit was actually filed first

8/3/2019 clp10_04

43/113

11/6/02


Page 20

1 in the State of Minnesota; is that right?


3 Q. Okay. And then, from my information, the4 lawsuit was ultimately dismissed and then refiled down

5 here in Texas; is that true?


7 Q. Okay. Why was that done?

8 MR. BARRY: I am going to object as to

9 attorney-client privilege and instruct the witness not

10 to answer.

11 MR. WIER: Well, I'm not asking her what

12 you specifically told her. I'm just asking her from

13 her general knowledge of why -- why that was done. And

14 I think as the class representative, or purported class

15 representative, I'm entitled to know that.

16 MR. BARRY: Well, it -- any information

17 that she has on that point is attorney-client

18 privilege.


20 Q. So are you going to follow your lawyer's

21 advice and refuse to answer that question?

22 A. I do.

23 Q. Okay. Were you paid any settlement monies by

24 virtue of the first suit that was filed in Minnesota?

25 A. No.

8/3/2019 clp10_04

44/113

11/6/02


Page 21

1 Q. Okay. Was Mr. Barry your lawyer in that first

2 case?

3 A. He was.4 Q. And was Mr. Tommy Lyons also representing you

5 in that case?

6 MR. BARRY: I'm going to object as to

7 privilege in that case as well.

8 MR. WIER: Well, certainly you're not

9 going to take the position that who her lawyers are in

10 that case is privileged, are you?

11 MR. BARRY: Well, I'm objecting as to

12 relevance, and it's a matter of public record who her

13 lawyers were in that case.


15 Q. Let me ask it this way. With regard to the

16 first lawsuit that was filed, you were the client,

17 right?

18 A. I was.

19 Q. Was there anybody else that was a client of

20 Mr. Barry in that case, or was it just you individually

21 and perhaps as a class representative?

22 A. Me as a class representative.

23 Q. All right. Your husband wasn't a party to

24 that case, was he?

25 A. No.

8/3/2019 clp10_04

45/113

11/6/02


Page 22

1 Q. Was there anybody else that was a party, from

2 the plaintiff's side, as far as you know?

3 A. No, not that I'm aware of.4 Q. And who did you sue in the Minnesota case?

5 A. Who did I sue?

6 Q. Yes.

7 A. I don't know the answer to that.

8 Q. Okay. And I want to be careful --

9 MR. BARRY: If --

10 THE WITNESS: Can I say that?

11 MR. BARRY: Yes.

12 THE WITNESS: Okay.

13 MR. BARRY: Answer his question.

14 A. Etan Industries.

15 Q. Okay. So is that a different -- is that a

16 different defendant than -- or a different party rather

17 than you sued in this case?

18 A. No.

19 MR. BARRY: Be sure to speak up, please.

20 Q. Your -- and I understand -- and I'm trying to

21 be careful to not have you reveal attorney-client

22 privilege because I heard what your lawyer said, and I

23 want to make sure I'm careful about this, but in that

24 prior lawsuit, you retained counsel to help you, right?

25 A. I did.

8/3/2019 clp10_04

46/113

11/6/02


Page 23

1 Q. Did you sign some kind of a fee agreement?

2 A. My --

3 MR. BARRY: It's just a yes or no.4 A. Yes.

5 Q. All right. You already told me Mr. Barry

6 represented you in that case, right?

7 A. He did.

8 Q. And I don't want to at this point ask you who

9 else, but were there other lawyers involved?

10 MR. BARRY: Same objection as to

11 privilege.

12 Q. Did a -- did you have a lawyer that referred

13 you to Mr. Barry in the first place?

14 A. No.

15 Q. Okay. How long was the Minnesota case pending

16 before it was dismissed?

17 A. I don't know the answer to that.

18 Q. And you didn't give a deposition, like you're

19 doing here today, in connection with that case?

20 A. I did not.

21 Q. Do you remember whether you answered any

22 written questions -- we call them interrogatories --

23 that you had to answer under oath? Did you do anything

24 like that in that case?

25 A. I did not.

8/3/2019 clp10_04

47/113

11/6/02


Page 24

1 Q. Okay. Have you ever been to Texas before?

2 A. Just flown through.

3 Q. Okay. Just so the record is clear -- I got4 your employment history, but I want to make sure that

5 we have this nailed down. You've never worked in the

6 debt collection industry, have you?

7 A. Never.

8 Q. Have you ever worked for a creditor?

9 A. Never.

10 Q. Have you ever -- in any of your jobs that

11 you've had ever worked at trying to get people to pay

12 money --

13 A. Never.

14 Q. -- for debts. Okay. Other than the case in

15 Minnesota that we've been talking about, have you ever

16 filed any other lawsuits before?

17 A. Never.

18 Q. Have you ever personally been sued?

19 A. No.

20 Q. Okay. With regard to Exhibit Number 1, have

21 you ever had a chance to read through that?

22 A. I have.

23 Q. Did you read it before it was filed?

24 MR. BARRY: Just so we're clear on the

25 record, when you point to Exhibit 1, are you talking

8/3/2019 clp10_04

48/113

11/6/02


Page 25

1 about --

2 MR. WIER: I'm sorry. I'm sorry.

3 MR. BARRY: -- what I think would be your4 exhibit --

5 MR. WIER: That's -- and that's a fair

6 point. Let's go ahead and clear that up for the

7 record, and then we can move on.

8 Q. Exhibit 1 -- when I refer to Exhibit 1, I'm

9 going to use these little exhibit stickers, and that's

10 the complaint --

11 A. Okay.

12 Q. -- that has the letter attached as the last

13 page of that exhibit -- to that exhibit. Do you see

14 that?

15 MR. BARRY: Do you want to just give us

16 those exhibit copies and we'll work with those?


18 MR. BARRY: Okay.

19 Q. Now, I'm going to hand you what I've had

20 marked as Exhibit Number 2, and just so the record's

21 clear, Exhibit Number 2 is actually a duplicate copy of

22 the last page of Exhibit 1. Is that true?


24 Q. Okay. All right. Exhibit Number 2 appears to

25 be a copy of a letter addressed to [ ( f o r me r l y ) ] ; is

8/3/2019 clp10_04

49/113

11/6/02


Page 26

1 that true?


3 Q. It's dated 12/20 of 2000; is that --4 A. That is true.

5 Q. Did I read that correctly. Do you remember

6 receiving this letter?

7 A. I do.

8 Q. Have you been known during your lifetime as

9 [ Co n s u me r ( f o r me r l y ) ] ?

10 A. I have.

11 Q. Was that -- was [ f o r me r l y ] your given name at

12 birth?

13 A. It was.

14 Q. Okay. And [ Co n s u me r ] is your married name?


16 Q. Have you gone by any other names during your

17 lifetime other than [ Co n s u me r ( f o r me r l y ) ] or [ Co n s u me r ] ?

18 A. I have not.

19 Q. Okay. Other than this letter marked as

20 Exhibit Number 2 to your deposition, have you ever

21 received any other written correspondence that you can

22 recall from Credit Protection Association, L.P.?

23 A. Not that I can remember.

24 Q. Okay. You've also sued in this lawsuit here

25 in Texas a company by the name of Etan General, Inc.

8/3/2019 clp10_04

50/113

11/6/02


Page 27

1 To your knowledge, have you ever received any

2 correspondence whatsoever from Etan General, Inc.?

3 A. Not that I recall.4 Q. Okay. And then you mentioned a company that

5 you sued in the Minnesota case, Etan Industries. Do

6 you recall ever receiving any written correspondence

7 from that entity ever?

8 A. Not that I recall.

9 Q. Okay. Now, Exhibit Number 2 is a letter

10 directed to you, dated 12/20, 2000, asking you to pay

11 some late fees because of a Blockbuster Video rental;

12 is that true?

13 A. That is what it says.

14 Q. All right. When you got this letter,

clp10_04

Documents