May 5, 2013
The responses provided and signed by attorney Buchinger, my email with many issues and attorney Buchinger's responses -- again on a SCANNED paper!
9/9/19 [actually 9/10 1:48 am]
Dear Ms. Buchinger,
This email serves as meet and confer as required prior to our filing of the joint discovery motion.
If you had emailed searchable documents as required for court filings instead of images of your responses, I could have copied and pasted. Unfortunately, I don't have time to retype your responses. Did you scan the documents? Some lines are barely readable and not suitable for OCR. I had emailed you my Word requests, why didn't you use my docs and make it easier for everybody?
Issues with the Bursey & Associates responses and objections to my discovery requests.
Objections and responses to my requests for admissions:
No. 6: This request is of utmost importance to the issues in the case as the misrepresentation of the card member agreement is a violation of the FDCPA. Please answer.
No. 17: My question does not pertain to the "mediation process", but to who attended and that is NOT confidential. Please answer.
No. 2: Please provide the organizational chart WITH the names so I can identify personnel in my witness list for trial.
No. 6: Please identify "Midland." Midland Funding or Midland Credit Management?
No. 9: Please DO provide all communications. What's vague? I am requesting ALL communications.
No. 10: Please identify "Midland." Midland Funding or Midland Credit Management?
No. 11: Please identify "Midland." Midland Funding or Midland Credit Management?
No. 12: Please identify "Midland." Midland Funding or Midland Credit Management?
No. 15: Please explain how Bursey & Associates decided to file lawsuits on behalf of Midland Funding without any person directing it to do so.
No. 16: A small collection firm like Bursey & Associates cannot possibly have been sued so many times that it would be extremely time consuming and expensive to identify the lawsuits.
Copies of complaints, judgments, court opinions and consent orders are discoverable because the information may lead to the discovery of admissible evidence concerning the defendants¶ practices. Trevino v. ACB Am., Inc., 232 F.R.D. 612 (N.D. Cal 2006); Boutvis v. Risk Mgmt. Alternatives, Inc., 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8521 (D. Conn. May 3, 2002); Kimbro v. I.C. Sys., Inc 2002 WL 1816820 (D. Conn. July 22, 2002); Yancey v. Hooten, 180 F.R.D. 203(D. Conn. 1998).In Boutvis v. Risk Management Alternatives, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8521 (D. Conn, 2002), the court ordered the defendant debt collector to produce documents of past judgments, court opinions, complaints, and consent orders concerning defendant's practices under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, stating that: Plaintiff¶s request is reasonably limited as to scope and time. The material sought is clearly relevant to the state of mind with which defendant acted. It is also relevant to whether defendant's alleged statutory violations occurred after it had actual notice that its practices were actionable. While it may be burdensome to require defendant to compile and permit discovery of the various legal complaints and judgments against it from 2001 to the present, surely these documents are not so voluminous that it is an unreasonable or unfair burden for defendant to shoulder. ́Id. at 10.
Both Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) and Rule 406 allow for the admissibility of evidence of other abusive, intrusive, illegal debt collection conduct. Rule 404(b) states that ³[e]vidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident, « ́.Rule 406 states that ³[e]vidence of the habit of a person or of the routine practice of an organization, whether corroborated or not and regardless of the presence of eye witnesses, is relevant to prove that the conduct of the person or organization on a particular occasion was in conformity with the habit or routine practice. ́Both of these evidence parameters allow for testimony about conduct Bursey & Associates engaged in with other consumers. Rule 404(b) may allow for admission of testimony about Bursey and Associates' conduct with other consumers to show its intent, knowledge that the activities were illegal, or the fact that the abusive conduct was not a one time accident. Rule 406 will allow testimony about the habits and routine practices of the collectors. I have the right to find out what those habits and routine practices are by investigating other instances of conduct. Obtaining complaints made by other consumers is one way to conduct such an investigation.
No. 18: Please see my comments regarding No. 16 and identify and describe as requested each claim made with the Bursey & Associates liability insurance for the time frame specified.
No. 19: You responded regarding the affirmative defenses with: "See the Bursey Defendants' motion for summary judgment and statement of facts filed in this action." The Bursey defendants' motion for summary judgment was denied. Does this mean there are NO outstanding affirmative defenses?
Bursey & Associates Requests for Production
No. 2: Which part exactly confuses you? Please explain and I will clarify.
Many of the documents are redacted. Please identify the content for each and every redaction and why you feel that it is privileged, irrelevant or whatever. Please also state whether any documents were withheld and if so, identify and describe each document and the reason for withholding it.
No. 3: I'm looking for documentation evidencing that Bursey & Associates investigated the validity of Midland's claims. If my account was not investigated and nobody reviewed the Midland documents, balance, etc. for accuracy, there is nothing to provide. If so, please state so.
No. 5: How was my request not clear? Presumably, Bursey & Associates contracted with at least one of the Midland entities and I requested the contract applicable to my account. How can it not be relevant? Some of my questions might be answered, such as who decided to file the lawsuit against me.
Issues with defendant Monica Derrick's responses to my requests for admissions:
No. 3: It's nice to know that attorney Derrick is no longer a debt collector. However, why is she denying that she was a debt collector during the relevant time?
Nos. 4 - 7, regarding attorney Derrick's attendance of the mediation hearing.
I read ARS 12-2238 twice, but could not find any reference to the confidentiality of the attendees or their conduct. Am I missing something?
Also, I already published Ms. Derrick's attendance and her deplorable misconduct on numerous occasions in COUNTLESS documents and internet posts. Attorney Derrick must admit or deny.
Interrogatory No. 6: As explained above, there is no confidentiality with respect to this interrogatory. Please have attorney Derrick respond.
Issues with defendant Barry Bursey's responses to my requests for admissions:
No. 2: It's nice to know that attorney Bursey is retired. However, why is he denying that he was a debt collector during the relevant time?
No. 5: I did not ask "documents" to speak for attorney Bursey. Please have attorney Bursey admit or deny.
You sent me supplemental verifications without any reference to what they are. The verifications need to be dated and they need to reference the specific document and case.
Ms. Buchinger, I am very tired, may have to supplement tomorrow and if anything is unclear, I'll be glad to elaborate.
I appreciate your cooperation and prompt response as we need to get the joint discovery motion filed ASAP,
Most Users Ever Online: 45
Currently Browsing this Page:
Guest Posters: 0
Newest Members:Kerri, colorfinger, CoitisUMidland, blastfrompast, gmariel13, jawllms, desert316, Garyt, toman67, christine
Administrators: christine: 51