FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, et al., Plaintiffs, v. AMERICAN FUTURE SYSTEMS, INC., et al., Defendants CIVIL ACTION No. 2:20-cv-02266 United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania Filed November 05, 2021 Counsel Christian M. Capece, Derek E. Diaz, Harris A. Senturia, Maris Snell, Amy C. Hocevar, Fil Maria Debanate, U.S. Federal Trade Commission, Cleveland, OH, for Plaintiff Federal Trade Commission. John Abel, PA Office of Attorney General Bureau of Consumer Protection, Harrisburg, PA, Sarah Anne Ellis Frasch, PA Office of Attorny General, Philadelphia, PA, Amy C. Hocevar, Derek E. Diaz, Federal Trade Commission, Cleveland, OH, for Plaintiff Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Ilana H. Eisenstein, DLA Piper LLP (US), Philadelphia, PA, David H. Marion, Morgan S. Birch, White and Williams LLP, Philadelphia, PA, Casey A. Coyle, Mark S. Stewart, Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott LLC, Harrisburg, PA, for Defendants American Future Systems, Inc., Progressive Business Publications of New Jersey, Inc., Edward M. Satell. Stephen M. Hladik, Eric J. Phillips, Pamela L. Cunningham, Hladik Onorato & Federman, LLP, North Wales, PA, for Defendants International Credit Recovery, Inc., Richard Diorio, Jr., Cynthia Powell. Rohn, James J., Special Master REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF SPECIAL MASTER JAMES J. ROHN, ESQ. *1 Plaintiffs the Federal Trade Commission and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania have filed a joint motion against Defendant International Credit Recovery, Inc. arguing that ICR should be compelled to respond fully to 17 discovery requests propounded on ICR by Plaintiffs. (Doc. # 115.) According to Plaintiffs, these discovery requests relate to: the relationship between ICR and Defendant American Future Systems, Inc., the scope of relief needed to enjoin Defendants' deceptive practices, Plaintiffs' defense to Defendants' assertions that few consumers complain about being misled by deceptive telemarketing practices, possible monetary awards by the Commonwealth against Defendants, the relationship between ICR and AFS, and ICR's operations in the Commonwealth. (Doc. # 115-2 at 1.) According to ICR, the discovery requests impermissibly relate to and seek information regarding monetary relief, are beyond the scope of permissible discovery, are disproportionate to the needs of the case. (Doc. # 120-1 at 2-3, 6.) The Special Master first addresses the FTC's discovery requests to ICR, and then addresses the Commonwealth's discovery requests to ICR. I. THE FTC'S DISCOVERY REQUESTS TO ICR THAT ARE IN DISPUTE There are seven discovery requests by the FTC to ICR that are in dispute: Request for Production (“RP”) Nos. 6, 7, 11, 12, and Interrogatory Nos. 7, 15, and 16. (Doc. # 115-3 at App. 005-016; Doc. # 120-1 at 2.) These requests are as follows: • RP 6: Produce Your federal, state and local tax returns for Your fiscal years that include the time from January 1, 2015, to the present. • RP 7: Produce Documents regarding all payments or transfer of funds to or for the benefit of Richard Diorio, Jr., Cynthia Powell, Bettie Diorio, or any of the AFS Defendants.[1] • RP 11: Produce Documents reflecting payments to ICR resulting from the collection of AFS debts. • RP 12: Produce Documents that reflect Your annual revenue from collection of AFS debts. • Interrogatory 7: Identify on a monthly basis all revenue received by You from collection of AFS accounts. • Interrogatory 15: Identify the AFS accounts that paid ICR in whole or in part from September 1, 2017, through March 1, 2021, including the key number, the publication, the PBP account number, the PBP invoice number, the company that paid, the date they paid ICR, the amount they paid ICR, whether they paid for issues sent and cancelled or paid in full, and the state they are in. This interrogatory merely seeks updated information from that contained in Exhibit C, which ICR provided to the FTC in 2017 in response to the FTC's civil investigative demand to ICR. Exhibit C was previously transmitted securely to counsel for ICR[.] • Interrogatory 16: Identify all chargebacks on AFS accounts, including the publication, account number, order number, company, chargeback date, amount of chargeback, and the end result. This interrogatory merely seeks updated information from that contained in Exhibit D, which ICR provided to the FTC in 2017 in response to the FTC's civil investigative demand to ICR. Exhibit D was previously transmitted securely to counsel for ICR. *2 (Doc. # 120-2; Doc. # 115-3 at App. 005-016.) A. The Parties' Positions on the FTC's Discovery Requests to ICR First, the FTC argues that ICR's objections are improper boilerplate objections, prohibited by Rules 33(b)(4) and (b)(2)(B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See also Josephs v. Harris Corp., 677 F.2d 985, 991-922 (3d Cir. 1982). (Doc. # 115-2 at 2.) According to the FTC, ICR has failed to explain how any boilerplate objection applies to any discovery request. (Doc. # 115-2 at 3.) The FTC also argues that the discovery requests are relevant to the relationship between AFS and ICR, the scope of ICR's collection activities on behalf of AFS, the scope of injunctive relief, and the bias that ICR may show in favor of AFS, as AFS is its principal source of income. (Doc. # 115-2 at 9.) ICR contends that these discovery requests seek discovery regarding monetary relief, and these discovery requests are overly broad, unduly burdensome, not important, not relevant, disproportionate to the needs of the case, and beyond the scope of and not relevant to the allegations. (Doc. # 120-1 at 2, 8-11.) ICR argues, in sum, that revenue and dollar amounts will not reveal anything useful or relevant, and will not reveal anything relating to injunctive relief. (See e.g., Doc. # 120-1 at 12, “The specific dollar amount of revenue on an annual or monthly basis is not going to change ICR's relationship with AFS.”)[2] The FTC counters that monetary information relating to accounts paid by AFS is relevant to the credibility of witnesses. For example, “witnesses will surely know the source of 99% of ICR's revenue – AFS – and the need to stay in that business's good graces less they endanger their own livelihoods.” (Doc. # 121-1 at 9.) Additionally, monetary information relating to ICR's monthly and annual revenue it has received from its collection of AFS accounts is relevant to the “depth of ICR's dependence on AFS and the scope of injunctive relief that is needed.” (Doc. # 121-1 at 12.) The FTC also counters that monetary information, such as ICR manager compensation, is relevant because “dollars motivate people's behavior, compensation figures bear on the seriousness and deliberateness of the defendants' violations.” (Doc. # 121-1 at 14) (citation omitted).[3] B. The Special Master's Analysis with Respect to the FTC's Requests to ICR *3 ICR failed to respond to the FTC's argument that ICR's boilerplate objections are improper. ICR has, in effect, conceded this argument, and for this reason, the Special Master will recommend that the Court grant the FTC's motion to compel ICR to respond to the discovery requests identified in the motion. Additionally, for the separate reasons set for the below, the Special Master will recommend that the Court grant in part and deny in part the joint motion to compel ICR to respond to the FTC's seven discovery requests in dispute, as set forth in specific detail at Section I.C. The Special Master basis this recommendation on the analysis below. Rule 26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides: Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties' relative access to relevant information, the parties' resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Consistent with the Special Master's October 8, 2021 Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 122) and the Court's November 3, 2021 Order (Doc. # 128), it is appropriate that the FTC seek (unless the FTC's own discovery requests seeks a time period closer in time), and ICR provide, discovery from July 1, 2015 – present. This time frame is appropriate for the reasons explained by the Court on November 3, 2021. (Doc. #128 at n. 1.) Therefore, as a preliminary matter, the Special Master will recommend that, with respect to the seven discovery requests in dispute by the FTC to ICR, each of those requests should be limited to July 1, 2015 – present, unless the discovery request specifies a narrower time period. Next, under AMG Capital Mgmt. LLC v. Federal Trade Commission, 141 S.Ct. 1341, 1347 (2021), the FTC is not permitted to seek or obtain monetary relief in this lawsuit, and it has represented that it is not seeking monetary relief during the June 25, 2021 and September 22, 2021 conference calls with the Special Master and all counsel.[4] Despite this, ICR characterizes the seven discovery requests in dispute by the FTC to ICR as “clearly relat[ing] to and seek[ing] information regarding monetary relief” (Doc. # 120-1 at 2.) ICR argues that these requests are not relevant to the FTC seeking injunctive relief. ICR's argument fails because, regardless of how the ICR characterizes the FTC's discovery requests, the FTC is not and cannot seek or obtain monetary relief. ICR's argument improperly narrows the scope of Rule 26(b)(1) and incorrectly describes that Rule. *4 Rule 26(b)(1) states, in relevant part, that parties “may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case ...” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) (emphasis added.) The information sought by the seven discovery requests at issue is relevant to the FTC's claims in the Amended Complaint. For example, the FTC alleges that ICR is one of two collection agencies to which AFS sends unpaid accounts. (Doc. # 43 at 32.) The “AFS Defendants have consistently been ICR's largest client, accounting for more than 99% of its revenue.” (Doc. # 43 at 33.) And “the ICR Defendants do not report nonpayment of PBP accounts to credit bureaus and do not initiate litigation against or ‘refer to collections’ consumers who do not pay. The ICR Defendants also know that the AFS Defendants will not take further action to collect accounts turned over to the ICR Defendants.” (Doc. # 43 at 37.) “The ICR Defendants do not review, compile data, or convey to the AFS Defendants the reasons that consumers refuse to pay ICR on their alleged AFS Corporate Defendants' debts.” (Doc. # 43 at 47.) In sum, the FTC alleges that ICR makes “false or misleading” representations to consumers in violation of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a). (Doc. # 43 at 64-66.) The discovery requests at issue are relevant to the alleged intertwined relationship of AFS and ICR. Discovery responsive to these requests may shed light on the practices of AFS and ICR, and the reason(s) for AFS's and ICR's alleged continuing conduct. Responsive discovery may shed light on when and if ICR's alleged conduct changed over the years, and if so, may provide an explanation as to why. Or, it may shed light on the opposite (that the alleged conduct did not change, and may provide an explanation as to why).[5] ICR and AFS are both parties and the allegations against them relate to their relationship, their conduct, their practices both together and separate. Discovery related to that is relevant and within the scope of Rule 26(b). Indeed, discovery requests must only be “relevant” to the claims. These requests are relevant to the FTC's claims and relevant to seeking injunctive relief. ICR's arguments seek to improperly narrow the scope discovery. With respect to ICR's argument that these requests are disproportionate to the claims, overbroad, outside the scope of discovery, and/or impact ICR's resources, the Special Master acknowledges that ICR is a business that has four employees (including the two named individual defendants). (Doc. # 120-1 at 3.) However, there are seven discovery requests by the FTC at issue. ICR has not explained how responding to seven discovery requests, or providing updated information, such as what the FTC requests in Interrogatory No. 15, will “force ICR out of business[.]” (Doc. # 120-1 at 3.) ICR has not explained what it characterizes as “extremely limited resources[,]” or how or why its resources have or will be depleted as result of the FTC's discovery requests. The Special Master is aware that these seven discovery requests are not the only discovery requests propounded by the FTC. However, ICR has not provided any information regarding how many discovery requests by the FTC in total it has responded to (or is in the process of responding to). It has not explained how these seven discovery requests make the FTC's discovery requests disproportionate to the needs of the case (even if these seven discovery requests are in addition to many others).[6] Regardless of ICR's lack of explanation as to why the discovery is disproportionate to the needs of the case, the discovery propounded on ICR is proportional, and that ICR has four employees does not relieve it of its discovery obligations. Moreover, discovery here has limitations. Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure limits the number of interrogatories that a party may serve on another to 25. The Special Master will recommend that no discovery requests seek information prior to July 1, 2015. Discovery requests are not unlimited or unchecked here. C. Recommendation on the FTC's Requests to ICR For the reasons explained above, the Special Master recommends that: The Court grant in part and deny in part the Joint Discovery Motion with respect to the FTC's discovery requests to ICR (Doc. # 115), as follows: (a) The Court deny the joint motion with respect to the FTC seeking discovery that predates July 1, 2015. (b) The Court grant the motion with respect to the FTC seeking discovery from July 1, 2015 – present, unless otherwise narrowed by the FTC. *5 (c) The Court order ICR to respond to the FTC's discovery requests RP 6, 7, 11, 12, and Interrogatory 7, 15, and 16 within 20 days of entry of the Court's Order. II. THE COMMONWEALTH'S DISCOVERY REQUESTS TO ICR THAT ARE IN DISPUTE There are ten discovery requests by the Commonwealth to ICR that are in dispute: Request for Production (“RP”) Nos. 6, 7, 11, 12, 53, 54 and Interrogatory Nos. 7, 8, 15, and 16. (Doc. # 115-3 at App. 005-016; Doc. # 120-1 at 2.) These requests are as follows: • RP 6: Produce Your federal, state and local tax returns for Your fiscal years that include the time from January 1, 2015, to the present. • RP 7: Produce Documents regarding all payments or transfer of funds to or for the benefit of Richard Diorio, Jr., Cynthia Powell, Bettie Diorio, or any of the AFS Defendants. • RP 11: Produce Documents reflecting payments to ICR resulting from the collection of AFS debts. • RP 12: Produce Documents that reflect Your annual revenue from collection of AFS debts. • RP 53: Produce Documents sufficient to show the AFS accounts that paid ICR in whole or in part from September 1, 2017, through March 1, 2021, including the key number, the publication, the PBP account number, the PBP invoice number, the company that paid, the date they paid ICR, the amount they paid ICR, whether they paid for issues sent and cancelled or paid in full, and the state they are in. This request merely seeks updated information from that contained in Exhibit C to the FTC's First Set of Interrogatories to Defendant International Credit Recovery, Inc., which ICR provided to the FTC in 2017 in response to the FTC's civil investigative demand to ICR. • RP 54: Produce Documents sufficient to show all chargebacks on AFS accounts, including the publication, account number, order number, company, chargeback date, amount of chargeback, and the end result. This request merely seeks updated information from that contained in Exhibit C to the FTC's First Set of Interrogatories to Defendant International Credit Recovery, Inc., which ICR provided to the FTC in 2017 in response to the FTC's civil investigative demand to ICR. • Interrogatory 7: Identify on a monthly basis all revenue received by You from collection of AFS accounts. • Interrogatory 8: Identify all payments to Cynthia Powell and Richard Diorio, Jr., including the dates, amounts, and bases for those payments. • Interrogatory 15: Identify the AFS accounts that paid ICR in whole or in part from September 1, 2017, through March 1, 2021, including the key number, the publication, the PBP account number, the PBP invoice number, the company that paid, the date they paid ICR, the amount they paid ICR, whether they paid for issues sent and cancelled or paid in full, and the state they are in. This interrogatory merely seeks updated information from that contained in Exhibit C, which ICR provided to the FTC in 2017 in response to the FTC's civil investigative demand to ICR. Exhibit C was previously transmitted securely to counsel for ICR. • Interrogatory 16: Identify all chargebacks on AFS accounts, including the publication, account number, order number, company, chargeback date, amount of chargeback, and the end result. This interrogatory merely seeks updated information from that contained in Exhibit D, which ICR provided to the FTC in 2017 in response to the FTC's civil investigative demand to ICR. Exhibit D was previously transmitted securely to counsel for ICR. *6 (Doc. # 120-2; Doc. # 115-3 at App. 005-016.) A. The Parties' Positions Regarding the Joint Motion of the Plaintiffs (Doc. # 115) The Commonwealth first argues that ICR relied on improper boilerplate objections in violation Rules 33(b)(4) and (b)(2)(B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and failed to produce responsive discovery. (Doc. # 115-2 at 2.) The Commonwealth next argues that ICR has refused to provide information about consumers who reside outside of Pennsylvania because, according to ICR, the “Commonwealth would only have jurisdiction with regard to consumers within the state of Pennsylvania.” (Doc. # 115-2 at 4.) The Commonwealth characterizes this as a challenge to the Court's personal jurisdiction over ICR. (Doc. # 115-2 at 4) (internal quotations omitted). The Commonwealth argues that ICR's refusal to provide documents on this basis fails because: 1) ICR has waived any personal jurisdiction argument; 2) ICR's liability for transactions for consumers who reside outside of Pennsylvania is not a question to be decided at the discovery stage; 3) regardless of the Court's personal jurisdiction over ICR, the Court has jurisdiction over AFS, and because the discovery requests relate to AFS's liability, ICR cannot refuse to produce information on the basis of residency of consumers insofar as those arguments do not impact AFS; and 4) even if ICR has not waived its challenge to personal jurisdiction, ICR has continuous and systematic contacts with the Commonwealth so as to render it at home in the Commonwealth, and Commonwealth's long-arm statute permits the exercise of jurisdiction over non-residents (as limited by the United States Constitution). (Doc. # 115-2 at 4-5). ICR agrees “there would be no legal basis to contest the Court's personal jurisdiction over ICR concerning the FTC's federal claims.” (Doc. # 120-1 at 5, n. 7.) ICR also agrees that the Pennsylvania Attorney General “has the power to haul an out-of-state entity into a Pennsylvania Court for violations of Pennsylvania law.” (Doc. #120-1 at 5.) However, ICR contends that the Pennsylvania Attorney General cannot “individually represent any [out of state] consumer.” (Doc. # 120-1 at 5.) Thus, there is a limit to the Commonwealth's enforcement power, and in the same vein, a limit to the scope of discovery the Commonwealth can seek. (Doc. # 120-1 at 5-6.) ICR disagrees with the Court's January 20, 2021 ruling (Doc. # 41) in which the Court concluded it would exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Commonwealth's state law claims and permitted the Commonwealth to be added as a co-plaintiff. (Doc. # 120-1 at 6.) ICR contends that, regardless of its disagreement with the Court's decision, the Court has “never actually ruled upon the limits of its subject matter jurisdiction[,]” and that the Commonwealth only has jurisdiction with respect “to entities within Pennsylvania, and those would only be entitled to seek, at the most, discovery from Pennsylvania entities.” (Doc. # 120-1 at 6.) (emphasis added). ICR maintains, with respect to each of the discovery requests, that the Commonwealth is only entitled to discovery from accounts, consumers, chargebacks, revenue, tax returns, compensation from Pennsylvania. (Doc. # 120-1 at 6, 8, 10-15.) Notably, ICR does not cite to any case law in support of these arguments. *7 The Commonwealth replies that out of state information is relevant because ICR's business relies on AFS, which makes transactions all over the country, and also, the discovery requests relate to AFS's liability (not simply ICR's liability). (Doc. #115-2 at 8; Doc. # 121-1 at 5). Therefore the discovery the Commonwealth is seeking information relevant to the claims. Additionally, the Commonwealth argues that because it has shown that ICR has had continuous and systematic contacts with the Commonwealth, its long-arm statute permits the exercise of jurisdiction over non-residents. Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117, 128 (2014); 42 Pa. Const. Stat. § 5322(b). B. The Special Master's Analysis with respect to the Commonwealth's Requests to ICR ICR failed to respond to the Commonwealth's argument that ICR's boilerplate objections are improper. ICR has, in effect, conceded this argument. Instead ICR argues that the scope of the discovery sought by the FTC is too broad because the Commonwealth only has the power to seek discovery from Pennsylvania entities. (Doc. # 120-1 at 6.) This argument fails, as Rule 26(b)(1) permits that the parties may obtain discovery “relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case ...” Discovery related to ICR and out of state entities is relevant to ICR's business, AFS's business, and to the Commonwealth's claims against both entities, as the Complaint alleges that ICR's business relies on AFS. (Doc. # 43.) The discovery sought by the Commonwealth is relevant and within the bounds of Rule 26(b)(1). For this reason, and consistent with the Special Master's previous recommendation and the Court's November 3, 201 Order (Doc. # 128), it is appropriate that the Commonwealth seek (unless otherwise specified by the Commonwealth's own discovery request), and ICR provide, discovery from July 1, 2015 – present. The Special Master will also analyze and make a recommendation as to the remaining arguments raised by ICR and/or the Commonwealth. The Special Master first notes that the motion filed by the Commonwealth that is before the Special Master is a discovery motion seeking to compel ICR to respond to discovery requests. ICR's response to the Commonwealth's motion to compel seeks to twist a discovery dispute into a dispute over jurisdiction. But, as the Commonwealth has pointed out, ICR has never filed a motion under Federal Rule 12(b)(2) or a motion otherwise challenging jurisdiction. Also, the Court has already concluded it would exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Commonwealth's state law claims and permitted the Commonwealth to be added as a co-plaintiff. (Doc. # 41.) The issue of jurisdiction (however ICR characterizes it) is not before the Special Master at this juncture. Regardless of how this issue is characterized, the Special Master will now analyze the parties' arguments. For the reasons set forth below, and separate from the Special Master's analysis set forth at lines 272-284, the Special Master will recommend that the Court grant in part and deny in part the joint motion to compel ICR to respond to the Commonwealth's discovery requests in dispute, as set forth in specific detail at Section II.C. ICR refuses to respond to the Commonwealth's discovery requests on the ground that the Commonwealth only has jurisdiction with respect “to entities within Pennsylvania, and those would only be entitled to seek, at the most, discovery from Pennsylvania entities[.]” (Doc. # 120-1 at 6.) ICR disputes that there is personal jurisdiction with respect to the Commonwealth and ICR. (Doc. # 120-1 at 5, “The first reason the Plaintiffs' argument on personal jurisdiction is wrong from the posture of the case.”) ICR does not cite any case law in support of its argument. *8 ICR's position is without merit. As previously stated, this argument is properly raised through a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(2). Such a motion would provide the Court and parties with the opportunity to fully brief and respond to these arguments. See e.g., Action Mfg. Co., Inc v. Simon Wrecking Co., 375 F. Supp. 2d 411, 418 (E.D. Pa. 2005) (explaining that after a defendant raises the question of personal jurisdiction through a motion to dismiss, the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing the court's jurisdiction over the defendant through sworn affidavits or other “competent evidence.”) Acknowledging that the appropriate procedural posture for analyzing this argument would be in the context of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Special Master performs his analysis based on the information before him. Under Rule 4(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a district court may assert personal jurisdiction over a non-resident to the extent permitted by the law of the forum. Action Mfg., 375 F. Supp. 2d at 419. The Commonwealth's long-arm statute permits the exercise of personal jurisdiction over non-residents “to the fullest extent allowed under the Constitution of the United States.” 42 Pa. Const. Stat. § 5322(b). Personal jurisdiction may only be asserted over a non-resident corporation if that defendant has “certain minimum contacts with [the forum] such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945). Minimum contacts “must have a basis in ‘some act by which the defendant purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws.’ ” Remick v. Manfredy. 238 F.3d 248, 255 (3d Cir. 2001) (quoting Asahi Metal Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Superior Court of California, 480 U.S. 102, 109 (1987)). Personal jurisdiction may be exercised under general jurisdiction or specific contacts with the forum. Id. General jurisdiction is “based upon the defendant's ‘continuous and systematic’ contacts with the forum and exists even if the plaintiff's cause of action arises from the defendant's non-forum related activities.” Id. Specific jurisdiction exists “only if the plaintiff's cause of action arises out of a defendant's forum-related activities, such that a defendant ‘should reasonably anticipate being haled into court’ in that forum.” Id. (quoting World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 297 (1980)). The Commonwealth correctly argues that, based on the information available, the Court has both general and personal jurisdiction over ICR. (Doc. # 115-2 at 8, arguing that “ICR's affiliations with the Commonwealth are so continuous and systematic as to render ICR essentially at home in the Commonwealth” and “the Commonwealth's claims in this case relate to ICR's contacts with Pennsylvania such that ICR should reasonably anticipate being hauled into court here.”) In support, the Commonwealth relies on the following facts: “(1) ICR has admitted that it receives 99% of its business from AFS; (2) Every account that ICR collects for AFS is based on a transaction that was closed in the Commonwealth, by a Commonwealth entity, and is governed by Commonwealth law; (3) the underlying telemarketing deceptions occurred in the Commonwealth; and (4) ICR continued to participate in those deceptions by collecting debts that were never legal in the first place.” (Doc. # 115-2 at 5.) ICR does not dispute this. Based on the information set forth in the papers, including ICR's failure to respond to this argument, the Special Master agrees with the Commonwealth's position. The information available to the Special Master points to the conclusion that the Court has general and specific jurisdiction over ICR. ICR did not move to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. ICR did not request jurisdictional discovery. ICR did not respond to or refute the Commonwealth's arguments in the Commonwealth's motion, significantly: “(1) ICR has admitted that it receives 99% of its business from AFS; (2) Every account that ICR collects for AFS is based on a transaction that was closed in the Commonwealth, by a Commonwealth entity, and is governed by Commonwealth law; [and] (3) the underlying telemarketing deceptions occurred in the Commonwealth[.]” (Doc. # 115-2 at 5.) The Court concluded it would exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Commonwealth's state law claims and permitted the Commonwealth to be added as a co-plaintiff. (Doc. # 41.) Based on the information before the Special Master, and the Special Master will recommend that the Court grant the Commonwealth's motion to compel ICR to respond to the discovery requests in dispute as outlined in Section II.C. below.[7] C. Recommendation on the Commonwealth's Requests to ICR *9 For the reasons explained above, the Special Master recommends that: The Court grant in part and deny in part the Joint Discovery Motion with respect to the Commonwealth's discovery requests to ICR as follows: (a) The Court deny the joint motion with respect to the Commonwealth seeking discovery that predates July 1, 2015. (b) The Court grant the motion with respect to the Commonwealth seeking discovery from July 1, 2015 – present, unless otherwise narrowed by the Commonwealth. (c) The Court order ICR to respond to the Commonwealth's discovery requests RP 6, 7, 11, 12, 53, 54 and Interrogatory Nos. 7, 8, 15, and 16 within 20 days of the entry of the Court's Order. (Doc. # 115-3 at App. 005-016; Doc. # 120-1 at 2.) Respectfully submitted, James J. Rohn, Esq., Special Master Footnotes [1] The parties dispute whether Bettie Diorio is a manager of ICR, and thus whether this discovery related to her is appropriate. ICR argues that she is not a party to the lawsuit, she is not a manager, there are no allegations directed to her, and her “compensation will not provide information on Mr. Diorio and Mrs. Powell's ability to control ICR's activities[,]” “[n]or will Mrs. Diorio's compensation provide information on a possible ‘bias’ by Mr. Diorio and Mrs. Powell.” (Doc. # 120-1 at 15, n. 22.) The FTC responds that ICR is plainly wrong – Bettie Diorio is a manager and the president of ICR. (Doc. # 120-1 at 14) (citing Exhibit A to Doc. # 120, July 31, 2018 ICR Tr. at 89:5-8.) [2] ICR argues that these discovery requests relate to monetary relief, which the FTC cannot obtain under AMG, and these discovery requests improperly seek monetary relief because “[a]ll the discovery requests in the world related to any financial information of ICR or the individual defendants would not provide a single piece of evidence to prove that any of the collection practices employed by ICR were deceptive and needed to be enjoined. Whether ICR collected $10 in a year or $100,000 in a year would not prove a single element of deceptions or a single element required for a permanent injunction.” (Doc. # 120-1 at 3.) [3] This is a non-exhaustive summary of the FTC's arguments on the relevancy of monetary information. [4] Though ICR contends that the FTC should amend its pleadings to indicate it is not seeking monetary relief (and if it does not do so, then it is still seeking monetary relief), (Doc. # 120-1 at 2), ICR cites no precedent requiring the FTC to strike from its Amended Complaint allegations and/or request(s) for relief relating to seeking monetary relief. Relatedly, under AMG and the Court's July 26, 2021 decision denying AFS's motion for judgment on the pleadings (Doc. # 108), ICR is incorrect that the FTC must obtain an injunction through administrative proceedings. (See Doc. # 120-1 at 2, n. 4.) [5] Discovery relating to manager compensation, such as RP No. 7, is also relevant for these reasons. This includes Bettie Diorio. [6] ICR also argues that due to the duplicative discovery requests by the FTC and the Commonwealth, it must “needlessly incur more costs as its counsel was forced to spend time responding and objecting to carbon copy discovery requests.” (Doc. # 120-1 at 3.) This argument is unavailing. ICR is a defendant in this action. The FTC and the Commonwealth are two separate plaintiffs in this action. As such, the FTC and the Commonwealth are each permitted to propound discovery requests on ICR, as it is a defendant. [7] The Special Master notes that these arguments have been addressed by the Commonwealth and ICR in other discovery disputes in front of the Special Master, such as the FTC's motion to compel ICR to respond to the FTC's first set of discovery requests, and related briefs. (Doc. # 111, Doc. # 116.) That motion (Doc. # 111) is not the subject of this Report and Recommendation; the Special Master will apply the analysis contain in Section II.B. to these arguments each time they are raised.