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 Signed December 08, 2021 Counsel Christian M. Capece, Conor P. Duffy, 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. Heather Z. Kelly, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Harrisburg, PA, John Abel, PA Office of Attorney General Bureau of Consumer Protection, Harrisburg, PA, Jonathan R. Burns, Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General, 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, Philadelphia, PA, David H. Marion, Morgan S. Birch, White and Williams LLP, Philadelphia, PA, Paul H. Saint-Antoine, Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, Philadelphia, PA, Casey Alan Coyle, Babst, Calland, Clements and Zomnir, P.C., Pittsburgh, PA, Mark Scott Stewart, Eckert Seamans Cherrin & 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 Before the Special Master is the FTC's motion to compel ICR to respond to the FTC's first set of discovery requests. (Doc. # 111.) ICR opposes this motion. (Doc. # 116.) In addition to these filings, the parties have worked to resolve this dispute by participating in two conference calls with the Special Master and exchanging numerous letters. In analyzing the disputes raised in the FTC's motion to compel, the Special Master has considered all of the filings and all of the letters exchanged. According to the FTC, these discovery requests relate to ICR's collection cards and canceled accounts and electronic search terms. (Doc. # 111-2 at ii.) ICR contends that the “vast majority of discovery disputes” at issue in this motion have been resolved. (Doc. # 116-1 at 2.) I. THE DISCOVERY REQUESTS TO ICR THAT ARE IN DISPUTE The FTC raised four disputes in its motion: (1) the FTC's Request for Production (“RFP”) No. 40; (2) the FTC's proposed electronic search terms relating to electronically stored information; (3) the FTC's RFP No. 17; and (4) Interrogatory No. 13. (Doc. # 111-2 at 3, 10, 16, 17.) The requests are as follow: RFP No. 40: Produce all cards containing debtors' contact information, [i]ncluding the handwritten notes on the cards, used by You in the attempted collection of debts purportedly owed to AFS. If voluminous, please contact the FTC to discuss a possible sampling mechanism. Electronic search terms: “[T]he FTC created a list of search terms and custodians, which would be used to locate [material responsive to the FTC's requests for electronically stored information]. During a meet-and-confer about the proposed listed, ICR objected to two items ... The FTC accommodated both objections ... The FTC then asked ICR to search its computers and databases using the revised ... list Instead of doing the searches, ICR raised an entirely new set of objections[.]” (citations omitted.) RFP No. 17: Produce all Documents that [r]efer or [r]elate to the AFS accounts that ICR or AFS cancels, withdraws, or otherwise removes from collection.[1] Interrogatory No. 13: Identify the AFS accounts turned over to ICR from September 1, 2017, through March 1, 2017, including all information provided to ICR by AFS for those accounts. This interrogatory merely seeks updated information from that contained in Exhibit A, which ICR provided to the FTC in 2017 in response[ ] to the FTC's civil investigative demand to ICR. Exhibit A will be transmitted securely to counsel for ICR via Accellion or a similar file-transfer protocol. (Doc. # 111-2.) II. NARROWED DISPUTES AND ANALYSIS Since the FTC filed this motion, the parties have narrowed their disagreements. The most recent summarizations of their disagreements (and agreements) are conveyed in the Plaintiffs' November 3 and 16, 2021 letters and ICR's October 21, 2021 letter, as supplemented by a November 30 email from the FTC and a December 1 email from ICR. A. Logistics of ICR's production to Plaintiffs *2 With respect to the logistical mechanism by which ICR agrees to produce documents to Plaintiffs, ICR rejected a prior proposal by Plaintiffs in which Plaintiffs proposed visiting or accessing the storage facility where ICR stores the collection cards at issue. ICR stated that “ICR will undertake placing the cards into new shipment-worth boxes.” (ICR's letter to Pls., Oct. 21, 2021.) ICR then proposed a sampling of collection cards that ICR would provide to Plaintiffs.[2] (Id.) ICR agreed to the FTC's prior proposal that the FTC “(1) will supply shipping labels for ICR to print and place upon the boxes, (2) will pay for the shipping of the boxes and copying of the cards, (3) will return the cards to ICR after the FTC has completed the scanning of all of the cards, and (4) will furnish counsel for ICR with a copy of the scanned cards.” (Id.) ICR proposed that “it will only utilize cards that were included in the sampling at trial.” (Id.) In response, the FTC and Commonwealth continue to assert that, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a), they should have access to “ICR's storage facility in order to rebox and send for scanning all of the collection cards from January 1, 2015 to the present, at Plaintiffs' expense,” as this “would be the most cost-effective and least burdensome method available to ICR [for] responding to these Requests.” (Pls.' letter to ICR, Nov. 3, 2021.) With respect to whether Plaintiffs may access ICR's storage facility, the Special Master will recommend that ICR is not required to permit Plaintiffs to access its storage facility. Rule 34(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides in relevant part: A party may serve on any other party a request within the scope of Rule 26(b): (1) to produce and permit the requesting party or its representative to inspect, copy, test, or sample the following items in the responding party's possession, custody, or control: A. any designated documents or electronically stored information – including writings, drawings, graphs, charts, photographs, sound recordings, images, and other data or data compilations – stored in any medium from which information can be obtained either directly or, if necessary, after translation by the responding party into a reasonably usable form; or B. any designated tangible things; or (2) to permit entry onto designated land or other property possessed or controlled by the responding party, so that the requesting party may inspect, measure, survey, photograph, test, or sample the property or any designated object or operation on it. Rule 34 allows for a requesting party to request entry onto designated land or other property controlled by the responding party, but it does not require it. Here, there are other methods available for Plaintiffs' to receive and inspect the discovery that they are seeking. Those other methods are set out in the parties' letters that they exchanged, specifically, ICR will produce the agreed-upon collection cards to Plaintiffs for copying and inspection. This method of production of the collection cards satisfies ICR's discovery obligations and complies with the spirit and text of Rules 26 and 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. There is no basis to require ICR to permit Plaintiffs to access ICR's storage facility when Plaintiffs will receive the discovery they request through the method of ICR producing the collection cards at issue. Relatedly, the Special Master will recommend that, pursuant to the agreement of the parties, with respect to all collection cards provided by ICR to Plaintiffs: (1) the FTC will supply shipping labels for ICR to print and place upon the boxes, (2) the FTC will pay for the shipping of the boxes and copying of the cards, (3) the FTC will return the cards to ICR after the FTC has completed the scanning of all of the cards, and (4) the FTC will furnish counsel for ICR with a copy of the scanned cards. The Special Master will recommend that the FTC supply shipping labels to ICR within seven days of the entry of the Court's Order relating to this Report and Recommendation, ICR post mark the shipment(s) containing the production(s) within fourteen days of the entry of the Court's Order relating to this Report and Recommendation, the FTC post mark the shipment(s) of the returned production(s) within thirty days of the entry of the Court's Order relating to this Report and Recommendation, and the FTC furnish counsel for ICR a copy of the scanned production(s) within thirty days of the entry of the Court's Order relating to this Report and Recommendation. *3 There is also a disagreement as to the actual boxes that ICR will place the collection cards in, and the size and number of the collection cards that will be placed in the boxes for production. (See Pls.' letter to ICR, Nov. 3, 2021, explaining that “ICR has represented that the boxes are of varying sizes and fill” and thus Plaintiffs contend “ICR must select for placement into ‘new shipment-worthy boxes’ the boxes containing the most collection cards from each category.” (footnote omitted.)) ICR has not submitted a counter-proposal explaining why it is not agreeable to Plaintiff's November 3 proposal regarding the size of the boxes themselves. Plaintiffs' proposal is reasonable and aligns with the text and spirit of Rules 26 and 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Therefore, the Special Master will recommend that the boxes are uniform in shape and size, and ICR is required to place collection cards into boxes that contain the most collection cards from each category.[3] B. Content and categories of collection cards as it relates to RFP No. 40 With respect to the parties' negotiations related to RFP No. 40 – the content of the collection cards themselves – ICR proposed providing Plaintiffs with a sampling of collection cards, which included, for the years 2015-2019, one box of cards from various different categories of cards. (ICR's letter to Pls., Oct. 21, 2021.) These categories of boxes are categories within the “canceled accounts” that the parties have agreed upon. They are: “refuse to pay”; “miscellaneous/bulk” (unresolved accounts); “payments”; “cancels” (when AFS contacts ICR and informs ICR to cancel collection of an account); “direct payments” (a payment made directly to AFS), and “PRTP” (a “business made a promise to pay the debt and then later refused to pay the debt”). (Id.; Pls.' letter to ICR, Nov. 3, 2021.) With respect to ICR's October 21 proposed sampling, Plaintiffs' rejected the proposal on the basis that it “suffers from several fatal flaws[,]” each of which “prejudices Plaintiffs and unfairly favors ICR.” (Id.) Plaintiffs detailed six specific reasons for the rejection and set out a new proposal. (Id.) Two of the “fatal flaws” have been addressed by the Special Master at Section II.A. and relate to the logistics of the production. The other four “fatal flaws” are addressed below. Plaintiffs' new proposal included the following: Refuse to Pay Miscellancous/bulk1 Payments Cancels4 ICR's October 21, 2021 Proposal for 2015-2019 cards 1 box(2015) 1 box(2016) 1 box (2017) 1 box (2018) 1 box (2019) 1 box (2015) 1 box (2016) 1 box (2017) 1 box (2018) 1 box (2019) 1 box (2015) Plaintiffs' counterproposal fur 2015-2019 cards subject to ICR's agreement to the additional provisions below accepted accepted All boxes,2 consisting of: 5 boxes (2015)3 5 boxes (2016) 3 boxes (2017) 3 boxes (2018) I box (2019) accepted Direct Payments5 PRTP6 1 box (2016) I box (2017) 1 box (2018) 1 box (2019) 1 box (2015) ~ I box (2016) I box (2017) 1 box (2018) I box (2019) 1 box (2015) 1 box (2016-2018) I box (2015-2018) accepted accepted (Pls.' letter to ICR, Nov. 3, 2021.) (footnotes omitted.) In addition, Plaintiffs' proposed: 1) “ICR must select for placement into ‘new shipment-worthy boxes’ the boxes containing the most collection cards from each category”;[4] 2) “ICR must agree to produce collection cards for up to an additional 20 entities to be identified by Plaintiffs”; 3) “ICR agrees that it will not provide AFS with collection cards other than those provided in the sampling, those that have already been produced, or those that will be produced in response to a Plaintiffs' request for collection cards for a specific entity”; and 4) “for 2020-2021 collection cards, Plaintiffs cannot accept ICR's proposal that it produce only a subset of cards from January and February 2020 and produce no cards from the last 20 months. ICR listed a total of 6 boxes from 2020 ... and has not provided information on the number of boxes for 2021 Therefore, Plaintiffs request all collection cards for 2020 and 2021 ” (Id.) (emphasis in original.) *4 First, Plaintiffs' have accepted ICR's proposal for collection cards with respect to the “refuse to pay,” “miscellaneous/bulk,” “direct payments,” and “PRTP” categories for the years 2015-2019. ICR made this proposal on October 21, 2021, prior to the Court's November 3, 2021 decision in which the Court limited the scope of production with respect to Plaintiffs' Request for Production Nos. 60 and 61 to July 1, 2015 to present. (See Doc. # 128.) The Special Master will recommend that this temporal limitation of July 1, 2015 to present is applied here. Therefore, the Special Master will recommend that ICR produce via shipment to the FTC, one box of collection cards from each category (“refuse to pay,” “miscellaneous/bulk,” “direct payments,” and “PRTP”) for each of the years 2016-2019, and one half of a box of collection cards for each category for July 1, 2015 to December 31, 2015. The Special Master will recommend that ICR post mark this production within fourteen days of entry of the Court's Order relating to this Report and Recommendation. Next, the category of boxes referred to as “payments” is disputed. Plaintiffs explain that “Plaintiffs have prioritized this category of collection cards and request all of the payment cards based, in part, upon ICR's defense that ‘Plaintiffs lack standing as there is no cognizable injury alleged in the First Amended Complaint based upon the ICR Defendants' conduct. There are no allegations in the First Amended Complaint identifying (i) any debtor that supposedly paid the ICR Defendants as a result of the alleged misrepresentation or (ii) an amount supposedly paid by one of the business debtors.’ [ECF 92, ¶ 102.]” (Pls.' letter to ICR, Nov. 3, 2021 at footnote 3.) Though Plaintiffs have shown a particular interest in this category – “payments” – there is no articulated reason why Plaintiffs are agreeable to one box for each of the years in question for the other four categories of collection cards, but require more than one box for the years 2015-2018. One box of cards for the years 2016-2019 for the category of “payments” and one half of a box of cards for July 1, 2015 – December 31, 2015 satisfies the spirit and text of Rules 26 and 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Court's November 3, 2021 Order. (See Doc. # 128.) The Special Master will recommend that with respect to the category of boxes referred to as “payments,” ICR produce, via shipment, one box from each of the years 2016-2019 and one half of a box of cards for July 1, 2015 – December 31, 2015 to Plaintiffs' within fourteen days of the entry of the Court's Order relating to this Report and Recommendation. The Special Master will recommend that ICR post mark this production within fourteen days of entry of the Court's Order relating to this Report and Recommendation. Third, in their November 3 proposal, Plaintiffs state in part that ICR's October 21 proposal prejudices Plaintiffs because Plaintiffs “continue to identify additional declarants/entities whose experiences support our claims, and Plaintiffs have sought and will continue to seek production of those cards as additional declarants/entities are identified.” (Pls.' letter to ICR, Nov. 3, 2021.) Plaintiffs contend that “ICR must agree to produce collection cards for up to an additional 20 entities to be identified by Plaintiffs” in order to minimize this prejudice. (Id.) Plaintiffs acknowledge that they have issued additional document requests to ICR relating to collection cards, in addition to the document requests at issue in this motion. (Id.) Plaintiffs have not identified the specific declarants or entities that they may seek a future potential production in relation to, rather, they would have ICR unilaterally agree to produce collection cards for potentially 20 entities who are not yet identified. Plaintiffs have not explained why they cannot seek this information through separate, additional document requests (which, as they state in their November 3, 2021 letter, they have already done). The Special Master will recommend that ICR is not ordered to produce collection cards for up to an additional 20 not-yet-identified entities, as Plaintiffs request. *5 Fourth, Plaintiffs contend that because Plaintiffs are agreeable to a sampling of collection cards (rather than ICR producing all collection cards in its possession for 2015-present), ICR should agree that “it will not provide AFS with collection cards other than those provided in the sampling, those that have already been produced, or those that will be produced in response to a Plaintiffs' request for collection cards for a specific entity.” (Pls.' letter to ICR, Nov. 3, 2021.) With respect to this issue, the Special Master need not decide it now because the Special Master requests additional letter briefing on this issue. Specifically, any party (this includes the FTC, the Commonwealth, ICR, and AFS) that wishes to address this issue should submit a letter no more than two pages long to the Special Master, copying all counsel, via email by 5 p.m. on Friday, December 10, 2021. The letters should address, with support from case law and/or the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the party's position on the issue. The Special Master will issue a Report and Recommendation deciding this issue after the parties have had this additional opportunity to address this issue. Finally, Plaintiffs reject ICR's prior proposal that ICR provide a total of six boxes of collection cards from 2020, and no collection cards for 2021. (Pls.' letter to ICR, Nov. 3, 2021.) The Special Master will recommend that ICR is required to produce one box for each category for each month of 2020 and 2021 (to the extent they exist). The Court has previously determined that in this case, “the FTC alleges in the First Amended Complaint (‘FAC’) that AFS Defendants ‘are presently engaged in the business of selling and collecting payment for publication subscriptions and that their current acts or practices constitute deceptive commercial conduct that violates Section 5(a), § 45(a). Based on the allegations in the FAC, the FTC pleads that it ‘has reason to believe that Defendants are violating or about to violate laws [it] enforces.’ ” (Doc. # 128 at n. 1) (citations omitted). Accordingly, it is appropriate that Plaintiffs seek and ICR provide discovery for the years 2020 and 2021, as ICR's present and recent acts and practices are at issue. The Special Master will recommend that ICR need not provide all collection cards for 2020 and 2021, rather, consistent with the recommendations contained herein, the Special Master will recommend that ICR produce via shipment one box from each of the years 2020 and 2021 to Plaintiffs' within fourteen days of the entry of the Court's Order relating to this Report and Recommendation. The Special Master will recommend that ICR post mark this production within fourteen days of entry of the Court's Order relating to this Report and Recommendation. C. Electronic Search Terms The parties have exchanged proposals regarding search terms and custodian to be used by ICR to locate electronically stored information responsive to the FTC's discovery requests. The parties continue to disagree over eight search terms that were proposed by Plaintiffs: #23 – “compliance payment” #24 – “month end report” or “month end cover sheet” #26 – “refund” #27 – “ICR placement” or “ICR placements” #28 – “ICR payment” or “ICR payments” #29 – “chargebacks” or “chargeback” or “chbk” #36 – “@pbp.com” #38 – “capolp@ aol.com” (ICR's letter to Pls., Oct. 21, 2021; Pls.' letter to ICR, Nov. 3, 2021.) First, the parties have come to an agreement on two of the eight search terms, #24 – “month end report” or “month end cover sheet”, and #38 – “capolp@aol.com.” (Pls.' Nov. 3, 2021 letter to ICR.) Thus, the Special Master will recommend that ICR is ordered to run the search terms “month end report” or “month end cover sheet” on email accounts only, not on ICR's computers. The Special Master will recommend that ICR run the search terms on email accounts, including subject lines, the body of the emails, and the contents of the emails. This search should be completed and the results reported to Plaintiffs within twenty-one days of entry of the Court's Order relating to this Report and Recommendation. The Special Master will also recommend that ICR produce reports contained in emails from the account capolp@aol.com to Plaintiffs within fourteen days of entry of the Court's Order relating to this Report and Recommendation monthly. *6 Next, ICR objects to the following five search terms on the same basis: #23 – “compliance payment”, #26 – “refund”, #27 – “ICR placement” or “ICR placements”, #28 – “ICR payment” or “ICR payments”, and #29 – “chargebacks” or “chargeback” or “chbk.” ICR rejects to these five search terms on the ground that “each search term clearly relates to the monetary relief which the FTC is not authorized or entitled to seek pursuant to AMG Capital Mgmt., LLC v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, 141 S.Ct. 1341 (2021)” and on the ground that the Commonwealth “would only be entitled to such electronic discovery for Pennsylvania entities only.” (ICR's letter to Pls., Oct. 21, 2021.) The Special Master and the Court have already addressed and rejected these arguments by ICR. (Doc. # 129; Doc. # 132.) Like the discovery requests at issue in the Special Master's November 5, 2021 Report & Recommendation, adopted by the Court on November 23, 2021, the discovery requests by Plaintiffs and the search terms are relevant to the alleged intertwined relationship of Defendants AFS and ICR. Discovery that is responsive to these search terms may shed light on the practices of AFS and ICR, the reason(s) for their alleged continuing conduct, if and when ICR's alleged conduct changed, and if it did change, why? It may also shed light on the opposite (that it did not change). This analysis applies here as well, and the Special Master will recommend that the Court reject this argument. Additionally, the Special Master will recommend that the Court reject the argument that Commonwealth is only entitled to this electronic discovery for Pennsylvania entities. As the Special Master in the November 5, 2021 Report & Recommendation, adopted by the Court on November 23, 2021, discovery related to ICR and out of state entities is relevant to the claims here, as the First Amended Complaint alleges that ICR's business relies on AFS. Moreover, as previously explained by the Special Master, based on the record before the Special Master, the Court has general and specific jurisdiction over ICR. ICR did not object to the Special Master's November 5, 2021 Report & Recommendation, which was adopted by the Court on November 23. ICR's argument that there is no jurisdiction over entities not within the Commonwealth is without merit. Accordingly, the Special Master will recommend that ICR is ordered to perform a search for search terms #23 – “compliance payment”, #26 – “refund”, #27 – “ICR placement” or “ICR placements”, #28 – “ICR payment” or “ICR payments”, and #29 – “chargebacks” or “chargeback” or “chbk” and produce results to Plaintiffs within fourteen days of entry of the Court's Order relating to this Report and Recommendation. The final dispute regarding a search term is regarding search term #36 – “@pbp.com”. ICR proposes limiting this search “to only outgoing ICR emails (i.e. – any emails ICR sent to @pbp.com).” (ICR's letter to Pls., Oct. 21, 2021.) This is because “AFS will be producing any emails sent to ICR from @pbp.com,” therefore “such a proposal limits duplicative and voluminous discovery from both ICR and AFS.” (Id.) Plaintiffs disagree, stating that this “position rests on its presumption that AFS has preserved all communications with ICR and will produce them. AFS has not agreed to produce all of its communications with ICR ... We also do not know if AFS preserved every communication with ICR.” (Pls.' letter to ICR, Nov. 3, 2021.) ICR is not relieved of its discovery obligations simply because there is another defendant in this case and discovery may or may not be unearthed through the other defendant. The Special Master will recommend that ICR is ordered to perform a search for search term #36 – “@pbp.com” for all emails, and produce results to Plaintiffs within fourteen days of entry of the Court's Order relating to this Report and Recommendation. Lastly, the parties disagree as to the time period for the search. ICR contends it should be from August 1, 2018 to present in order to eliminate discovery that was searched and produced during the CID investigation. (ICR's letter to Pls., Oct. 21, 2021.) Plaintiffs demand that the search period is January 1, 2015 to present. (Pls.' letter to ICR, Nov. 3, 2021.) The Special Master will recommend that, consistent with past Reports and Recommendations and the Court's Orders, ICR be required to perform all searches from July 1, 2015 to present. ICR needs to produce any documents that it has already produced to Plaintiffs. D. Masterlists as it relates to Interrogatory No. 13 Based on the parties' October 21 and November 16 letters and their November 30 and December 1 emails, the parties have come to an agreement on this dispute. Specifically, Plaintiffs agree that “ICR will satisfy its duty to respond to these interrogatories by producing masterlists from September 1, 2017 to January 1, 2021”, and that ICR agreed to do so within 3 business days. (Pls.' letter to ICR, Nov. 3, 2021; Pls.' email, Nov. 30, 2021; ICR's email, Dec. 1, 2021.) However, according to Plaintiffs, ICR has not yet provided the masterlists as agreed upon. Accordingly, the Special Master will recommend that ICR provides Plaintiffs with the agreed upon masterlists within five days of the entry of the Court's Order relating to this Report and Recommendation. III. RECOMMENDATION *7 For the reasons explained above, the Special Master recommends that: 1. The Court grant in part and deny in part Plaintiffs' motion to compel ICR to respond to Plaintiffs' first set of discovery requests. (Doc. # 111.) 2. With respect to the production of collection cards by ICR to Plaintiffs: a. the Court deny Plaintiffs' request to access ICR's storage facility; b. the Court require the FTC to supply shipping labels for ICR to print and place upon shipping boxes within seven days of the Court's Order; c. the Court require the FTC to pay for the shipping of the boxes and copying of the collection cards; d. the Court require ICR to ship the production of collection cards to the FTC and post mark the shipment(s) within fourteen days of the Court's Order; e. the Court require the FTC to return the collection cards to ICR and post mark the return shipment(s) within thirty days of the Court's Order; f. the Court require the FTC to furnish counsel for ICR with a copy of the scanned collection cards within thirty days of the Court's Order; and h.g. the Court require the boxes that ICR places the collection cards in to be uniform shape and size and ICR place the collection cards into boxes in a way that contains the most collection cards possible. 3. With respect to RFP No. 40: a. for the collection card categories of “refuse to pay,” “miscellaneous/bulk,” “direct payments,” and “PRTP”, the Court require that within fourteen days of the entry of the Court's Order, ICR produce to Plaintiffs one box of each category for the years 2016-2021 and a half box of each category for the period July 1, 2015-December 31, 2015; b. for the collection card category of “payments”, the Court require that within fourteen days of the entry of the Court's Order, ICR produce to Plaintiffs one box for the years 2016-2021 and a half box for the period July 1, 2015-December 31, 2015; and c. the Court deny Plaintiffs' proposal that would require ICR to produce collection cards for up to an additional twenty entities to be identified by Plaintiffs. 4. With respect to the electronic search terms: a. the Court require ICR to run the search terms and produce the results to Plaintiffs relating to #24 – “month end report” and “month end cover sheet” on email accounts, including subject lines, the body of the emails, and the contents of the emails within fourteen days of the Court's Order; b. the Court require ICR to produce to Plaintiffs within fourteen days of entry of the Court's Order relating to this Report and Recommendation monthly reports contained in emails from the account “capolp@aol.com”; c. the Court require ICR to perform a search for search terms #23 – “compliance payment”, #26 – “refund”, #27 – “ICR placement” or “ICR placements”, #28 – “ICR payment” or “ICR payments”, and #29 – “chargebacks” or “chargeback” or “chbk” and produce results to Plaintiffs within fourteen days of the Court's Order. d. the Court require ICR to perform a search for search term #36 – “@pbp.com” for all emails, and produce results to Plaintiffs within fourteen days of the Court's Order. *8 5. With respect to Interrogatory No. 13: a. the Court require ICR to produce the agreed upon masterlists to Plaintiffs within five days of the Court's Order. Respectfully submitted, James J. Rohn, Esq., Special Master Footnotes [1] The Special Master understands that based on previous communication with the parties, including a September 23, 2021 call with the parties, the parties have resolved this dispute. Therefore, the Special Master need not address it in this Report & Recommendation. [2] This proposal and the content of the collection cards is discussed at Section II.B. [3] It is unclear if the parties disagree as to the exact size of the collection cards and boxes, and whether there are collection cards that are different sizes. The Special Master's recommendation should be interpreted such that the boxes are of a reasonable, uniform size, and collection cards are chosen and placed in the boxes in such a way as to allow for the highest number of collection cards in each box. [4] The Special Master has addressed this proposal in Section II.A.