PAMELA BELMONT, Plaintiff, v. MEDICREDIT, INC., Defendant Case No. 2:18-CV-04102-BCW United States District Court, W.D. Missouri, Central Division Filed January 15, 2019 Counsel Gregory M. Klote, Joel S. Halvorsen, Samantha Joanne Orlowski, St. Louis, MO, for Plaintiff. John D. Ryan, Spencer Fane LLP, Cape Girardeau, MO, Scott Dickenson, Pro Hac Vice, Spencer Fane LLP, St. Louis, MO, Olawale O. Akinmoladun, Spencer Fane LLP, Kansas City, MO, for Defendant. Wimes, Brian C., United States District Judge ORDER AND PARTIAL AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER *1 Before the Court is Plaintiff Pamela Belmont's Motion to Compel and for Sanctions against Defendant Medicredit, Inc. (Doc. #30). The Court, being duly advised of the premises, grants said motion to compel and denies said motion for sanctions. BACKGROUND On April 25, 2018, Plaintiff Pamela Belmont filed claims against Defendant Medicredit, Inc. under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 (“FDCPA”). Medicredit timely removed Plaintiff's claims to this Court. (Doc. #1). On July 13, 2018, the Court entered a Scheduling and Jury Trial Order setting this matter for jury trial on November 18, 2019. (Doc. #12). The scheduling order also set, among other deadlines, a discovery closure deadline on October 24, 2018, and a dispositive motion deadline on January 31, 2019. On September 12, 2018, Medicredit filed a motion for summary judgment. (Doc. #20). The motion remains pending. In response, Belmont filed a motion for the Court to defer ruling on, or to deny, Medicredit's summary judgment motion on the basis that Belmont had not yet had adequate time for discovery pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d). (Doc. #22). Belmont's motion to defer or deny Medicredit's summary judgment motion also remains pending. On November 7, 2018, the Court held a discovery dispute telephone conference pursuant to L.R. 37. After hearing the parties' arguments, the Court set a briefing schedule for the instant motion to compel. Belmont filed the motion to compel on November 14, 2018. Medicredit filed its response to the motion on November 21, 2018. Thereafter, though Belmont's reply suggestions were due on November 23, 2018, Belmont did not file her reply until November 27, 2018. Medicredit filed a motion to strike the reply as untimely filed. (Doc. #34). LEGAL STANDARD Parties may obtain discovery of nonprivileged material that is relevant to their claims or defenses, and is “proportional to the needs of the case,” considering the importance of the issues at stake; the amount in controversy; the parties' relative access to relevant information and/or resources; the importance of discovery in resolving the issues; and whether the burden of the proposed discovery outweighs the likely benefit. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b). The party resisting production bears the burden to establish a lack of relevance and/or undue burden. Landmark Infrastructure Holding Co., LLC v. R.E.D. Invs., LLC, No. 15-4064-CV-C-MJW, 2016 WL 11339515, at * 2 (W.D. Mo. Nov. 30, 2016). ANALYSIS The issue presented by the Belmont's motion to compel is the proper scope of discovery for this case. Belmont argues Medicredit should fully respond to his discovery requests and sets forth two categories of materials: (1) Medicredit's policies and procedures; and (2) communications between Medicredit and the original creditor in this case. Medicredit argues Belmont is abusing the discovery process, by serving extensive requests in a manner that is disproportionate to the needs of the case, when Belmont's claims stem from two telephone conversations that lasted a total of 11 minutes and 21 seconds. *2 Under the allegations of the complaint, Belmont alleges violations of the FDCPA in two counts. Belmont's FDCPA claims stem from a telephone conversation she had with Medicredit relating to a debt allegedly owed to Good Samaritan Hospital – Mount Vernon. Belmont indicated she wished to dispute the debt and requested a copy of the original contract under which the alleged debt arose; Medicredit responded she would need to seek the contract from the original creditor. Belmont asserts Medicredit's representations are an improper attempt to limit Belmont's exercise of her rights under the FDCPA. In Count I, Belmont alleges Medicredit violated § 1692e by making false representations relating to the debt. In Count II, Belmont alleges Medicredit violated § 1692d and § 1692f by engaging in unfair collection practices intending to harass or deceive. As noted by Medicredit, “[t]he parties and the court have a collective responsibility to consider the proportionality of all discovery and consider it in resolving discovery disputes.” Vallejo v. Amgen, Inc., 903 F.3d 733, 742 (8th Cir. 2018). In the Court's view, however, this statement does not stand for the proposition that a party can rely on boilerplate objections to proper discovery requests in reliance on the party's own assessment that certain discovery requests are disproportionate to the needs of the case as that party unilaterally estimates the case's needs. At the same time, the Court is not in a position to weigh the relevant factors for the scope of proper discovery under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b) unless the parties inform the Court of a dispute with respect to discovery. In this case, discovery closed on October 24, 2018. However, Belmont did not contact the Court to arrange a discovery dispute telephone conference as required by L.R. 37 until after the close of discovery.[1] Notwithstanding, the record and the briefing on the motion to compel suggest that both parties in this case have failed to engage in the discovery process in any meaningful way. The Court thus declines to review each of Belmont's discovery requests and each of Medicredit's objections. Instead, the Court finds that Belmont's motion to compel is granted to the extent Belmont seeks material relating to Medicredit's policies and procedures, and communications between Medicredit and the original creditor as they relate to the subject debt. However, Medicredit need not provide further responses to Belmont's discovery requests in their current form; Belmont shall review its propounded discovery and reasonably limit it, consistent with the Court's findings herein. Upon service of reasonable discovery requests relating to Medicredit's policies and procedures, and communications with the original creditor, Medicredit shall provide full discovery responses in good faith and shall not rely upon boilerplate objections, or unilaterally declare certain discovery requests disproportionate to the needs of the case. The Court will re-open discovery, which closed on October 24, 2018, for these limited purposes. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED Belmont's Motion to Compel and for Sanctions against Defendant Medicredit, Inc. (Doc. #30) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The motion is granted with respect to the motion to compel and denied with respect to the motion for sanctions. It is further ORDERED Medicredit's Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Reply (Doc. #34) is DENIED AS MOOT. It is further ORDERED the Scheduling Order and Jury Trial Order (Doc. #12) is partially amended to re-open discovery for the purposes set forth in this order. Pretrial discovery relating to Medicredit's debt collection policies and procedures relating to the FDCPA and communications between Medicredit and the original creditor as it relates to the subject debt shall be completed on or before January 31, 2019. It is further *3 ORDERED the Scheduling Order and Jury Trial Order is partially amended to extend both the dispositive motion and Daubert motion deadlines to account for the stated re-opening of discovery. Any dispositive motion, except those under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(2) or (3), shall be filed on or before April 1, 2019. All motions to strike expert designations or to preclude expert testimony based on Daubert shall be filed on before April 1, 2019. It is further ORDERED, unless otherwise modified, all other deadlines and requirements set forth in the original scheduling order (Doc. #12) remain in effect and unaltered. It is further ORDERED Medicredit's motion for summary judgment (Doc. #20) is, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d), DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. It is further ORDERED Belmont's motions for extension of time (Doc. #22) and to file a sur-reply (Doc. #25) relating to the motion for summary judgment are DENIED AS MOOT. IT IS SO ORDERED. Footnotes [1] The Court notes Belmont's filings relating to Medicredit's summary judgment motion did indicate her belief that she required more discovery in order to fully respond to Medicredit's motion. (Doc. #22).