Brian HAVER, Plaintiff, v. LVNV FUNDING, LLC, Defendant Case No. 21-CV-12893 United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division Signed April 11, 2023 Counsel Carl Schwartz, Credit Repair Lawyers of America, Livonia, MI, for Plaintiff. Boyd William Gentry, Law Office of Boyd W. Gentry, Beavercreek, OH, Katrina Marie DeMarte, DeMarte Law, Novi, MI, for Defendant. Drain, Gershwin A., United States District Judge ORDER: (1) GRANTING MOTION TO COMPEL AND FOR SANCTIONS [ECF NO. 22], (2) EXTENDING DISCOVERY TO ALLOW PLAINTIFF TO TAKE LVNV'S DEPOSITION, (3) ORDERING PLAINTIFF TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANT'S OBJECTIONS TO ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA [ECF NO. 28], AND (4) TAKING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY [ECF NO. 21] UNDER ADVISEMENT I. Introduction *1 Plaintiff Brian Haver brings a complaint against Defendant LVNV Funding LLC (“LVNV”) alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), Michigan Collection Practices Act (“MCPA”), and Michigan Occupational Code. (ECF No. 1.) There are two motions and one objection before the Court. First, on August 23, 2022, Haver moved to quash Defendant's subpoena to depose Haver's counsel, Gary Hansz. (ECF No. 14.) Magistrate Judge Jonathan Grey granted the motion to quash. (ECF No. 24.) LVNV filed an objection to that order on November 3, 2022. (ECF No. 28.) Haver did not respond. Second, on October 7, 2022, Haver filed a Motion to Compel Defendant's Deposition and for Discovery Sanctions. (ECF No. 22.) LVNV responded on October 26, 2022. (ECF No. 26.) Haver did not reply. Third LVNV filed a Motion to Extend Discovery and Dispositive Motion Deadlines on October 7, 2022. (ECF No. 21.) Haver responded on October 21, 2022. (ECF No. 25.) LVNV did not file a reply. The Court held a hearing on these matters on April 10, 2023. (See ECF No. 35.) For the reasons stated below: (1) Haver's Motion to Compel Defendant's Deposition and for Discovery Sanctions (ECF No. 22) is GRANTED, (2) Haver is ORDERED to respond to LVNV's Objection to Order Granting Motion to Quash Subpoena (ECF No. 28) within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS of the date of this Order, and (3) LVNV's Motion to Extend Discovery and Dispositive Motion Deadlines (ECF No. 21) is TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT. II. Factual and Procedural Background The factual background is detailed in Magistrate Judge Grey's Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion to Quash, (ECF No. 24, PageID.192–194), neither party objects to this recitation of facts, and the Court incorporates it below. According to Haver's complaint, LVNV attempted to collect a $15,503.00 debt that Haver owed Citibank NA (“account owed”). (ECF No. 1, PageID.2.) LVNV notated a dispute remark on the account owed. After reviewing his Trans Union and Equifax credit disclosure, Haver saw the dispute remark. (Id.) On October 8, 2021, Credit Repair Lawyers of America (“CRLA”), on behalf of Haver, sent LVNV a “no longer disputes” letter. (Id. at 3.) The letter notified LVNV that Haver no longer disputed the collection item and asked LVNV to remove the dispute comment from the collection item. (Id.) Gary Hansz, a CRLA attorney and Haver's Counsel, signed the “no longer disputes’’ letter. LVNV received the letter on October 20, 2021. On November 19, 2021, Haver obtained his Equifax credit disclosure which showed that LVNV continued to report the collection item and had not removed the dispute comment. (Id.) On November 22, 2021, Haver obtained his Trans Union credit disclosure which still showed the dispute comment. (Id.) Haver alleges that LVNV's failure to remove the dispute notation despite receipt of the letter amounts to a violation of the FDCPA for knowingly reporting false information on Haver's credit report. Haver alleges that, because of the disputed item appearing on his credit score, his score is reporting inaccurately such that he is ineligible for mortgage financing and refinancing. (Id.) Haver seeks pecuniary and emotional damages due to LVNV's failure to remove the dispute remark from the account owed. (Id.) *2 ECF No. 24, PageID.193–94. III. Analysis 1. Haver's Motion to Compel The basis of Haver's Motion to compel is essentially that the parties cannot agree on a date on which to take LVNV's deposition, to which it has already consented. LVNV allegedly waited until the last minute to cancel and attempt to reschedule a deposition that was previously set. (ECF No. 30, PageID.341.) LVNV allegedly provided alternative dates, but those dates were set to occur after the close of discovery. (Id.) LVNV states Defense counsel suggested that the parties file a joint motion for extension of discovery, but Haver opposed the motion. For the reasons discussed on the record during the April 10, 2023, the Court finds sufficient basis to grant Haver's motion to compel LVNV's deposition and to order sanctions. Accordingly, the Court will extend discovery for a period of thirty days for the purposes of taking LVNV's deposition. Additionally, the Court orders LVNV to pay Haver attorneys’ fees in the amount of $500 plus the cost of the court reporter hired for the late-canceled deposition. 2. LVNV's Objection On October 20, 2022, Magistrate Judge Grey entered an order quashing a subpoena sent to Gary Hansz by LVNV. At the time the subpoena was issued, LVNV sought to depose Hansz in an effort to demonstrate, through Hansz's testimony, that the “no longer disputes letter” was untrue at the time it was received on October 20, 2021. (ECF No. 24, PageID.194.) LVNV seeks to prove that Haver never communicated to Hansz or anyone else at CRLA that Haver no longer disputed the account owed. (Id.) Specifically, LVNV represents that it seeks the following information: (1) Whether Mr. Hansz played a role in the “no longer dispute” letter (i.e., Did Mr. Hansz actually represent Plaintiff as his attorney?); (2) Whether Mr. Hansz had a record which indicated that Plaintiff no longer disputed the account; (3) Whether Mr. Hansz was practicing law (or merely allowing his name and letterhead to be used for “credit repair” services) when he authorized the use of his electronic signature and letterhead on the “no longer disputes” letter; and (4) Whether the “no longer disputes” letter was a part of a “credit repair” service offered by a credit repair organization (i.e., Credit Repair Lawyers of America). (ECF No. 28, PageID.223.) Haver later filed a motion to quash, arguing that such information was irrelevant and that communications between Hansz or the CRLA and himself were protected by attorney-client privilege. (Id.) Magistrate Judge Grey's Order reached two conclusions that are challenged here: (1) Gary Hansz has no relevant information because “[a]sking Hansz questions about where he acquired the information attested to in the no longer disputes letter is irrelevant given that Haver provided the answer to those questions.”; and (2) Haver and CRLA established an express attorney-client relationship when they executed a retainer agreement at some point before Hansz sent the no longer disputes letter (ECF No. 24, PageID.196, 198.) *3 The Court requires Haver's response to LVNV's objection regarding these important questions of relevancy and attorney-client privilege. Accordingly, the Court orders Haver to submit a response within fourteen days of the date of this order. LVNV may reply, if it chooses to do so, within seven days after Haver files its response. 3. LVNV's Motion to Extend Discovery and Dispositive Motion Deadlines LVNV says it seeks to extend discovery in order to take Gary Hansz's deposition and conduct other discovery. The motion does not detail with any specificity the need for additional discovery outside of Hansz's deposition. Whether Hansz may be deposed has not been finally resolved by the Court, as Haver's response is needed to make a ruling on LVNV's objection to Magistrate Judge Grey's Order Granting Motion to Quash Subpeona for Gary Hansz. For this reason, LVNV's Motion to Extend Discovery and Dispositive Motion Deadline is TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT. IV. Conclusion Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: Plaintiff's Motion to Compel and for Sanctions (ECF No. 22) is GRANTED. Discovery is EXTENDED for a period of THIRTY (30) DAYS so that Plaintiff may take LVNV's deposition. Discovery is thus extended until May 11, 2023. The parties are ordered to confer and set a date for LVNV's deposition. If either party is unreasonable in making themselves available or unreasonably cancels the deposition without at least seven days’ notice, the court will consider imposing additional sanctions. Defendant is ORDERED to pay attorneys’ fees to Plaintiff in the amount of $500 plus the cost of the court reporter hired for the late-canceled deposition. Plaintiff is ORDERED to respond to Defendant's Objection to Order Granting Motion to Quash Subpoena (ECF NO. 28) within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS of the date of this Order. If Defendant chooses to file a reply in support of its Objections, the reply will be due within SEVEN (7) DAYS of the date Plaintiff files his response. Defendant's Motion to Extend Discovery and Dispositive Motion Deadline (ECF No. 22) is TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT. IT IS SO ORDERED.