defendants answers to interrogatory

8/14/2019 Defendants Answers to Interrogatory

1/10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTMIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA. ORLANDO DIVISION

. JESPlaintiff, CASE NO: 6:10-cvv.

CITI MORTGAGE andCENTRAL CREDIT SERVICES,Defendants.

CITI MORTGAGE ISANSWERS AND OBJECTIONSTO FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33, Defendant CitiMortgage (Citi) submitsthese answers and objections to the First Set of Interrogatories Nos. 1-25 served by JeSllSTacoronte (Plaintiff). Citi reserves the right to supplement, amend, or correct all or any part ofthis response as permitted under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the right to object tothe admissibility of any evidence related to this response.

G E N E R I ~ OBJECTIONS1. Citi objects to the interrogatories to the extent that they seek information or the

production or identification of documents not in the possession, custody or control of Citiwithin the meaning of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the Federal Rules ofEvidence on the grounds that said interrogatories are overbroad, unreasonable, undulyburdensome, improper and that their scope is not limited to information known toCiti.

2. Chi objects to the interrogatories to the extent that they seek information or theidentification and production of documents that constitute, contain or representconfidential, trade secret, or other proprietary and commercially sensitive information of

{TP687578;3 }


2/10

Citi. Citi will produce such documents only upon entry of an appropriate protectiveorder.

3. CHi objects to the interrogatories to the extent that they seek information or theproduction or identification of documents protected by the attorney-client privilege, bythe work product privilege, or by any other privilege.

4. Citi submits these responses without conceding the relevance or materiality of the subjectmatter of any document or information which may be produced 01' identified, and withoutprejudice to Citi's right to object to further discovery or to object to the admissibility ofany proof on the subject matter of any discovery of any document. Citi reserves the rightto change or to supplement any response that may subsequently appear to be incompleteor incorrect. CHi reserves the right to object at such later time that any documentproduced or response given hereunder is protected by the attorney-client privilege, or asattorney work product or trial preparation material, and that the production or responsewas inadvertent

5. In responding to the interrogatories, CHi has conducted a reasonable inquiry of thosepersons most likely to possess information responsive thereto and a reasonable search ofrecords where information interrogatory ed would most likely be maintained. To theextent plaintiffs seek to require Citi to respond further, Citi objects on the grounds thatthe interrogatories are, to said extent, overbroad, unduly burdensome, unreasonable andoppressive.

6. Chi will make any documents identified in response to any interrogatory available forinspection and copying at a time mutually convenient to the parties and their respectivecounsel. y agreeing to produce responsive documentS, Citi does not acknowledge thatsuch documents exist.

{TP687578;31 2


3/10

7. To the extent the interrogatories seek to impose upon Citi any duties 01' requirements inexcess of those specified in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, local rules, orapplicable law, Citi objects to same.

8. Citi objects to each interrogatory to the extent it is repetitive and/or substantially overlapswith other interrogatories. When a response is equally responsive to more than oneinterrogatory, CHi will respond only once.

9. Each of the foregoing general objections is expressly incorporated by reference into eachof the specific responses of Citi to the interrogatories.

ANSWERS ND SPECIFIC OUJECTIONSINTERROGATORY NO 1: Please state the full name, present address, employer, title,and occupation of all persons providing information and documents responsive to theseinterrogatories.ANSWER: Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general objections, Citi objects tothis interrogatory because it expressly calls for information concerning employee contactinformation. Citi further .objeets to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks information for thepurpose of contacting its employees concerning matters within the scope of their employmentwith Chi, on the grounds that such contacts would be improper, unduly burdensome, and incontravention of legal and ethical restrictions on the contact or attempted contact by counsel witha represented party, entity, employee or agent. Signer is l ~ V \ O Sf}- ; and can becontacted through counsel.INTERROGATORY NO.2: Please identify all individuals known to you or your attorneywho are witnesses to the events descdbed in Plaintiffs complaint or to any event which isthe subject of any defense you have raised to this lawsuit. For each such person, pleaseprovide a brief summary of facts to which each might 01' could testify. Also for each suchperson, please state the following:

(a) Please state whether each such person is affiliated with, or related to, oremployed by any party (or its agents, servants, officers, or employees) to thislawsuit;(TP68757&;3} 3


4/10

(b) any of the persons so listed in i'esponse to this interrogatory do not it thecharacterization in subpart A above, please describe the nature of theh'involvement in this lawsuit;(c) Please explain and describe your understanding of their knowledge of suchfacts.

ANSWER: Citi has not identified any witnesses, but reserves the right to supplement thisresponse. Citi also refers Plaintiff to Citi's Initial Disclosures.INTEUROGATORY NO.3: Please identify each employee or non-employee expert witnessyou believe may have formed any opinion or consulted with you about the facts or basis ofthis lawsuit or any defense 01' allegation you have raised in this lawsuit.ANSWER: CHi has not identified any expert witnesses.INTERROGATORY NO.4: Please identify all individuals known to you or your attorneywho are not witnesses, but who you have reason to believe have lmowledge pertinent to theevents at issues as alleged in the complaint, and provide a brief summary of the' facts towhich each such person could testify. For each person, please state the following:(a) Please state whether each such person is affiliated with, or related to, oremployed by anyparty (or its agents, servants, officers, or employees) to thislawsuit;(b) any of the persons so listed in response to this interrogatory do not fit thecharacterization in subpart A above, please describe the nature of theirinvolvement in th,s lawsuit;(c) Please explain and describe your understanding of their knowledge of suchfacts.ANSWER: Citi refers Plaintiff to its Initial Disclosures and to all documents provided inCiti's response to Plaintiffs request for production of documents.INTERROGATORY NO.5: Please state whether any of the individuals listed in theanswers to the preceding interrogatories have given any statement(s) to you and, if so,please identify the individual giving the statement, identify the individual to wbom thestatement was given, the date of the statement, and whether or not the statement waswritten or recorded and, if it was written or recorded, identify the individual presently inpossession of it.ANSWER: Chi does not have any such statement').INTERROGATORY NO.6: Please provide the date, time, and method that the Plaintiffprovided permission for the Defendant to call Plaintiffs cell phone, if any.OnmCT: Citi objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it invades the attorney-client,work-product privileges, or information protected y the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Safeguards Rule{TP687578;31 4


5/10

and enforced by the Federal Trade Commission. 12 U.S.C. 1811 el seq ; 16 C.F.R. 313 etseq Subject to said objections, Citi states that its regularly kept business records do not reflectany attempts to communicate with Plaintiff regarding any alleged debt within the time-framealleged by the Plaintiff in his complaint. To the extent this interrogatory is intended to relate tocalls that may have been made prior to the time-frame alleged in the complaint, Citi objects tothe interrogatory as irrelevant, vague, overly broad and unduly burdensome and not reasonablycalculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.INTERROGATORY NO.7: Please list, explain, and describe documents )mown to you 01believed by you to exist concerning the communications and events described in Plaintiffscomplaint or concerning any event which is the subject of any defense you have raised tothis lawsuit.OBJECTIONS AND ANSWER: Citi objects to this request to the extent that it invades theattol l1ey-client, work-product privileges, or information protected by the G r a m m L e a c h ~ B l i l e ySafeguards Rule and enforced by the Federal Trade Commission. 2 U.S.C. 1811 et seq ; 6C.F.R. 313 et seq Citi further 0 bjects on the basis that the interrogatory is irrelevant, vague,overly broad and unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence. Subject to said objections, and to the extent that they exist in Citi s cllstodyor control, Chi refers Plaintif f to documents attached to the request for production as Bates Nos.CMI-2 000027-000072, pursuant to Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure 33 and 34.INTERROGATORYNO.8: Please list each exhibit which you may attempt to introduce asevidence at the trial of this case, or which has been used or referred to by any expertwitness on your behalf.ANSWER: Citi has not determined which exhibits may be introduced as evidence.INTERROGATORY NO.9: For each paragraph of Plaintiffs complaint which you denythe allegations, please explain and describe any facts which you believe may support eachdenial.ANSWER: Citi states that Citi s regularly kept business records do not reflect any calls toPlaintiff within the time frame alleged in the complaint; Plaintiff is not a consumer or borrower{TP687578;4} 5


6/10

within the meaning of the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act 01' the Fair Debt CollectionPractices Act; and Citi is not a debt collector within the meaning of the Fair Debt Collection

Practices Act.INTERROGATORY NO. 10: Have you ever been involved in any other legal action, eitheras a Defendant 01' a Plaintiff where allegations were raised concerning violations of theTelephone Consumer Protection Act, Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the FloridaConsumer Collection Practices Act, and/or the Fair Credit Reporting Act? f so, pleasestate:

(a) The date and place each such action was filed identifying the other party orparties involved, the d o l ~ e t number of such actions, and the names of theattorneys representing each party;(b) descdption of the nature of each such action; and(c) The result of each such action, whether there was an appeal and the result ofthe appeal, and whether such case was reported and the name, volumenumber, and page citation of the report.

OBJECT: Citi objects to the interrogatory as irrelevant, vague, overly broad and undulyburdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.INTERROGATORY NO. 11: Please explain and describe any complaints or reprimandsyou have had about any individual who engaged in any communication with Plaintiff,regardless of the nature of the complaint(s) or reprimand(s).OBJECT: Citi objects to this interrogatory to the extent it invades the attorney-client orwork-product privileges. Hi further objects to this interrogatory because it is overly broad,unduly burdensome and not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.Notwithstanding this objection, and subject to same, Hi states that its regularly kept businessrecords do not reflect communication by "any individual" with the Plaintiff within the allegedtime-frame in the complaint, and thus Citi has no information responsive to this interrogatory.INTERROGATORY NO. 12: Please pl'ovide the manufacturer or program name of theauto dialer or predicts dialer referenced iu exhibit "A".ANSWEU: Hi objects to this interrogatory as no exhibit "A" was attached to theinterrogatories. Citi further objects to this Interrogatory as it seeks private, confidential, tradesecret and proprietary documents that are not subject to disclosure.ITP687578;3} 6


7/10

INTERROGATORY NO. 13: Please explain with detail what Dialer Attmptll and MachLeft Script MesH means.ANSWER: Citi objects to the interrogatory as irrelevant, vague, overly broad and undulyburdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.INTERROGATORY NO. 14: Please list, describe, and explain in detail each item imposedupon any alleged account of the Plaintiff on which you were attempting to collect, theamount of each charge imposed, the date of each charge imposed, the nature of each chargeimposed, and the legal basis fol' each charge imposed which in any way added to theamount allegedly due by Plaintiff.ANSWER: Citi objects to this interrogatory as it is not a debt collector. Hi also objects tothis request to the extent that it invades the attorney-client, work-product privileges, orinformation protected by the Gl'amm-Leach-Bliley Safeguards Rule and enforced by the FederalTrade Commission. 12 U.S.C. 1811 et seq ; 16 CF.R. 313 et seq Hi objects to theinterrogatory as irrelevant, vague, overly broad and unduly burdensome and not reasonablycalculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.INTERROGATORY NO. 15: Please list, describe, and explain the legal basis you believeyou had for the attempted collection of auy alleged debt from the Plaintiff.ANSWER: Citi objects to this interrogatory as it is not a debt collector. Citi further objectsto this interrogatory to the extent that it seeks private, confidential, trade secret and proprietarydocuments that are not subject to disclosure. Citi further objects as the interrogatory isirrelevant, vague, overly broad and unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead tothe discovery of admissible evidence.INTERROGATORY NO. 16: Please list, describe, and explain the terms of any agreementor contract you had with any alleged original creditor andlor any other debt collector.ANSWER: Citi objects to this interrogatory as it is not a debt collector. Citi also objects tothis interrogatory because it is overly broad, unduly burdensome and not likely to lead to thediscovery of admissible evidence. Chi further objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it

{TP687578;3 ) 7


8/10

seeks private, confidential, trade secret and proprietary documents that are not subject todisclosure.INTERROGATORY NO. 17: Please list, describe, and explain your policies andprocedures to comply with the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, Fair Debt CollectionPractices Act, the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act, andlor the Fair reditReporting Act.ANSWER: Citi objects to this interrogatory because it is overly broad, unduly burdensomeand not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and seeks the discovery of private,confidential, trade secret, and proprietary information.INTERROGATORY NO. 18: Please list, describe, and explain each and every instance inwhich you violated any portion of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, Fair DebtCollection Practices Act, the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act, andlor the FairCredit Reporting Act with regards to Plaintiff fl'om June 2006 to the present.ANSWER: Citi objects to this interrogatory because it is overly broad, unduly burdensome,not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and calls for a legal conclusion.INTERROGATORY NO. 19: Please list, describe, and explain each and every instance inwhich you violated any portion of your own policies and procedures with regards toPlaintiff from June 2006 to the present.ANSWER: Citi objects to this interrogatory because it is overly broad, unduly burdensomeand not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Citi also objects to thisinterrogatory to the extent that it seeks private, confidential, trade secret and proprietarydocuments that are not subject to disclosure.INTERROGATORY NO. 20: Please provide an audio copy of the Virtual Message andScript Message referred to in exhibit IIA.ltANSWER: CHi objects to this interrogatory as no exhibit A was attached to theinterrogatories. Citi also objects as this interrogatory seems to seek the production of evidencerather than an answer and so it is not a proper interrogatory.INTERROGATORY NO. 21: Please provide the training program Citi provides itsemployees in regards to circumventing the TCPA, FDCPA, FCCPA, and the FCRA.{TP687578;3}


9/10

ANSWER: Citi objects to this interrogatory because to it is overly broad, unduly burdensomeand not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and seeks the discovery of

proprietary information.INTERROGATORY NO. 22: Please show bow Citi and tile original creditor complied withFL. Stat. 559.715.ANSWER: Citi objects to this interrogatory because its reference to the statute is vague, anduse of the term original creditor is not defined. Citi further objects in that the interrogatoryseeks a legal opinion, is overly broad, unduly burdensome and not likely to lead to the discoveryof admissible evidence, and seeks the discovery of proprietary information.INTERROGATORY NO. 23: Please provide a list of outbound phone calls made to tbefollowing pllone llumber .-- and from September 2006 thrupresent.ANSWER: Citi objects to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks information about aconsumer not a patty to this action. Citi also objects on the basis that the interrogatory invadesthe attorney-client, work-product privileges, 01 information protected by the Gramm-Leach-

Bliley Safeguards Rule and enforced by the Federal Trade Commission. 12 U.S.C. 1811 etseq ; 16 C.F.R. 313 t seq Subject to said objections, Citi states that its regularly kept businessrecords do not reflect outbound calls to , . - . - - --14 and, 4 within the t i m e ~ framealleged by the Pla intiff in his complaint. To the extent this interrogatory is intended to relate tocalls that may have been made prior to the t i m e ~ f r m e alleged in the complaint, Citi objects toinformation as ilTelevant, vague, overly broad and unduly burdensome and not reasonablycalculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to, and without waiver of saidobjections, and to the extent that they exist in Citi's possession, custody, 01' control, Citi refersPlaint iff to the responsive, relevant, n o n ~ p r i v i l e g e d documents attached to request for productionas Bates No. CMI-2 000027-000072, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 34.

{TP687578;4 } 9


10/10

INTERROGATORY NO. 24: Please provide a detailed explanation of all the codesl'eferenced in the attached exhibit.ANSWER: Citi objects to this interrogatory as no exhibit "A" was attached to theinterrogatories.INTERROGATORY NO. 25: Please provide the system or process Citi uses in order toidentify the difference between home phones, cell phones, and phones on the National DoNot Call list in ordcl' to comply with Federal Laws.ANSWER: Citi objects to this Intel1'0gatory as it seeks private, confidential, trade secret andpl'Oprietary information that is not subject to disclosure, Citi further objects to information asirrelevant, vague, overly broad and unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead tothe discovery of admissible evidence.

C r r r M O R T G ~By: 7 ~ - ~

Print name: Kev \ S ( ) ~ , + hTitle: i u5\Q es 7 QpecQ,horJS , A n ~ I / ' ~

STATE OF MVnDIUl.\COUNTY OF ~ \ , OJ\U V\{The foregoing instrument was sworn to and subscribed before me this day of March, 2011,by ~ V \ y \ )tv\\W1 , as ~ \ j W tz ~ g H C \ b O N l Ov)A1't0'ist for CITIMORTGAGE.He/She is:o personally known to me; or% produced a driver's license issued by the M\tO\l \ of Highway Safety andMotor Vehicles as identification; 01'o produced the following identification: :== : : _

WHITN Y A W ~NotaryPublic - Notary e a lState of MissouriSt. Charles CountyCommission # 09910070 . (Print, Type or tamp Commissioned Name ofMy COmmisSion Expires December 16 2013 Notary Public)

ITP687578;3} 10

defendants answers to interrogatory

Documents