motion compel production for Asset Accept please critique

[Brillianthoney]

1. On November 30, 2004 Defendant mailed her first discovery demand to Plaintiff/Plaintiff’s counsel, .

2. On January 05, 2005 Defendant mailed Plaintiff/Plaintiff’s counsel a letter concerning the unanswered discovery demand sent on November 30, 2004 and requested answers within seven days.

3. On February 03, 2005 Defendant mailed Plaintiff/Plaintiff’s attorney a third letter requesting discovery demand be answered within seven days or motion to compel discovery would be filed.

4. On February 22, 2005 Defendant received Plaintiff/Plaintiff’s counsel response to her discovery demand. In the response, Plaintiff/Plaintiff’s counsel objected to interrogatory number four requesting copies of all insurance claims made by any creditor relevant to the action which plaintiff has or can get on the grounds that the request was overbroad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant, and requests business records prepared by plaintiff and plaintiff’s attorneys that are protected by trade secret, attorney-client, and attorney work product privilege.

5. Among the areas that have been held discoverable in FDCPA cases are:

(a) The source of a debt and the amount a bad debt buyer paid for debt, 213 (D. Conn. 1998); Coppola v. Arrow Financial Services, 302 CV577, 2002 WL 32173704 (D. Conn., Oct 29, 2000); Kimbro v. IC System, 301 CV1676, 2002 WL 1816820 (D. Conn. July 22, 2002).

( How amount sought was calculated. Coppola v. Arrow Financial Services, 302 CV577, 2002 WL 32173704 (D. Conn., Oct 29, 2000); Kimbro v. IC System, 301 CV1676, 2002 WL 1816820 (D. Conn. July 22, 2002).

6. Coppola v. Arrow Financial Services, 302 CV577, 2002 WL 32173704 (D. Conn., Oct 29, 2000)-“Information relating to the purchase of a bad debt is not proprietary or burdensome [emphasis added]. Debtor must phrase their request clearly to obtain: The source of a debt and the amount a bad debt buyer paid for plaintiff’s debt, how amount sought was calculated, where in issue a list of reports to credit bureaus, and documents conferring authority on defendant to collect debt.”

7. In order to receive the protection of attorney-client privilege, a communication must, inter alia, be made for the purpose of securing primarily either

(a) an opinion on law,

( legal services, or

© assistance in some legal proceeding.

In re Sealed Case, 737 F.2d 94, 98-99 (D.C. Cir. 1984). The privilege does not extend to the provision of business or other non-legal advice simply because a lawyer happens to be involved. Communications with a lawyer that relate primarily to non-legal purposes, for example, business, technical or corporate public relations purposes, are not privileged. See, e.g., Fine v. Facet Aerospace Prods. Co., 133 F.R.D. 439, 444 (S.D.N.Y. 1990) (report not privileged where communications by in-house counsel were likely made for general business purposes and the report contained no legal advice); United States Postal Service v. Phelps Dodge Ref. Corp, 852 F.Supp. 156, 163 (E.D.N.Y. 1994) (communications relating to lobbying and legislative activities between in-house counsel and law firm retained to lobby not privileged). Under these principles, it is clear that if, for example, Asset Acceptance LLC routinely maintains business records of its purchase of a defaulted debt or Providian Bank routinely maintains business records of its accounts charged to profit and loss, the business records would not be privileged.

Does number seven apply? Are business records considered communication?

8. The Defendant, , requests that Plaintiff/Plaintiff’s counsel be ordered to provide immediately copies of all insurance claims made by any creditor relevant to the action which plaintiff has or can get.

Dated this ___ day of February 2005.

Respectfully Submitted,