Disovery letter completed, please critique...

[WantItBetterCredit]

Someone posted this letter and I thought it was great. Please review and tell me what you think.

To whom it may concern:

I, myself, listed as the defendant in C.A. No. #3, are initiating a request for discovery. According to the State of Delaware’s Court of Common Pleas Civil Rule 34, I have the right to be supplied with any and all documents related to this case. CAVALRY PORTFOLIO SERVICES LLC AS ASSIGNEE OF CAVALRY SPV I LLC has thirty (30) days to respond from the date this request is received with all of the documents requested below. Such should be mailed to the defendant at the address listed below.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

“Document” means any written, recorded or graphic matter, whether produced, reproduced or stored on papers, cards, tapes, belts, or computer devices or any other medium in your possession, custody or control, or known by you to exist, and includes originals, all copies of originals, and all prior drafts. It includes all original business records, non-identical copies, computations, memoranda of oral or telephone conversations, tabulations, records of correspondence, notes made on other documents, microfilms, etc. A request to identify a document is a request to state as applicable:

1. The date of the document;

2. The type of document;

3. The names and present addresses of the person or persons who prepared the document and of the signers and addressers of the document;

4. The name of the employer or principal whom the signers, addressers and preparers were representing;

5. The present location of the document;

6. The name and current business and home addresses of the present custodians of the original document, and any copies of it;

7. A summary of the contents of the document; and

8. If the original document was destroyed, the date and reason for or

circumstances by which it was destroyed.

1. The alleged credit application from “Citibank, N.A.”, bearing the plaintiff’s signature;

2. The alleged credit agreement from “Citibank, N.A” that states interest rate, grace period, terms of repayment, et cetera;

3. Itemized statements or credit card statements from “Citibank, N.A” that demonstrate how the alleged amount of $ plus interest at the rate of 24.99% was calculated;

4. A contract, agreement, assignment, or other means demonstrating that CAVALRY PORTFOLIO SERVICES LLC AS ASSIGNEE OF CAVALRY SPV I LLC had the authority and capacity, and was legally entitled to collect on the alleged debt from Citibank, N.A.

5. Letter(s) sent to plaintiff by CAVALRY PORTFOLIO SERVICES LLC AS ASSIGNEE OF CAVALRY SPV I LLC, demonstrating an attempt to collect on the alleged debt “Citibank, N.A”;

6. A notarized statement, if presently existing or otherwise, by a person with original knowledge of the alleged debt, as it was constituted, and who can testify, or be so interrogated in a deposition, that the alleged debt was incurred legally;

7. Any and all further documents that you believe establish that plaintiff had an outstanding account or debt related to “Citibank, N.A”;

8. Any further documentation, beyond what has been previously requested, that clearly establishes plaintiff’s liability and/or responsibility to the alleged debt;

9. Any and all written communication, received by the defendant from the plaintiff, regarding the reporting of the alleged account to any credit reporting agency, as well as defendant’s accessing of plaintiff’s credit report(s).

10. Any and all communications from defendant to the plaintiff explaining

why defendant reported the alleged debt to any credit reporting agency, as well as obtaining plaintiff’s credit report(s);

11. Any and all credit report(s) defendant obtained from any credit reporting agency concerning the plaintiff;

12. Any and all notes, memoranda, or likewise, be they handwritten, computerized, or typed, regularly kept in the normal transaction and business of collecting debts, that relate to the plaintiff and/or

“Citibank, N.A”;

13. The defendant’s Articles of Incorporation;

[Lecasbas]

Looks good enough to me but don't be surprised if the Plaintiff doesn't send any more documents than you already have received.

One more thing you might ask for is documentation to it's authority to pull your credit report as I am going to assume it did. There is a recent court ruling which states that FACTA cleary establishes that only an OC can do this because it has done a transaction with the debtor whereas no one else, including a CA, can unless they themselves have also done a transation with the debtor.

Then you will need to amend your Counterclaims to include this infraction of FCRA (FACTA later came along to clear up some of the ambiguities of the FCRA). You can ask for another $1000 statutory damages.

Of course, if my assumtion is wrong and the CA did not do a hard pull on your CR then this Request for Documentation and concomitant Counterclaim become moot.

[cuthatcard]

One more thing you might ask for is documentation to it's authority to pull your credit report as I am going to assume it did. There is a recent court ruling which states that FACTA cleary establishes that only an OC can do this because it has done a transaction with the debtor whereas no one else, including a CA, can unless they themselves have also done a transation with the debtor.

Where could this be found as it may apply to my case as well.

[Lecasbas]

We dealt with this issue in another thread. I could direct you to that thread if you wish but this excerpt explains precisely why it is now a violation of the FCRA for a CA to do a hard pull on a Debtor's CR.

CLIFTON, Circuit Judge:

Maria E. Pintos appeals the district court’s summary adjudication

of her claims under the Fair Credit Reporting Act

(“FCRA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq. Pintos contends that

Pacific Creditors Association violated the FCRA by obtaining,

without any FCRA-sanctioned purpose, a credit report on

her from Experian Information Solutions, Inc., a credit reporting

agency. Pintos also argues that Experian violated the

FCRA by furnishing the report to PCA.

The district court granted summary judgment in favor of

the defendants. Relying on our decision in Hasbun v. County

of Los Angeles, 323 F.3d 801 (9th Cir. 2003), the court held

that PCA was authorized to obtain Pintos’s credit report under

15 U.S.C. § 1681b(a)(3)(A) because it was attempting to collect

a debt from Pintos. Hasbun held that debt collection was

a permissible purpose for obtaining a credit report, but we

decided that case prior to the enactment of the Fair and Accurate

Credit Transactions Act of 2003 (“FACTA”), Pub. L. No.

108-159, 117 Stat. 1952. FACTA makes clear that debt collection

is a permissible purpose for obtaining a credit report

under § 1681b(a)(3)(A) only in connection with a “credit

transaction” in which a consumer has participated directly and

voluntarily. Because PCA obtained a credit report on Pintos

unrelated to any such transaction, we reverse the district court

with respect to Pintos’s claims against PCA and remand for

further proceedings with respect to damages and to Experian’s

liability.

Hard or soft pull is not addressed here and could be assumed to be immaterial since neither the Appellant nor the Appellee chose to argue it's merit.

You can download this entire case and FACTA from this site:

www.michigancollectionlawblog.com/

Page down until you find this title:

Pulling credit bureaus just got even more dangerous

This site seems to be neutral with it's information, that is, it seems to put forth the facts as it sees them regardless to whether it's audience is a debtor or debt collector. Right now there seem to be several articles which are interestingly tilted toward the debtor.