Bottoni et al v. SLM Corporation et al
Filing
99
ORDER RE DISCOVERY LETTER: re 74 Letter filed by Paul Roberts, Shawnee Silva, Angelo Bottoni, Tracie Serrano; 75 Letter filed by Paul Roberts, Shawnee Silva, Angelo Bottoni, Tracie Serrano. Signed by Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler on 8/30/2012. (ls, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/30/2012)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
Northern District of California
10
San Francisco
ANGELO BOTTONI, et al.,
12
For the Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
11
No. C 10-03602 LB
Plaintiffs,
ORDER RE DISCOVERY LETTER
v.
13
SALLIE MAE, INC.,
14
15
Defendant.
_____________________________________/
16
17
I. INTRODUCTION
This putative diversity class action involves claims that Defendant Sallie Mae assessed
18
collection charges of 25% of the principal and interest due (regardless of the actual collection costs
19
incurred) against borrowers who defaulted on their private student loans. See Second Amended
20
Complaint, ECF No. 37. The parties filed a joint discovery letter about whether Sallie Mae
21
responded sufficiently to RFP 4, which requests all documents that reflect or relate to third-party
22
debt collectors’ costs of collecting Sallie Mae private loans from borrowers who defaulted. See
23
Joint Letter, ECF No. 97 at 1.
24
The issue at the last discovery hearing was whether Sallie Mae had possession or control of the
25
documents. Sallie Mae points out that in the court’s last order, it deferred ordering this production
26
in part because Rule 45 subpoenas were outstanding. See id. at 3-4. But part of the court’s analysis
27
– as discussed on the record -- was that Plaintiffs did not have Sallie Mae’s contracts yet. See Order,
28
ECF No. 91 at 3. Now, Plaintiffs say that those contracts require the collectors to provide Sallie
C 10-03602 LB
ORDER RE DISCOVERY LETTERS
1
Mae with certain reports that include financial statements, recovery analysis, and other information
2
responsive to Plaintiff’s RFP. See Joint Letter, ECF No. 97 at 1. Presuming that Sallie Mae actually
3
got those financial documents and information, Plaintiffs ask for the documents and information in
4
Sallie Mae’s possession. See id. at 3. It was not the court’s intent to require Plaintiffs to get
5
information by Rule 45 subpoena that Sallie Mae posses.1
6
Sallie Mae also argues that the information is not relevant. The court’s view is that for the
7
reasons cited by Plaintiff, it is. The court is not persuaded that Sallie Mae’s arguments about the
8
differences between California Civil Code sections 1671(b) and 1671(d) should foreclose discovery.
9
The idea is that liquidated damages are supposed to be a fair estimate of actual costs at the time of
average compensation for any damages that might be sustained. See Ridgley v. Topa Thrift & Loan
12
For the Northern District of California
the contract or a reasonable endeavor by the parties to estimate at the time of the contract a fair
11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10
Ass’n, 17 Cal. 4th 970, 977 (1998).
13
The court also is not persuaded that 2002 – the time Sallie Mae established the penalty – is the
14
only relevant time period to assess the reasonableness of a liquidated damages penalty imposed on
15
default. On this record, the court cannot conclude that Plaintiffs seek irrelevant information.
16
Sallie Mae also says that Plaintiffs have not explained why the financial statements and
17
information they seek have a loan-by-loan itemization of the collecting agency’s own collection
18
costs. Joint Letter, ECF No. 97 at 5 (observing that Plaintiffs’ subpoenas have not revealed such
19
information “so there is no reason to believe that Sallie Mae’s documents would contain that
20
information”). But Sallie Mae has the documents, and it is not a very strong argument to say that
21
Plaintiffs ought to show why the documents actually contain relevant information. And Sallie Mae
22
does not argue burden.
23
24
In sum, on this record, the court orders disclosure, finding that the information is relevant to
whether the 25% charge is an unlawful collection penalty.
25
III. CONCLUSION
26
27
28
1
Plaintiffs ask only for “documents and information in Sallie Mae’s possession, consistent
with . . . [the court’s June 1, 2012] order.” See Joint Letter, ECF No. 97 at 3.
C 10-03602 LB
ORDER RE DISCOVERY LETTERS
2
1
2
This disposes of ECF Nos. 74 and 75.
3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
4
Dated: August 30, 2012
_______________________________
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
For the Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
11
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
C 10-03602 LB
ORDER RE DISCOVERY LETTERS
3
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
