ORDER (1) DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL AND (2) DENYING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

[Doc. No. 65]

KAREN S. CRAWFORD, Magistrate Judge.

Before the Court is the parties' Joint Motion for resolution of a discovery dispute. [Doc. No. 65]. Plaintiffs request this Court compel defendant, DNF Associates, LLC ("DNF"), to provide responsive documents to multiple requests for production. [Id.]. Defendants object on several grounds, including the argument that the documents requested are outside the scope of discovery authorized by the Court at this time. [Id. at pp. 19-20]. Plaintiffs Motions are DENIED for the reasons discussed in greater detail, below.

DISCUSSION

This Court issued a prior Order granting plaintiffs Motion to Compel on November 28, 2017. [Doc. No. 63]. Therein, the Court approved discovery regarding DNF's financial net worth because it is relevant to an eventual motion for class certification, and took care to note that "discovery at this time should be focused on issues surrounding class certification." [Id. at p. 4, n. 2]. However, the fact that some information relevant to class certification might also be relevant to the underlying merits is not a basis for a party to refuse engaging in discovery.

Plaintiff requests that this Court compel defendant, DNF, to respond to Requests for Production 1-16 seeking information regarding DNF's practice of retaining independent law firms to collect on debts it owns. [Doc. No. 65, at pp. 4-17]. Plaintiff contends this information is critical to rebut defendant's arguments in its Motion for Summary Judgment. [Id. at p. 17]. Plaintiffs Motion again misconstrues and overstates the appropriate scope of discovery at this time. The Court's prior Order resolving a discovery dispute explained that plaintiff "overstate^] the degree to which current discovery efforts can look beyond a motion for class certification." [Doc. No. 63 at p. 4, n. 2]. Plaintiff fails to explain how the requested information is relevant to class certification, and fails to cite relevant case authority to support his position.1 The Court cannot see any reasonable use of the requested information for purposes of seeking class certification.

Moreover, DNF has filed a single Motion for Summary Judgment in this case, and it was dismissed as moot by the District Court on October 20,2017. [Doc. No. 42]. The only pending Motions for Summary Judgment are those filed by plaintiff against defendant, Account Discovery Systems ("ADS"), and by ADS against plaintiff. [Doc. Nos. 44, 60]. Notably defendant ADS acknowledges it is a debt collector as defined in the FDCPA [Doc. No. 60 at pp. 5-11], which suggests erroneous drafting by plaintiff in the instant Motion. The Court recognizes that DNF denies it is a debt collector under the FDCPA in its Motion to Dismiss filed on October 26, 2017.2 [Doc. No. 48]. Whether DNF's Motion to Dismiss is the Motion plaintiff references in his portion of the instant Joint Motion is unclear. Regardless, plaintiff does not explain how his discovery requests are made relevant by a dismissed Motion, or address whether he seeks additionalTdiscovery ihTight of the pending Motion to Dismiss. Further, for the reasons stated above, the discovery at issue is premature as it is not relevant to the issue of class certification.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons discussed above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED plaintiffs Motion to Compel is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs Motion for Sanctions is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.