VINAS v. CREDIT BUREAU OF NAPA COUNTY, INC., DKC 14-3270. (2015)
Court: District Court, D. Maryland
Number: infdco20150824847
Visitors: 1
Filed: Aug. 21, 2015
Latest Update: Aug. 21, 2015
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DEBORAH K. CHASANOW , District Judge . Presently pending is Plaintiff's motion to compel Defendant to respond to Interrogatory no. 16: "State whether Chase's net worth is equal to or exceeds $50,000,000. If not, set forth the description and value of each of Chase's assets and liabilities." Chase objected "on the grounds that the Plaintiff would only be entitled to said information after an Order by the Court certifying this lawsuit as a proper class action pursuant to
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DEBORAH K. CHASANOW , District Judge . Presently pending is Plaintiff's motion to compel Defendant to respond to Interrogatory no. 16: "State whether Chase's net worth is equal to or exceeds $50,000,000. If not, set forth the description and value of each of Chase's assets and liabilities." Chase objected "on the grounds that the Plaintiff would only be entitled to said information after an Order by the Court certifying this lawsuit as a proper class action pursuant to F..
More
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
DEBORAH K. CHASANOW, District Judge.
Presently pending is Plaintiff's motion to compel Defendant to respond to Interrogatory no. 16: "State whether Chase's net worth is equal to or exceeds $50,000,000. If not, set forth the description and value of each of Chase's assets and liabilities." Chase objected "on the grounds that the Plaintiff would only be entitled to said information after an Order by the Court certifying this lawsuit as a proper class action pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23."
Plaintiff contends that net worth information is relevant to statutory damages recoverable pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(2)(B), and that the case has not been bifurcated in any manner between merits and damages. Defendant did not respond to Plaintiff's motion to compel.
Defendant will be directed to respond to Interrogatory no. 16. Neither party objected to the unified scheduling order. Discovery closes September 16, 2015, and motions are due October 16. Accordingly, it is this 21st day of August, 2015, by the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion to compel (ECF No. 34) BE, and the same hereby IS GRANTED, and Defendant is directed to respond to Interrogatory no. 16 within 7 days.
Source: Leagle
