*1 Plaintiff Sherry Booker brought this putative class action under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. (“FDCPA”). The case arises from a letter sent to Ms. Booker by Defendant Cheadle Law in an attempt to collect a debt on behalf of a third party. Among other things, Ms. Booker alleges that Cheadle Law misled her in this letter by using the term “obligation,” referring to a pending lawsuit, and claiming a high amount of attorney's fees. Cheadle Law denies making any actionable misrepresentations. Ms. Booker has filed a Motion to Compel Discovery Responses, arguing that Cheadle Law is wrongfully withholding documents that have been properly requested in discovery, and is acting in bad faith, warranting sanctions. Docket No. 45. Cheadle Law has filed a Response in Opposition, contending that the withheld documents are either irrelevant or protected from discovery by confidentiality agreements or by Cheadle Law's obligations under the Rules of Professional Responsibility, including the attorney-client privilege. Docket No. 50. Ms. Booker has filed a Reply. Docket No. 51. The Parties have also filed a Joint Statement regarding the discovery dispute. Docket No. 45-1.

A. Discovery Under the Federal Rules and Motions to Compel

Discovery in federal court is governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which provide that a party may request production of documents or other tangible items as long as the information sought is within the scope of discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). In general, the scope of discovery extends to nonprivileged information that is relevant to any party's claim or defense, regardless of whether the information sought is admissible, that is “proportional to the needs of the case.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The Rules were amended, effective December 1, 2015, in part to address the alleged costs and abuses attendant to discovery. Under Rule 26, “[t]here is now a specific duty for the court and the parties to consider discovery in the light of its ‘proportional[ity] to the needs of the case ....’ ” Turner v. Chrysler Grp. LLC, No. 3:14-1747, 2016 WL 323748 at *1, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11133 at *2, (M.D. Tenn. Jan. 27, 2016), quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The following factors are relevant to a consideration of whether the scope of discovery is proportional:

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) (numbering added). “Nevertheless, the scope of discovery is, of course, within the broad discretion of the trial court.” United States v. Carell, No. 3:09-0445, 2011 WL 2078023 at *1, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57435 at *5 (M.D. Tenn. May 26, 2011), quoting Lewis v. ACB Bus. Servs., Inc., 135 F.3d 389, 402 (6th Cir. 1998) (internal quotation marks omitted).

*2 After making a good faith effort to resolve a dispute related to a request, a party may move for an order compelling discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1). The moving party “must demonstrate that the requests are relevant to the claims or defenses in the pending action.” Carell, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57435 at *5, quoting Anderson v. Dillard's, Inc., 251 F.R.D. 307, 309-10 (W.D. Tenn. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). “If relevancy is shown, the party resisting discovery bears the burden of demonstrating why the request is unduly burdensome or otherwise not discoverable under the Federal Rules.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

B. The Attorney-Client Privilege

The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has established the following elements with regard to attorney-client privilege:

Arkwright Mutual Ins. Co. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co., No. 93-3084, 19 F.3d 1432, 1994 WL 58999 at *–––– – ––––, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 3828 at *17-18 (6th Cir. Feb. 25, 1994), quoting U.S. v. Goldfarb, 328 F.2d 280 (6th Cir. 1964). The party asserting the attorney-client privilege has the burden of demonstrating that the privilege applies. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5); In re Grand Jury Investigation No. 83-2-35, 723 F.2d 447, 450 (6th Cir. 1983).

C. The Disputed Document Requests[1]

3. All agreements between you and the original creditor of the debt as it relates to the amount of attorneys' fees and costs that you sought to collect from Plaintiff.

Ms. Booker contends that these documents are relevant because:

Docket No. 45, p. 9.

Cheadle Law's Response does not address the individual Document Requests; rather, it makes arguments regarding the Requests globally. See Docket No. 50. Cheadle Law essentially argues that it has already provided some documents in discovery, and that any further production should wait until the Court rules on two pending motions, Cheadle Law's Motion for Summary Judgment and Ms. Booker's Motion for Class Certification. Id. Cheadle Law contends that this is particularly true because “Plaintiff has since conceded in her discovery responses that she has no actual damages.” Id. at 2. Cheadle Law also alludes to the fact that its files “concern numerous creditors, all of which are Defendant's clients, the contents of which are protected by ethical and contractual restrictions for [sic] disclosure.” Id. at 3. In its discovery responses, Cheadle Law asserted the attorney-client privilege with regard to this Request. Docket No. 45-4, p. 13.

The Court finds that the documents sought by Request No. 3 are relevant to Ms. Booker's claims. Cheadle Law thus has “the burden of demonstrating why the request is unduly burdensome or otherwise not discoverable under the Federal Rules.” Carell, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57435 at *5. Cheadle Law does not argue that the request is unduly burdensome; however, it has asserted the attorney-client privilege. See Docket Nos. 50, 45-4. This Court has previously stated that “the attorney-client privilege has been held not to protect billing records, agreements for legal services, and payments of legal fees by the client or by third parties.” Patterson v. N. Cent. Tel. Coop. Corp., No. 2:11-0115, 2013 WL 5236645, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135608 (M.D. Tenn. 2013), citing Humphreys, Hutcheson and Moseley v. Donovan, 755 F.2d 1211, 1218 (6th Cir. 1985). Cheadle Law has not provided any information that would establish that the documents sought by this Request are protected by the attorney-client privilege as defined by the Sixth Circuit. Cheadle Law's discussion of the privilege is restricted to referring to its status as a law firm and quoting the deposition testimony of John Cheadle, its designee. See Docket No. 50. As the party asserting the privilege, Cheadle Law has the burden of demonstrating that it applies. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5); In re Grand Jury Investigation No. 83-2-35, 723 F.2d at 450. The Court finds that it has not met that burden. Cheadle Law is therefore ordered to produce any documents responsive to Request No. 3 that are within its possession, custody or control.

9. All material, including video and audio recordings, pertaining to training by or for Defendant and its employees regarding the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and compliance with the consumer protection laws of the state where this action is pending.

*3 Ms. Booker contends that the documents sought by this Request are relevant because “Defendant's training of its employees will determine the scope of its FDCPA compliance policies and whether or not those policies were in fact implemented into practice;” and, “Defendant's training policies go directly to whether or not the Defendant can establish a Bona Fide Error Defense.” Docket No. 45, p. 11.

Cheadle Law's discovery response states: “This case involves one claimant and a singular claim. Request No. 9 seeks documents which in no way relate to the Plaintiff's claim and, therefore, it seeks documents beyond the limits of discovery, as defined by Rule 26(b)(1), F.R.C.P.” Docket No. 45-4, p. 14. As discussed above, Cheadle Law's Response in Opposition does not address individual Requests. None of its arguments explain why documents responsive to Request No. 9 would not be relevant to Ms. Booker's claim regarding Cheadle Law's compliance with the FDCPA. See Docket No. 50. The Court finds that such documents would be relevant. Cheadle Law quotes a portion of Mr. Cheadle's deposition testimony, in which he answers questions about the firm's FDCPA compliance procedures, and seems to imply that any additional information would be unnecessarily cumulative. Id. at 6. The Court disagrees that the materials themselves would be cumulative of Mr. Cheadle's testimony that the materials exist. Cheadle Law is ordered to produce any documents responsive to Request No. 9 that are within its possession, custody or control.

10. One copy of Defendant's employee handbook.

Ms. Booker relies on her previous arguments with respect to Request No. 9. The Court finds that Cheadle Law's employee handbook, if such exists, may be relevant to Ms. Booker's claims. Cheadle Law has put forth no argument that it is not. See Docket No. 50. Neither has Cheadle Law explained why producing it would be unduly burdensome, or why it is otherwise not discoverable under the Federal Rules. Cheadle Law is therefore ordered to produce its employee handbook, if such exists.

11. Any and all documents summarizing, describing, instructing, detailing, or otherwise training any of Defendant's employees in Defendant's collection policies and procedures.

Ms. Booker relies on her previous arguments with respect to Request No. 9. The Court finds that the documents sought by this Request would be relevant to Ms. Booker's claims. Cheadle Law has put forth no argument to the contrary. See Docket No. 50. Neither has Cheadle Law explained why producing any such documents would be unduly burdensome, or why they are otherwise not discoverable under the Federal Rules. Cheadle Law is ordered to produce any documents responsive to Request No. 11 that are within its possession, custody or control.

13. All communications between Defendant and any creditor regarding Plaintiff and collection of the debt referenced in Plaintiff's complaint.

Ms. Booker relies on her previous arguments with respect to Request No. 3. As discussed above, Cheadle Law does not make arguments specific to any particular Request; however, Cheadle Law has argued globally that some of the documents that Ms. Booker seeks are protected by the attorney-client privilege. The Court finds that the documents sought by this Request would be relevant to Ms. Booker's claims. Cheadle Law has not provided any information that would establish that any such documents are protected by the attorney-client privilege as defined by the Sixth Circuit. Cheadle Law's discussion of the privilege is restricted to referring to its status as a law firm and quoting John Cheadle's deposition testimony. See Docket No. 50. As the party asserting the privilege, Cheadle Law has the burden of demonstrating that it applies. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5); In re Grand Jury Investigation No. 83-2-35, 723 F.2d at 450. The Court finds that it has not met that burden. Cheadle Law is therefore ordered to produce any documents responsive to Request No. 13 that are within its possession, custody or control.

15. All documents identifying all entities that Defendant is affiliated with (e.g. common ownership, financial interest, overlapping officers or managers, common facilities or employees), and describe nature of the affiliation.

*4 Ms. Booker contends that the documents sought by this Request would be relevant to damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692(a)(2)(B), which states:

Docket No. 45, p. 14-15 (emphasis in original, quotation marks omitted).

Taking into account the proportionality factors set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1), the Court finds that this type of discovery is premature at this time; therefore, Cheadle Law need not produce the requested documents.

16. All documents identifying or describing all aspects of Defendant's business pursuits and affairs, commercial and professional dealings, and occupations, including, but not limited to, the collection of consumer debts.

Ms. Booker incorporates her previous arguments regarding Request No. 15 and applies them to this Request. Taking into account the proportionality factors set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1), the Court finds that this Request, as written, is overly broad in scope and in time, and is not proportional to the needs of the case; therefore, Cheadle Law need not produce the requested documents.

17. United States Internal Revenue Service Federal Tax Returns for Defendant for the years 2015, 2016 and 2017 year to date.

Ms. Booker incorporates her previous arguments regarding Request No. 15 and applies them to this Request. Taking into account the proportionality factors set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1), the Court finds that this type of discovery is premature at this time; therefore, Cheadle Law need not produce the requested documents.

18. Internal income statements, profit and loss statements, statements of financial performance, earnings statements, and operating statements for Defendant for the years 2016 and 2017 to date.

Ms. Booker incorporates her previous arguments regarding Request No. 15 and applies them to this Request. Taking into account the proportionality factors set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1), the Court finds that this type of discovery is premature at this time; therefore, Cheadle Law need not produce the requested documents.

19. Internal balance sheets, assets and liability statements, and statements of net worth for Defendant for the years 2016, and 2017 year to date.

Ms. Booker incorporates her previous arguments regarding Request No. 15 and applies them to this Request. Taking into account the proportionality factors set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1), the Court finds that this type of discovery is premature at this time; therefore, Cheadle Law need not produce the requested documents.

20. All form letters sent to members of the proposed class within one year of the filing of the Complaint.

Ms. Booker does not make specific arguments regarding the documents sought by Request No. 20. As discussed previously, Cheadle Law's Response does not address the individual Document Requests. Relevant to this Request (and Requests Nos. 21 and 22 below), Cheadle Law appears to argue that Ms. Booker is not entitled to receive discovery regarding class allegations because the Court has not yet ruled on Ms. Booker's Motion for Class Certification. Docket No. 50, p. 5, 7. The Court finds that argument unpersuasive. As set out above, the scope of discovery extends to nonprivileged information that is relevant to any party's claim or defense, regardless of whether the information sought is admissible, that is “proportional to the needs of the case.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Ms. Booker's Complaint contains class claims. Docket No. 1, p. 4-7. In accordance with Rule 26, Ms. Booker is entitled to nonprivileged information relevant to those claims, proportional to the needs of this case. The Court finds that Request No. 20 seeks documents that, if they exist, would be relevant to those claims. Further, the Request is proportional in that it is reasonably bounded in time to a period within one year of the filing of the Complaint. Cheadle Law has not argued that it would be unduly burdensome to produce these documents, nor that they are otherwise undiscoverable under the Federal Rules.

*5 Regarding Cheadle Law's global assertion of the attorney-client privilege, Cheadle Law has not provided any information that would establish that any such documents are protected by the attorney-client privilege as defined by the Sixth Circuit. Cheadle Law's discussion of the privilege is restricted to referring to its status as a law firm and quoting John Cheadle's deposition testimony. See Docket No. 50. As the party asserting the privilege, Cheadle Law has the burden of demonstrating that it applies. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5); In re Grand Jury Investigation No. 83-2-35, 723 F.2d at 450. The Court finds that it has not met that burden. Cheadle Law is therefore ordered to produce any documents responsive to Request No. 20 that are within its possession, custody or control.

21. The contact information of all individuals who were sent a correspondence letter from Defendant within one year of the filing of the Complaint in which Defendant attempted to collect an alleged debt.

Under the same reasoning as above, the Court finds that Request No. 21 seeks documents relevant to Ms. Booker's class claims. Cheadle Law has not argued that it would be unduly burdensome to produce these documents, or that they are otherwise undiscoverable under the Federal Rules. Regarding Cheadle Law's global assertion of the attorney-client privilege, Cheadle Law has not provided any information that would establish that any such documents are protected by the attorney-client privilege as defined by the Sixth Circuit. Cheadle Law's discussion of the privilege is restricted to referring to its status as a law firm and quoting John Cheadle's deposition testimony. See Docket No. 50. As the party asserting the privilege, Cheadle Law has the burden of demonstrating that it applies. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5); In re Grand Jury Investigation No. 83-2-35, 723 F.2d at 450. The Court finds that it has not met that burden. Cheadle Law is therefore ordered to produce any documents responsive to Request No. 21 that are within its possession, custody or control.

22. All documents that refer or relate to the number of individuals who were sent a correspondence letter from Defendant within one year of the filing of the Complaint in which Defendant attempted to collect an alleged debt.

Under the same reasoning as applies to Request No. 20, the Court finds that Request No. 22 seeks documents relevant to Ms. Booker's class claims. Cheadle Law has not argued that it would be unduly burdensome to produce these documents, or that they are otherwise undiscoverable under the Federal Rules. Regarding Cheadle Law's global assertion of the attorney-client privilege, Cheadle Law has not provided any information that would establish that any such documents are protected by the attorney-client privilege as defined by the Sixth Circuit. Cheadle Law's discussion of the privilege is restricted to referring to its status as a law firm and quoting John Cheadle's deposition testimony. See Docket No. 50. As the party asserting the privilege, Cheadle Law has the burden of demonstrating that it applies. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5); In re Grand Jury Investigation No. 83-2-35, 723 F.2d at 450. The Court finds that it has not met that burden. Cheadle Law is therefore ordered to produce any documents responsive to Request No. 22 that are within its possession, custody or control.

D. Sanctions

Ms. Booker states that “Defendant refuses to allow Plaintiff to litigate this case, and its refusal to produce documents clearly relevant to this litigation is made in bad faith and warrants sanctions.” Docket No. 45, p. 6. Ms. Booker requests that the Court “sanction the Defendant for reasonable attorney's fees and costs in drafting this unnecessary motion.” Id. at 8. Cheadle Law does not address the request for sanctions in its Response. See Docket No. 50. The Court will reserve judgment on this issue.

*6 For the reasons stated above, Ms. Booker's Motion to Compel Discovery Responses (Docket No. 45) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

IT IS SO ORDERED.