On January 5, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel Discovery (Doc. No. 17) requesting that the Court order Defendant to respond to certain interrogatories and requests for production of documents and to produce a designated corporate representative under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) to be deposed. On January 25, 2018, the Court held a telephone conference on the record with counsel for the parties. During the telephone conference, the Court directed the parties to resolve the discovery dispute and to inform the Court if any discovery disputes remained unresolved thereafter.

On May 29, 2018, Plaintiff filed a letter informing the Court that some of the discovery disputes that were the subject of the Motion to Compel (Doc. No. 17) remain outstanding. (Doc. No. 26.) Plaintiff outlines four areas of discovery that remain unresolved. (Id.) For reasons that follow, the Court will grant the Motion to Compel on the four remaining unresolved categories of discovery and will deny as moot the Motion on all other categories of discovery, which the parties have resolved.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1), parties may obtain discovery of:

[A]ny nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Relevance is “construed broadly to encompass any matter that could bear on, or that could reasonably lead to other matter that could bear on any issue that is or may be in the case.” Williams v. Sweet Home Healthcare, LLC, Civ. A. No. 16-2353, 2017 WL 2779189, at *1 (E.D. Pa. June 27, 2017) (quoting United States ex rel. Bergman v. Abbott Labs., Civ. A. No. 09-4264, 2016 WL 4247431, at *2 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 11, 2016)); see also Oppenheimer Funds v. Sander, 437 U.S. 340, 351 (1978).

A party moving to compel discovery under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 “bears the initial burden of proving the relevance of the material requested.” First Niagara Risk Mgmt., Inc. v. Folino, 317 F.R.D. 23, 25 (E.D. Pa. 2016) (citation omitted). If the moving party meets its burden, “the party resisting discovery can establish a lack of relevance by showing that the material requested does not fall within the broad scope of relevance defined by Rule 26 or is of such little relevance that the potential harm occasioned by discovery outweighs the ordinary presumption favoring its disclosure.” Id. (citation omitted).

First, Plaintiff asserts that Defendant still has not produced a privilege log of the information and documents it has withheld. (Doc. No. 26 at 1.) Plaintiff argues that due to its failure to provide a privilege log, Defendant has waived its right to withhold information and documents based on an alleged privilege. (Id. at 2.) Defendant does not dispute that Plaintiff is entitled to a privilege log and states that it will produce one. (Doc. No. 30 at 1 n.1.)

Rule 26(b)(5) provides that when a party withholds otherwise discoverable information by claiming that it is privileged, the party must expressly make the claim and “describe the nature of the documents, communications, or tangible things not produced or disclosed ... in a manner that ... will enable other parties to assess the claim.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5)(A). “[F]ailure to assert a privilege may amount to waiver of that privilege.” Mass. Sch. of Law at Andover, Inc. v. Am. Bar. Ass'n, 914 F. Supp. 1172, 1178 (E.D. Pa. 1996) (citation omitted); see also Coregis Ins. Co. v. Baratta & Fenerty, Ltd., 187 F.R.D. 528, 529 (E.D. Pa. 1999) (“[A]n objection that information sought is privileged is waived if not timely stated and it is within the court's discretion to determine whether the privilege has been properly invoked.” (citation omitted)).

Because Defendant represents that it will provide a privilege log to Plaintiff, its claim to privilege will not be deemed waived at this time. The Court will order Defendant to provide a privilege log to Plaintiff by July 6, 2018. If Defendant does not comply with this Order, any claim of privilege as to the remaining withheld documents will be deemed waived as untimely asserted. Get-A-Grip, II, Inc. v. Hornell Brewing Co., Inc., No. Civ. A. 99-1332, 2000 WL 1201385, at *2-3 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 8, 2000) (holding that claim of privilege was waived as untimely where plaintiff did not produce a privilege log in accordance with the court order).

Second, Plaintiff submits that Defendant still has failed to comply with Document Request Numbers 12 and 13, relating to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's (“CFPB”) investigation of Defendant and the CFPB's lawsuit against Defendant in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. (Doc. No. 26 at 2.) Defendant responds that Plaintiff's request for production of documents related to the CFPB's investigation is prohibited by certain federal regulations and that Plaintiff's request for production of documents related to the CFPB's lawsuit in the Northern District of Ohio is outside the scope of discovery. (Doc. No. 30 at 2, 4-5.)

As to Request Number 12 for production of documents related to the CFPB's investigation of Defendant, Defendant argues that this request is prohibited by 12 C.F.R. §§ 1070.41 and 1070.47, which govern disclosure of confidential information. (Doc. No. 30 at 2-4.) However, these regulations apply to the CFPB's disclosure of information and not to a private entity's disclosure of its own information and documents in litigation. See 12 C.F.R. § 1070.1. Section 1070.1 governing the authority, purpose, and scope of the regulations provides in relevant part as follows:

(2) This part establishes mechanisms for carrying out the CFPB's statutory responsibilities under the statutes in paragraph (a)(1) of this section to the extent those responsibilities require the disclosure, production, or withholding of information. In this regard, the CFPB has determined that the CFPB, and its delegates, may disclose information of the CFPB, in accordance with the procedures set forth in this part, whenever it is necessary or appropriate to do so in the exercise of any of the CFPB's authority....

§ 1070.1(a)(2). This section continues that these regulations “contain[ ] the CFPB's rules relating to the disclosure of records and information generated by and obtained by the CFPB.” § 1070.1(b). And 12 C.F.R. § 1070.47 provides in relevant part:

(4) Nothing in this section shall prevent a supervised financial institution, Federal or State agency, any officer, director, employee or agent thereof, or any other person to whom the information is made available under this subpart from complying with a legally valid and enforceable order of a court of competent jurisdiction compelling production of the CFPB's confidential information....

§ 1070.47(a)(4) (emphasis added). Thus, the CFPB regulations upon which Defendant relies do not prohibit Defendant from producing the documents that Plaintiff seeks. This Court is ordering Defendant to produce the documents. No bar to production exists.

In addition, Defendant must produce documents relating to the CFPB's investigation because they are relevant to the issue in this case and are within the scope of discovery. See Fed. R. Civ. P 26(b)(1). The issue in this case is the same issue that was the subject of the CFPB investigation. The mere similarity does not bar production. See Munoz v. PHH Corp., No. 1:08-cv-0759, 2013 WL 684388, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 22, 2013) (granting motion to compel documents produced to the CFPB as clearly relevant to the case because the CFPB investigation targeted the same practices that were the subject of plaintiff's case).

As to Request Number 13 for production of documents related to the CFPB's lawsuit against Defendant in the Northern District of Ohio, Defendant contends that these documents are not relevant and that Plaintiff is attempting to “piggyback” on discovery in the Ohio litigation. (Doc. No. 30 at 4-5.) Defendant cites, among other cases, Midwest Gas Services, Inc. v. Indiana Gas Co., No. IP99-0690, 2000 WL 760700 (S.D. Ind. Mar. 7, 2000), which provides that “ ‘[c]loned discovery,’ requesting all documents produced or received during other litigation ... is irrelevant and immaterial unless the fact that particular documents were produced or received by a party is relevant to the subject matter of the instant case.” Id. at *1. In Midwest Gas Services, however, plaintiffs had not shown that documents produced to the Department of Justice during its investigation were relevant to the facts of the case. Id.

By contrast, in Schneider v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., No. 16-cv-002200, 2017 WL 1101799 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2017), plaintiffs sought information produced by defendant in another lawsuit which involved the exact same claim. The court distinguished the facts of Midwest Gas Services, 2000 WL 760700, holding that in the present case, both lawsuits had “significant factual and legal overlap, with both lawsuits asserting claims under the same Florida statute.” Schneider, 2017 WL 1101799, at *4. Accordingly, plaintiffs were entitled to the documents produced in the other lawsuit. Id.

Here, the claims in this case and in the Ohio case center on Defendant's use of a law firm's letterhead in connection with the collection of a debt when no attorney was involved in drafting the letter or reviewing the underlying debt account. (Compare Doc. No. 1 at 3-5, with Complaint, Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau v. Weltman, Weinberg & Reis Co., L.P.A., No. 1:17-cv-00817-DCN (N.D. Ohio Apr. 17, 2017)). As such, Plaintiff in this case seeks information and documents produced by Defendant in a lawsuit involving the exact same claim, and she is entitled to these documents because they are relevant.

Third, Plaintiff argues that Defendant still has failed to produce collection letters it sent to individuals located within the geographic area of the Third Circuit in compliance with Request Number 6. (Doc. No. 26 at 3-4.) Defendant contends that it should not have to produce the letters because they are “irrelevant to the ‘nature’ of any of the potential class members’ obligations,” not needed to establish the numerosity requirement for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a), and will harm the privacy interests of potential class members. (Doc. No. 30 at 6-10.)

Defendant must comply with Request Number 6 and produce the collection letters it sent to these individuals because the letters are within the scope of fact and Rule 23 discovery. Although Defendant argues that it is impossible for the collection letters “on their face, to demonstrate the ‘nature’ of any individual's obligation,” under Rule 26(b)(1), parties may obtain discovery of any matter “that is relevant to any party's claim or defense.” The Court cannot say at this time that the collection letters are irrelevant and are not “proportional to the needs of the case.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). And although Defendant argues that the collection letters are not needed to prove numerosity, the letters are relevant to proving numerosity and other information required for proving class certification. See Blandina v. Midland Funding LLC, 303 F.R.D. 245, 250-51 (E.D. Pa. 2014) (noting that names of individuals who were sent letters substantially similar to plaintiff's contributed to a finding that the numerosity requirement was met). As such, Plaintiff is entitled to this information.

As to Defendant's argument that producing the collection letters would harm the privacy interests of potential class members, “[b]oth the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit have held that the names and addresses of putative class members are discoverable.” Gates v. Rohm & Haas Co., Civ. A. No. 06-1743, 2006 WL 3420591, at *2 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 22, 2006) (citing Hoffman-La Roche Inc. v. Sperling, 493 U.S. 165, 170 (1989)); Oppenheimer Fund, Inc., 437 U.S. at 354 n.20). Because the collection letters are relevant to an issue in this case and to proof of class certification, Defendant must produce the letters in compliance with Request Number 6.

Finally, Plaintiff asserts that Defendant still has failed to produce its contract with the underlying creditor, in compliance with Request Number 7. (Doc. No. 26 at 4.) Defendant responds that the contract is irrelevant because it does not provide insight into the nature of the underlying obligation. (Doc. No. 30 at 11.) The Court disagrees. This request is within the scope of discovery, is relevant to the issue in this case, and is “proportional to the needs of the case.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Defendant must produce its contract with the underlying creditor in compliance with Request Number 7.

For all the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery (Doc. No. 17) will be granted in part, and denied in part as moot.