*1 On September 18, 2020, plaintiff Kellie Grant commenced this action pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq., alleging that defendant Morse Geller, an attorney, engaged in a knowingly deceptive collection practice by filing a lawsuit for a debt that his client was not entitled to collect on and for an amount that was not actually due. (Compl.[1]) Plaintiff further alleges that defendant Geller “is a debt collection solo practitioner and a domestic professional corporation organized under the laws of the State of New York.” (Id. ¶ 8).[2] Currently pending before this Court are a number of discovery issues. The Court addresses each in turn.

In a status report to this Court, dated June 17, 2022, defendant first raised the issue of a possible dispute as to defendant's responses to discovery. According to defendant, counsel had a meet and confer on June 3, 2022 at which time, defendant understood that the only potential dispute related to defendant's response to plaintiff's Fourth Request for Admission. (Def.’s 6/17/22 Ltr.[3] at 1). Defendant understood that plaintiff was to provide authority to support the position that defendant's response to the Fourth Request for Admission was improper, but that, as of the June 17, 2023 status report, plaintiff had not provided persuasive authority applicable to the case at hand. (Id.)[4]

On June 23, 2022, plaintiff's counsel sent a responsive letter, addressed to defendant's counsel, setting forth a number of deficiencies in defendant's responses to other of plaintiff's discovery requests, disputing defendant's position that the only outstanding issue was with respect to the Fourth Request for Admission. (Pl.’s 6/23/22 Ltr.[5]).[6] Specifically, plaintiff claims that defendant: 1) failed to produce any documents in response to plaintiff's discovery requests; 2) made improper, boilerplate objections to plaintiff's discovery requests raising issues of proportionality and claiming an unspecified burden; and 3) raised objections based on privilege without providing a privilege log. (Id. at 1–2). Accordingly, plaintiff asked defendant to amend and supplement its discovery responses. (Id. at 3).

*2 On July 1, 2022, plaintiff's counsel submitted another letter, addressed to defendant's counsel. In it, plaintiff's counsel again asked that defendant amend its discovery responses. (ECF No. 42 at 1–2).

In response to plaintiff's June 23, 2022 letter, defendant submitted a letter on July 14, 2022, directed to the Court, asserting again that defendant had not withheld any responsive documents, its disclosures and responses were wholly appropriate, and the only outstanding, relevant discovery issue related to the Fourth Request for Admission. (Def.’s 7/14/22 Ltr.[7])

In the June 23, 2022 deficiency letter addressed to defendant's counsel, plaintiff contends that no documents have been produced in this case by defendant in response to plaintiff's discovery requests. (Pl.’s 6/23/22 Ltr. at 1–2). According to plaintiff, during their meet and confer, defendant represented that all responsive documents had been previously produced in the underlying collection lawsuit and that no further documents exist. (Id.)

Defendant is Ordered to amend its discovery responses to include that representation, indicating that all responsive documents have been produced and no other responsive documents exist.

Plaintiff's second complaint is that defendant made general objections and specifically objected to Interrogatory Nos. 1–12, Requests for Production Nos. 1, 4–6, 8–12, and 21, and Request for Admission No. 4 on grounds of burden, but failed to specify the nature and extent of the asserted burden.[8] (Pl.’s 6/23/22 Ltr. at 2).

a) Interrogatories and Burden

With respect to defendant's responses to Interrogatories, the Court notes that, in addition to raising an objection as to burden, defendant provided responses to Nos. 1 and 2, seeking the identity of persons with knowledge of the facts or involved in the collection of the putative debt, and to No. 10, seeking the identity of witnesses expected to be called at trial by reference to Defendant's Rule 26 Disclosure Statement. (Int. Nos. 1, 2, 10). Defendant also responded to Interrogatory No. 11, seeking the identity of various custodians of documents by similar reference. (Int. No. 11). To the extent that defendant has referred to its Rule 26 disclosures in response to interrogatories seeking the identity of witnesses, the Court finds that defendant has responded appropriately to Interrogatory Nos. 1, 2, 10 and 11.

Defendant objected to both Interrogatory No. 3, seeking the definition of any abbreviations, codes, or initials used in defendant's production, and Interrogatory No. 12, seeking information about any lost documents and the identity of those who may have knowledge about the document's existence and its loss. Defendant objected to these requests as being “unduly burdensome,” overly “broad,” “unclear,” and “not a proper subject for an interrogatory and is incapable of an appropriate response.” (Int. Nos. 3, 12).

*3 To the extent that defendant claims burden with respect to Requests 3 and 12, defendant is Ordered to provide an Affidavit detailing the nature of the burden and explaining why the burden of responding outweighs the relevance of the information sought and why it is not proportional to the needs of the case. See Barella v. Village of Freeport, 296 F.R.D. 102, 105 (E.D.N.Y. 2013) (explaining that “[t]he party objecting to the discovery demands must, with some degree of specificity, illustrate the nature and extent of the burden of production”); see also Neogenix Oncology, Inc. v. Gordon, No. 14 CV 4427, 2017 WL 4233028, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 22, 2017) (explaining that “ ‘[b]oilerplate objections that include unsubstantiated claims of undue burden, overbreadth and lack of relevancy,’ while producing ‘no documents and answer[ing] no interrogatories ... are a paradigm of discovery abuse’ ”) (quoting Jacoby v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co., 254 F.R.D. 477, 478 (S.D.N.Y. 2009)); Pegoraro v. Marrero, 281 F.R.D. 122, 128–29 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 3, 2012) (explaining that “[a] party resisting discovery has the burden of showing ‘specifically how, despite the broad and liberal construction afforded the federal discovery rules, each interrogatory is not relevant or how each question is overly broad, burdensome or oppressive, ... by submitting affidavits or offering evidence revealing the nature of the burden’ ”) (quoting Compagnie Francaise d'Assurance Pour le Commerce Exterieur v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 105 F.R.D. 16, 42 (S.D.N.Y. 1984)), aff'g, id. at 125–34. Courts require specific information in order to weigh the balance of the benefit of relevant discovery to a requesting party against the burden to a producing party. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1); see also Fritz v. LVNV Funding, LLC, 587 F. Supp. 3d 1, 4 (E.D.N.Y. 2022). Here, in the absence of further information as to why providing responses to these interrogatories would be unduly burdensome, the Court is unable to assess the proportionality of the information sought to the needs of the case.

b) Interrogatories Related to Other Lawsuits and Burden

Defendant objects to plaintiff's requests for discovery related to other collection actions. Specifically, Interrogatory No. 4 sought the number of collection lawsuits filed by Morse Geller. (Int. No. 4). Interrogatory Nos. 5–7 asked for the number and identity of cases filed by Morse Geller on behalf of Clover Commercial between January 1, 2015 and the present, where Morse Geller, in calculating the amount sought in the lawsuit (a) failed to credit the proceeds of the sale of collateral in the amount sought in the lawsuit (Int. No. 5); (b) failed to credit the proceeds of the sale of collateral in the amount sought in the application for judgment or summary judgment (Int. No. 6); or (c) failed to credit the funds collected by the bank or through wage garnishments in the amount sought in the lawsuit (Int. No. 7). Request No. 8 asked for the steps taken to demonstrate meaningful attorney review and to identify the documents supporting that response. (Int. No. 8). Request No. 9 asked for the number and identity of cases brought on behalf of Clover Commercial where defendant Morse Geller initiated a time-barred lawsuit for collection on an auto loan. (Int. No. 9).

In response to each of these interrogatories, defendant objected as to burden but referred plaintiff to defendant's responses to the Requests to Admit. Defendant also objects in his letters filed with the Court to the relevance of this information and plaintiff's entitlement to receive such discovery. In his July 14, 2022 letter, defendant mentions both the Barella v. Village of Freeport, 296 F.R.D. 102 and Fritz v. LVNV Funding, LLC, 587 F. Supp. 3d 1 cases. Specifically in discussing Fritz v. LVNV Funding, LLC, defendant distinguishes that case from this one because there 1) the relevance of the discovery in that case was not disputed, and 2) plaintiff had brought a claim under Section 349 of the General Business Law, which has a “pattern and practice” element to it, unlike the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”). (Def.’s 7/14/2022 Ltr. at 2).

In this case, plaintiff alleges that even though defendant is an attorney, he violated the FDCPA by making “the false representation or implication ... that [a] communication is from an attorney.” (Compl. ¶ 137). Courts have explained that even where a communication “was literally ‘from’ an attorney, the Second Circuit requires ‘some degree of attorney involvement ... before a letter will be considered from an attorney within the meaning of the FDCPA.’ ” Miller v. Upton, Cohen & Slamowitz, 687 F. Supp. 2d 86, 94–95 (E.D.N.Y. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Miller v. Wolpoff & Abramson, L.L.P., 321 F.3d 292, 300 (2d Cir. 2003)). An attorney's lack of meaningful involvement in a communication, notwithstanding the fact that a debt collection letter may be from the attorney or on attorney letterhead, may be evidenced by “the use of computer generated form letters; use of facsimile signatures; and the high-volume of letters issued.” Id. at 95.

*4 In Miller v. Upton, Cohen & Slamowitz, the court considered, after a bench trial, whether there had been “meaningful attorney review,” in part by reviewing “the daily and monthly volume of matters handled by ... partners [of the defendant firm], as well as the manner in which [the firm's] personnel documented their collection activities.” Id. at 100.[9] This Court, in Diaz v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC,[10] held that a plaintiff had stated a claim under the FDCPA that a defendant law firm had failed to conduct a meaningful attorney review by alleging that the firm of “no more than three attorneys, filed over 13,000 complaints in 2009 and that [the attorney that signed the pleadings in the underlying collection action] signed more than one-third (1/3) of the 10,904 complaints the firm filed in New York City Civil Courts in 2009, not including the 2,000 or more complaints filed outside of New York City.” No. 10 CV 3920, 2012 WL 661456, at *13 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 28, 2012) (internal footnote omitted), report and recommendation adopted, 2012 WL 1882978 (E.D.N.Y. May 24, 2012).

The sheer volume of collection actions that a firm, particularly a solo practitioner, handles at a given time could be relevant evidence of whether or not it was possible for that firm or solo practitioner to engage in a meaningful attorney review. In her Complaint, plaintiff suggests that defendant Geller's volume of work as a solo practitioner, as well as his pattern of “filing and litigating time-barred lawsuits,” evidences a failure to perform meaningful attorney review. (Compl. ¶¶ 76–78). Whether or not plaintiff will ultimately be able to establish her claim based on such evidence is not before the Court. However, cases in this Circuit have demonstrated that the volume of other debt lawsuits may be relevant to establishing an FDCPA claim. Thus, to the extent that defendant challenges plaintiff's request for this information as irrelevant, the Court finds otherwise.

However, in addition to raising an objection based on burden, with respect to Interrogatories Nos. 4–9, defendant also objects that the requests improperly call for legal conclusions. Interrogatories 5, 6, 7, and 9 ask defendant in varying forms to describe and quantify lawsuits where defendant did not follow the letter of the law by failing to credit certain amounts in his calculations or by filing claims that were barred by the statute of limitations. These interrogatories clearly require defendant to engage in a legal analysis and provide a legal conclusion as to each of the cases he filed over the last eight years, and therefore are not the proper subject of interrogatories.

However, Interrogatory No. 4 asks for the total number of collection suits filed by defendant over an eight-year period and No. 8 asks him to describe the steps taken to conduct a meaningful attorney review. (Int. Nos. 4, 8). If defendant continues to believe that these interrogatories improperly call for legal conclusions, or are unduly burdensome, then defendant should submit briefing to support his argument, along with an Affidavit detailing the nature of the burden and explaining why the burden of responding outweighs the relevance of the information sought and why it is not proportional to the needs of the case.

*5 Defendant also objects to Interrogatory No. 4 because answering “it would necessitate the preparation of a compilation, abstract, audit or summary from documents.” (Int. No. 4). Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:

Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d). To invoke this Rule, a party must establish that “the burden of deriving or ascertaining the answer will be substantially the same for either party.” Even where “defendants vaguely refer to their document productions without further detail or information,” such responses have been found to be inadequate and defendants have been compelled to provide “substantive, narrative responses.” Suntree Int'l Corp. v. Rossi, No. 19 CV 3845, 2020 WL 13581657, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2020).

Here, defendant has not identified or provided the necessary records for plaintiff's review, nor has he established that the burden of compiling the information is equally burdensome to both parties. Defendant has failed to even point to what documents, where to find those documents, and which parts of those documents respond to plaintiff's request. Defendant directs plaintiff to its responses to plaintiff's Requests for Admission but this is insufficient.

Accordingly, to the extent that defendant relies on Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d) in objecting to these interrogatories, he is directed to supplement his response, and either (1) establish that the burden of ascertaining this answer is the same for either party and specify where plaintiff can discover the answer to its interrogatory or (2) answer the interrogatory in narrative form.

c) Document Requests

With respect to defendant's responses to plaintiff's document requests numbers 1, 4–6, 8–12, and 21, the Court Orders defendant to specify in response to each request whether it has failed to provide documents on the basis of burden or whether, as defendant's letter seems to suggest, despite its objections, defendant has produced all responsive documents in the underlying collection action or in this action and that no other responsive documents exist. If defendant objects to the document requests instead on the basis of burden, defendant is Ordered to provide an Affidavit detailing the nature of the burden and explaining why the burden of responding outweighs the relevance of the information sought and why it is not proportional to the needs of the case. To the extent that defendant objects in any part to these requests on the basis of privilege, see infra at 10–11.

Additionally, in his response to document requests 10, which seeks documents upon which defendant Geller based the amount sought in the underlying 2019 loan collection action, and 21, which seeks documents sufficient to answer interrogatories 4 through 8, defendant also objects that these call for legal conclusions. If defendant continues to withhold documents on this basis, then defendant should submit briefing to support his argument.

*6 Plaintiff correctly notes that in defendant's responses to document requests numbers 1, 4, 6, 8, and 9, he also raises objections on grounds of attorney-client privilege, confidentiality, or work product. (Pl.’s 6/23/22 Ltr. at 2–3). According to plaintiff, however, defendant has not produced a privilege log. (Pl.’s 6/23/22 Ltr. at 2).

To the extent that defendant has objected to these requests on grounds of privilege or work product, and has withheld any documents from production on that basis, defendant is to provide a privilege log setting forth the relevant information as to the nature of the document, the author, any recipients, etc. If defendant has produced all documents and not withheld them on the basis of privilege or confidentiality, defendant is Ordered to supplement its responses and so indicate.

Plaintiff claims that defendant failed to properly respond to the Fourth Request for Admission. The Fourth Request for Admission asks defendant to admit that: “You filed more than 200 lawsuits each year since January 1, 2015.” Defendant responded by objecting to the request based on its form, that “the request uses terms which are not defined,” vagueness, and that it was “incapable of being admitted or denied.” (RFA No. 4). Defendant further objected on the grounds that it would “necessitate the preparation of a compilation, abstract, audit or summary from documents that are public record and readily or more available to Plaintiff.” (Id.)

With requests for admission, “[o]bjections that plaintiff should obtain the information by independent discovery and investigation or that the matter is already within plaintiff's knowledge, are ... misplaced.” Diederich v. Department of Army, 132 F.R.D. 614, 617 (S.D.N.Y. 1990); see also Concerned Citizens of Belle Haven v. Belle Haven Club, 223 F.R.D. 39, 45 (D. Conn. 2004) (explaining that defendants’ objection to requests for admission “that the records seek information much of which is ‘equally available’ to plaintiffs or derived from public records, asserting that they have no responsibility to do plaintiff's [sic] ‘homework’ ” “misses the point of requests for admission”). At the same time, “[t]he lack of knowledge or the inability to obtain the requisite information would, however, be an adequate response, provided that it is accompanied by a good faith statement that ‘the party has made reasonable inquiry and that the information known or readily obtainable by the party is insufficient to enable the party to admit or deny.’ ” Diederich v. Department of Army, 132 F.R.D. at 619 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)); see also Luck v. McMahon, No. 20 CV 516, 2021 WL 4248887, at *32 (D. Conn. Sept. 17, 2021) (denying a motion to compel a response to a Request for Admission that would require a party “to ‘conduct[ ] a wide-ranging review’ of every e-mail sent by him during [a] specified time period”) (quoting U.S. Bank Nat'l Assoc. v. Triaxx Asset Mgmt. LLC, No. 18 CV 4044, 2020 WL 9549505, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 30, 2020)).

Defendant has failed to provide the Court with any information to determine if defendant could answer the Fourth Request for Admission after “reasonable inquiry” or if instead answering the request would be unreasonable. See U.S. Bank Nat'l Assoc. v. Triaxx Asset Mgmt. LLC, 2020 WL 9549505, at *7 (explaining that “Rule 36(a)(4) requires the answering party to state ‘in detail’ why it cannot truthfully admit or deny a request”) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(4)). The Court Orders defendant to amend its response to the Fourth Request for Admission and detail what if any steps it has or would have to take in order to respond to this request.

*7 The Court also notes that defendant has objected that certain terms in the Request are undefined without detailing which terms are not properly defined. Under Rule 34(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party is required to specify the terms it asserts have been insufficiently defined and explain why that prevents defendant from responding or responding with a qualification as the Rule allows. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a) (explaining that “[i]f a matter is not admitted, the answer must specifically deny it or state in detail why the answering party cannot truthfully admit or deny it”) (emphasis added). In this case, plaintiff defined the term “lawsuits” to mean “collection actions seeking to collect on a putative Auto Loan” and defined “Auto Loan” as “an obligation or alleged obligation arising from the financing for the purchase of any vehicle.” Thus, it is unclear what, if any, term in the Fourth Request for Admission is not defined. Defendant is Ordered to explain or respond to the Request as posed.

Defendant is Ordered to comply with this Order and supplement his responses or produce relevant authority as indicated by April 14, 2023. Plaintiff may respond by April 21, 2023.

SO ORDERED.