*1 This case principally involves a specific form of alleged wrongful conduct by defendant Suburban Ann Arbor, LLC (“Suburban”) against plaintiff, Tina McPherson (“McPherson”). Specifically, McPherson contends that Suburban engaged in a “Yo-Yo Sale” or “Spot Delivery” “dealer scam,” which McPherson describes as follows:

(ECF No. 1, PageID.4-6).

On July 8, 2020, McPherson visited Suburban and selected a Dodge Durango (the “Durango”) to purchase. In connection with the purchase, McPherson applied for financing with both Ally Financial Inc. (“Ally”) and Capital One Auto Finance (“Capital One),” which applications Suburban submitted on her behalf. The next day, Suburban advised McPherson that Ally would finance the Durango, and she returned to the dealer to complete the paperwork and take delivery of the vehicle.

*2 McPherson left with the vehicle and had it for about a week, at which point she received an “Adverse Action Notice” from Capital One advising that her it “cannot provide [her] with auto financing at this time.” McPherson alleges that Suburban, without her permission, submitted another credit application to Capital One on her behalf. She also alleges that Suburban advised her that a different lender, Dort Financial, had agreed to approve her for a loan that had different terms than what she had originally agreed to with Capital One, though most of the differences were greatly in her favor. For instance, whereas the original loan was to bear interest at 17%, Dort Financial agreed to finance her purchase at only 4.5%. However, the new loan required a down payment of $3,000 which was $1,000 more than McPherson had previously agreed to, and included an arbitration clause whereas the prior financing contract did not. Suburban advised McPherson that it would repossess the Durango unless she executed the new financing documents with Dort Financial. McPherson, who had already received title to the Durango from the Michigan Secretary of State, refused to execute the financing documents, allegedly due to the arbitration clause's inclusion.

Suburban then hired defendant T&H Towing & Recovery, LLC (“T&H”) to repossess the Durango. On October 17, 2020, T&H located the Durango, apparently in McPherson's presence, hooked it up to the “wrecker,” and repossessed it. McPherson visited Suburban, and its finance manager advised her that it was withholding $900 of her $2,000 down payment to cover the repossession costs. McPherson refused to turn over the title, and then brought this lawsuit against Suburban and T&H (and its owner) (collectively, “T&H”).

A handful of motions are presently before the Court, including: (1) ECF No. 32 – motion for withdrawal by counsel to T&H; (2) ECF No. 40 – McPherson's motion to compel inspection of “dead deals”; (3) ECF No. 42 – Department of Insurance and Financial Services’ (“DIFS”) motion to modify subpoena; (4) ECF No. 50 – McPherson's motion to compel discovery from third-party Federated Mutual Insurance Company (“Federated”); and (5) ECF No. 53 – McPherson's motion to compel testimony and documents from Ally. The Court held oral argument on the first four of these motions on December 14, 2021, and informally addressed the fifth, as Ally's counsel attended the hearing. The following is a summary of the Court's rulings and directions:

ECF No. 32 – Motion for Withdrawal by Counsel to T&H

The claims against T&H were settled, with the terms being placed on the record. Counsel represented that T&H satisfied its obligations under the agreement and has been attempting to secure a stipulated order of dismissal with prejudice from McPherson's counsel. The Court reiterates its expectation that such a stipulated order will be forthcoming in the near future. Accordingly, the Court makes no ruling on this motion at this time.

ECF No. 40 – McPherson's Motion to Compel Inspection of “Dead Deals”

McPherson seeks to “inspect” Suburban's files to review all “dead deals,” which would include all “anticipated transactions where consumers were either unable to secure financing altogether or rejected alternative financing that Suburban made available.” The Court had held a telephonic status conference with counsel to the parties on this motion in an attempt to informally resolve it, and is thus generally aware of Suburban's position. However, apparently through some error, Suburban's response to the motion never got filed. The Court explained that given the specific and nuanced alleged wrongful conduct by Suburban, it would be inappropriate to permit discovery into all “dead deals,” which could result from all sorts of circumstances unrelated to the issues at hand. The Court also expressed concern with providing McPherson's counsel other Suburban customers’ personal identifying information. Since Suburban's response did not get filed, the Court agreed to give it one week to do so, and McPherson may file a reply. In the interim, the parties shall attempt in good faith to reach a resolution of McPherson's motion taking all of the foregoing into account. Accordingly, the Court makes no ruling on this motion at this time.

ECF No. 42 – DIFS’ Motion to Modify Subpoena

*3 For the detailed reasons stated on the record, because McPherson's principal claims allege violations of federal law, and because the discovery sought by McPherson (as narrowed by the Court) is relevant and proportional to the needs of this case, DIFS shall respond to McPherson's subpoena as directed by the Court, i.e., limiting the requests to claims involving conduct similar to that alleged by McPherson here – “Yo-Yo Sales” and “Spot Deliveries” (as defined above). DIFS shall redact names and other personal identifying information of any referenced consumers, and the documents shall be produced pursuant to a standard protective order. Accordingly, this motion is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as specified above.

ECF No. 50 – McPherson's motion to compel discovery from third-party Federated

McPherson's motion was properly filed in this district because Federated “regularly transacts business in person” within the 100-mile “place of compliance” radius specified in Rule 45. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(2)(A). McPherson's subpoena, however, is exceedingly broad. Whereas this case involves allegations of a very specific form of wrongful conduct – “Yo-Yo Sales” or “Spot Deliveries” – the subpoena asks Federated to produce: “Any claims for coverage under any policy of insurance relating to Suburban [ ];” “Any settlements relating to any claims for coverage under any policy of insurance relating to Suburban [ ];” “Any claims files relating to any claims for coverage under any policy of insurance relating to Suburban [ ];” and “Any applications for coverage relating to Suburban Ann Arbor, LLC.” The subpoena would thus cover claims for property damage, theft, employment disputes, etc., when none of those has any bearing on the issues in this case.

Properly narrowed to claims against Suburban Ann Arbor, LLC involving conduct similar to that alleged by McPherson – “Yo-Yo Sales” and “Spot Deliveries” (as defined above) – the requests would be relevant, proportional to the needs of this case, and not overly burdensome for Federated. Federated has only insured Suburban since 2017, and the proffered information thus far suggests that, at most, only a small subset of the total claims handled by Federated on behalf of Suburban relate to the type of conduct alleged by McPherson. The conduct in question is so unique that it should not be overly burdensome for Federated to determine whether a particular file is or is not relevant. The Court also finds that Federated is more likely than Suburban to have documents and information responsive to the narrowed requests. Finally, because any relevant claims concern disputes between Suburban and third-party customers, before producing any responsive documents to McPherson, Federated may redact the customers’ personal identifying information, and the documents shall be produced pursuant to a standard protective order. Accordingly, this motion is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as specified above.

ECF No. 53 – McPherson's Motion to Compel Testimony and Documents from Ally

This motion concerns discovery McPherson seeks from Ally. Ally produced some documents, but McPherson believes more exist. A deposition of an Ally employee was commenced, but apparently never got off the ground, resulting in one great waste of time, and McPherson's instant motion to compel. The documents at issue in the subpoena to Ally – and presumably the questions McPherson's counsel intends to ask about them – seem fairly straightforward and relevant, as most all of the document requests relate to the handling of the financing application in question and Ally's relationship with Suburban.

The Court makes no ruling on this motion at this time, but expects counsel to engage in a good-faith attempt to resolve the issue. If they are unable to do so, the parties may proceed with briefing the motion on the timeline they have agreed to.

*4 IT IS SO ORDERED.