*1 Before this Court are plaintiff's Motion to Compel and for Sanctions, doc. 20, and Motion to Compel and Overrule Objections, doc. 28. Defendant responded in opposition to both motions, docs. 23, 30. The Court held a hearing on the motions on December 7, 2023. Doc. 32. After argument from both sides, defendant asked for the Court to hold its order in abeyance to allow the parties another opportunity to resolve the discovery issues without Court intervention. The Court directed the parties to enter a joint filing on the status of the motions on or before December 14, 2023, and to specifically address which discovery matters, if any, remained in controversy. Doc. 31. The parties filed the status as directed and indicated that “Defendant will stipulate [ ], for the limited purposes and under the unique circumstances of this case only, it meets the statutory definition of a ‘debt collector’ as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692(a) with respect to Plaintiff and the single account at issue in this case.” Doc. 34. The parties then identified which discovery matters remained at issue. For the reasons discussed below, plaintiff's motions are granted in part, and denied in part.

Plaintiff filed his complaint on December 8, 2022, alleging that defendant violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), doc. 1. Specifically, plaintiff alleges that defendant sued him to collect a debt in Bibb County, Georgia, id. ¶ 16, but that this was improper because plaintiff resided in Putnam County, Florida. Doc. ¶ 13. By suing plaintiff in a forum where he did not live, plaintiff alleges that defendant violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692i(a)(2):

In response, defendant denied being a “debt collector” for purposes of the statute. Doc. 8 ¶ 7. Defendant also claims bona fide error, among others, as an affirmative defense. Id. at 4. During discovery, plaintiff served interrogatories on defendant directed towards the bona-fide-error affirmative defense. Doc. 20 at 4. Defendant contends it relied upon its counsel Mandarich Law Group to determine the appropriate venue for the underlying suit against plaintiff. Doc. 20-1 at 3-4.

On October 11, 2023, plaintiff conducted a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of defendant's corporate representative, Jacob Adamo, on previously noticed topics; Mr. Adamo serves as defendant's Chief Operating Officer (COO). Doc. 20 at 4. Mr. Adamo testified that he only spoke with defendant's counsel in preparation for the deposition, and that prior to his testimony he only reviewed defendant's interrogatory responses, its answer, and affirmative defenses. Doc. 20-3 at 3. As a result, Mr. Adamo was unable to answer many of plaintiff's questions. See doc. 20-3 generally.

*2 After the deposition, plaintiff served defendant with a second set of requests for admissions, request for production, and interrogatories. Doc. 28-3. Defendant served its responses and objections on November 27, 2023, the discovery cutoff date. Doc. 28 at 4. Plaintiff filed his Motion to Compel and for Sanctions, doc. 20, on November 13, 2023. He filed his Motion to Compel and Overrule Objections, doc. 28, on December 1, 2023.

“The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure strongly favor full discovery whenever possible.” Farnsworth v. Procter & Gamble Co., 758 F.2d 1545, 1547 (11th Cir. 1985) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1)). The Court maintains broad discretion under Rule 26 to grant or deny a motion to compel discovery. Josendis v. Wall to Wall Residence Repairs, Inc., 662 F.3d 1292, 1306 (11th Cir. 2011) (citing Sanderlin v. Seminole Tribe of Fla., 243 F.3d 1282, 1285 (11th Cir. 2001)). “Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case[,]” with a court considering the following in making its determination: “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 of expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(a) permits a party serve on any other party a request for production within the scope of Rule 26(b), as articulated above. A party may also propound interrogatories to an opposing party relating to any matter within the scope of Rule 26(b). Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a). Dish Network LLC v. Fraifer, No. 8:16-cv-2549-T-17TBM, 2017 WL 3701140, at *2 (M.D. Fla. May 24, 2017). “A party seeking discovery may move for an order compelling an answer, ... or inspection ... if a party fails to answer an interrogatory submitted under Rule 33; or ... fails to produce documents ... requested under Rule 34.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B)(iii)-(iv). A party's answers to interrogatories must be “true, explicit, responsive, complete and candid.” Weaver v. Mateer and Harbert, P.A., 277 F.R.D. 655, 657 (M.D. Fla. 2011).

Plaintiff, as the party seeking the discovery, has the initial burden of proving the information it seeks is relevant. Gober v. City of Leesburg, 197 F.R.D. 519, 521 (M.D. Fla. 2000) (citations omitted); Callaway v. Lee Mem. Health Sys., No. 2:19-cv-745-SPC-MRM, 2021 WL 6125445, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 30, 2021) (citations omitted). Defendant must then show why the discovery sought is overbroad, unreasonable, or unduly burdensome. Panola Land Buyers Ass'n v. Shuman, 762 F.2d 1550, 1559-60 (11th Cir. 1985) (additional citations omitted). Relevancy in the realm of discovery is construed broadly; it includes “any matter that bears on, or that reasonably could lead to other matter that could bear on, any issue that is or may be in the case.” Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351 (1978) (citation omitted).

According to the parties’ joint filing, the following issues remain unresolved from plaintiff's Motion to Compel and for Sanctions, doc. 20. Specifically in controversy are defendant's 30(b)(6) deposition responses to previously identified topics 8, 9, 19, and 22. Doc. 34 at 2.

Plaintiff asks the Court to preclude defendant from offering evidence contrary to responses that were already given in the 30(b)(6) deposition. Doc. 20 at 18. Plaintiff argues that Mr. Adamo was unprepared to testify on these topics and, as a result, it would be unfair to permit defendant claim it does not have knowledge of these areas during deposition, then later at trial or summary judgment provide responsive answers. Id. at 20. Defendant argues that Mandarich[1] has the information plaintiff seeks, and plaintiff knew Mandarich had this information since at least May 2023. Doc. 23 at 10. Thus, defendant believes that plaintiff should seek this information directly from Mandarich, rather than through defendant's 30(b)(6) witness. Plaintiff represented during the hearing on these motions that he has not sought discovery from Mandarich.

Plaintiff cites QBE Ins. Corp. v. Jorda Enterprises, Inc., 277 F.R.D. 676, 690 (S.D. Fla. 2012) in support of his argument. “[A] corporation which provides a 30(b)(6) designee who testifies that the corporation does not know the answers to the questions will not be allowed effectively to change its answer by introducing evidence at trial.” Id (citing Ierardi v. Lorillard, no. 90-7049, 1991 WL 158911 (Aug. 13, 1991) (E.D. Pa. 1991, at *4)). “The conclusion that the corporation is bound at trial by a legitimate lack of knowledge response at the 30(b)(6) deposition is, for all practical purposes a variation on the rule and philosophy against trial by ambush.” Id. The QBE Court further notes “a party's duty is not negated by a corporation's alleged lack of control over potential Rule 30(b)(6) deponents because a party is required to produce a knowledgeable deponent, regardless of whether the designee is a party's officer or employee or a third-party who has been woodshedded and educated by the responsive party.” Id. at 696 (holding an insurance company plaintiff was obligated to seek out information from its insured in preparing for a 30(b)(6) deposition) (citing Ecclesiastes 9:10-11-12, Inc. v. LMC Holding Co., 497 F.3d 1135, 1147 n. 13 (10th Cir. 2007)). Fed. Civ. P. R. 30(b)(6) imposes a duty to testify on matters known or reasonably available to the corporation. Id at 697.

First, I find that defendant's 30(b)(6) witness was unprepared to be deposed on topics 8, 9, 19, and 22. After a review of the deposition transcript, Mr. Adamo's inability to answer questions about above noticed topics appeared to come from a lack of preparation. See doc. 20-3 at 17-19. The witness, who serves as COO of the company, admitted that he neither spoke to Mandarich, nor reviewed plaintiff's account prior to the deposition.[2] Doc. 20 at 19.

*4 Defendant argues that its 30(b)(6) witness need not be prepared on matters known to Mandarich, but not the corporation. But I find that the previously identified matters known to Mandarich about the plaintiff's case, which defendant hired Mandarich to litigate, are matters reasonably available to defendant. Thus, defendant had an obligation to seek information from Mandarich in preparing its 30(b)(6) witness. Further, the parties in QBE did not challenge the Court precluding trial testimony on topics for which QBE did not provide 30(b)(6) testimony. 277 F.R.D. at 698. Here, that relief is contested.

Plaintiff's motion to preclude defendant from offering contrary testimony or evidence on topics 8, 9, 19, and 22, is denied. Based on the lack of preparation by the 30(b)(6) deponent, however, plaintiff may conduct an additional 30(b)(6) deposition of defendant if he so chooses. That deposition shall be limited to questioning of previously noticed topics 8, 9, 19, and 22, and shall not exceed three hours. In preparing for the deposition, defendant shall seek information from sources reasonably available to it, including Mandarich.

As to this motion, the parties represent that the only issue remaining is plaintiff's request for production no. 22:

Doc. 34 at 2. Plaintiff argues this request seeks information relevant to the policies and procedures defendant maintained for its bona-fide-error affirmative defense. Doc. 28 at 16. Defendant argues the information is not relevant. Doc. 30 at 11.

Based on argument of the parties at the hearing, I find plaintiff's request for production no. 22 to be relevant, but overbroad because there is no geographic limitation to the request. Defendant shall, instead, respond to the following request to produce:

It is ordered:

Plaintiff's Motion to Compel and for Sanctions, doc. 20, is granted in part, denied in part. Plaintiff's Motion to Compel and Overrule Objections, doc. 28, is granted in part, denied in part:

Ordered in Jacksonville, Florida, on December 22, 2023.