*1 THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Defendant's Motion to Quash. (DE 37). The Court held a hearing on the Motion on May 20, 2024. (DE 44). For the reasons that follow, the Motion is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.

I. OVERVIEW

This is a putative class action lawsuit initiated on August 16, 2023 in state court. (DE 1-2). Plaintiffs bring claims against Selene Finance, LP (“Selene”) under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) and the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act (“FCCPA”). (DE 15). In class action lawsuits, the FDCPA permits an award of statutory damages up to $1,000 for each named plaintiff as well as the lesser of $500,000 or 1% of the defendant's net worth, to be shared among the remaining class members. 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(2)(B). The FCCPA permits similar damages. Fla. Stat. § 559.77(2).

During discovery in this case, Selene produced to Plaintiffs four pages of financial statements dated December 31, 2023, which have been filed under seal. (DE 43 at 2-5). As Selene explains, these statements include its 2023 year-end book value as calculated by Selene's external accounting and auditing firm PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (“PwC”). (DE 37 at 2). In early May 2024, Plaintiffs deposed a Selene corporate representative regarding the financial statements. (DE 43 at 7-19). The corporate representative failed to answer a number of basic questions and admitted he had “no” knowledge about how the assets or liabilities were calculated. (DE 43 at 169:22-170:2).

Following this deposition, Plaintiffs sent a subpoena to PwC requesting the following records:

(DE 37-1 at 4). This Motion followed. (DE 37).

II. DISCUSSION

By way of the Motion, Selene urges the Court to quash the subpoena based on relevance and overbreadth. (DE 37 at 2). As to relevance, the Court finds no basis to quash. Both the FDCPA and FCCPA impose a statutory damages cap based upon a percentage of a defendant's net worth, thus making net worth a relevant, discoverable issue. See Rivera v. Amalgamated Debt Collection Services, Inc., No. 05-CV-20176, 2006 WL 8433127, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 4, 2006) (finding net worth discovery relevant under FDCPA and FCCPA); Spuhler v. STTE Collection Services, Inc., No. 16-CV-1149, 2017 WL 11579701, at *4 (E.D. Wis. Apr. 14, 2017) (finding “the documents Plaintiffs subpoenaed from [the accounting firm] are relevant to the determination of Defendant's net worth and are, therefore, discoverable.”).

As to overbreadth, the Court partially agrees and limits the temporal scope of the subpoena to 2 years rather than the 5 years requested by Plaintiffs. As a general rule, courts apply the FDCPA statutory damage cap to a defendant's net worth as of the year of, or year prior to, the filing of a complaint. See Dunbar v. Symmetry Mgmt. Corp., No. 819CV00715CEHTGW, 2021 WL 4935787, at *2 n.1 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 26, 2021) (net worth determination made as of the complaint filing year); Klewinowski v. MFP, Inc., No. 8:13-CV-1204-T-33TBM, 2014 WL 1418263, at *1 n.1 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 11, 2014) (same). The Court therefore finds a two-year timeframe to be reasonable and appropriate.

*2 The Court has considered, but finds unpersuasive, Selene's argument that Plaintiffs should be limited solely to documents that show PwC's calculation of Selene's book value and nothing more. (DE 37 at 4, arguing that net worth “begins and ends with book value”). The Court rejects this argument for two reasons. First, as Plaintiffs point out, book value is one way – but not the only way – to calculate net worth. See Jordan v. Commw. Fin. Sys., Inc., 237 F.R.D. 132, 139 n.6 (E.D. Pa. 2006) (recognizing that “[t]here exists judicial disagreement over how to calculate ‘net worth’ for purposes of § 1692k(a)[(2)](B)”) (cleaned up). Ultimately, the issue of Selene's net worth will be decided by a jury based upon the testimony elicited at trial. Fariasantos v. Rosenberg & Assocs., LLC, No. 3:13-CV-543, 2015 WL 868090, at *6 (E.D. Va. Feb. 27, 2015) (“[A] reasonable jury could potentially arrive at alternate net worth figures based on the testimony presented at trial.”). This Court will not declare, at the discovery phase, that book value is the one and only way to determine net worth.

Second, even if book value is the best way to determine net worth, nothing in the FDCPA or FCCPA requires a plaintiff to accept a defendant's internal calculation of this important number. See Miller v. Abrams, Fensterman, Fensterman, Eisman, Greenberg, Formato & Einiger, LLP, No. 10-2156 JFB AKT, 2011 WL 6105033, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 7, 2011) (“[P]laintiff need not accept defendant's interpretation of its financial data ... but is entitled ... to examine the data underlying defendant's statement of net worth.”) (cleaned up). This is especially true when a plaintiff has a plausible basis to question a defendant's calculations. See, e.g., Viernes v. DNF Associates, LLC, No. 19-00316 JMS-KJM, 2021 WL 4352318, at *2 (D. Haw. Sept. 23, 2021) (allowing financial discovery where defendant's calculation showed a decline in net worth that could not be answered by financial statements alone).

Such is the case here, where the Court has closely reviewed the 2023 financial statements as well as the portion of the deposition transcript Plaintiffs provided under seal. Without revealing the exact contents of these sealed documents, the Court notes that Selene reported a one-year net loss that represents a significant portion of Selene's overall 2023 book value. Plaintiffs should not be bound to accept such calculations without a meaningful ability to cross-examine them. Plaintiffs also raise a number of additional questions regarding the 2023 financial statements, but further discussion would require disclosure of information the parties have jointly deemed confidential. Suffice to say, the Court declines to quash the PwC subpoena, apart from a limitation on temporal scope.

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the Motion to Quash (DE 37) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Plaintiff may issue the PwC subpoena with the duces tecum request modified as follows:

DONE and ORDERED in Chambers at West Palm Beach in the Southern District of Florida, this 29th day of May 2024.