K.4 Memorandum in Support of Motion to Compel Answers IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA [plaintiff][CONSUMER], on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, [vs] [defendant]AMERICAN GENERAL CONSUMER DISCOUNT COMPANY, Defendant. [action]NO. 97- MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT’S OBJECTIONS AND TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES, EXPERT INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS I. INTRODUCTION This is a consumer class action arising out of the Defendant’s unconscionable lending practices. American General “flips” lower rate loans into additional high rate loans and packs the loans with unnecessary, extravagantly priced insurance products issued by affiliated insurance companies. Plaintiff sues for violations of the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq., the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, 73 P.S. § 201-1 et seq. and common law fraud and unconscionability. Initially, Defendant objected to 100% of Plaintiff’s interrogatories. After a lengthy telephone conversation, Defendant’s counsel still objected to over 37 Interrogatories and to date all Interrogatories remain unanswered and the Document Request has been answered insufficiently. II. STATEMENT OF FACTS On August 13, 1997, Plaintiff served Defendant with Interrogatories (First Set) and Request for Production of Documents (First Set). A. DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO PRODUCE ANY DOCUMENTS RESPONSIVE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (FIRST SET) On or about September 12, 1997, Defendant responded to Plaintiff’s Request for Production. During an extended telephone conversation between counsel for Plaintiff and counsel for Defendant, Defendant’s counsel agreed to produce documents responsive to Document Requests Nos. 1–18. See, Flitter November 7, 1997 letter and Bryce reply letter of November 21, 1997. On January 6, 1998, Defendant submitted un-indexed bate-stamped documents D0001–D0345. Defendant admits that these documents represent some, but obviously not all of Defendant’s policies and procedures regarding lending and insurance. Review of the documents indicates that they refer to additional policies and procedures not produced. As discussed below, all responsive documents must be produced. The unlabelled responses to the Document Requests are non-responsive as they fail to adequately identify the attached documents and the fail to identify which, if any, are responsive to the individual document requests. B. UNANSWERED INTERROGATORIES During the extended telephone conversation concerning discovery, Defendant, through counsel, agreed to answer Interrogatory Nos. 4, 5, 15, 17–28, 42–43, 55–62. See, Flitter letter of November 7, 1997. By Mr. Bryce’s letter dated November 21, 1997, Defendant reconsidered and withdrew objections to Interrogatories nos. 19–23 and 61. (See Bryce letter, Exhibit “H”) [not reprinted herein]. Though the Plaintiff allowed an additional month, until December 15th, no supplemental responses have been forthcoming whatever. On January 29, 1998, Plaintiff’s counsel sent another reminder letter to Defendant that Defendant’s Answers to Plaintiff’s Interrogatories were outstanding. To date those Answers have not been provided. III. LEGAL ARGUMENT A. UNOBJECTIONABLE INTERROGATORIES MUST BE ANSWERED FORTHWITH As noted, although Defendant originally objected to every Interrogatory on some basis, an extended telephone conference resulted in Defendant’s agreement to withdraw objections to Interrogatories Nos. 4, 5, 15, 18, 42, 43, 55, 58–60, 62 and agreed to provide partial responses to Interrogatories 17, 24–28, 56 and 57. See, Flitter letter of November 7, 1997 and Bryce reply letter of November 21, 1997. Two weeks later Defendant agreed to withdraw other objections, and agreed to answer Interrogatories Nos. 19–23 and 61. See, Bryce letter, November 21, 1997. Notwithstanding the withdrawal of objections, Plaintiff’s Interrogatories, submitted in August 1997, have still not been answered at all. As to Interrogatories Nos. 4, 5, 15, 17–28, 42–43, 55– 62, the Court should Order that they be answered forthwith. Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a). As to the remaining Interrogatories, for the reasons set forth below, the objections should be stricken. B. DEFENDANT’S OBJECTIONS TO THE INTERROGATORIES MUST BE STRICKEN Interrogatory Numbers 1 and 2. Interrogatory 1 asks: Identify each person Defendant may call as a witness in this case. Interrogatory 2 asks: Identify each document which Defendant may introduce into evidence in this case. Defendant responded: See General Objections. American General further objects on the grounds that this interrogatory is premature. These interrogatories are not premature. Interrogatories seeking the identity of witnesses and other tangible evidence may be sought, even if a case is in its infancy. Fischer and Porter Co. v. Tolson, 143 F.R.D. 93 (E.D. Pa. 1992). Answers are needed to help focus discovery in the case and to prepare to refute Defendant’s defenses. This case was removed to this Court on August 15, 1997. Defendant’s objections should be stricken and Defendant ordered to answer the interrogatories. Interrogatory Number 6. Plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. 6 asks: Provide the following information for all persons who were involved in any manner in the adoption or drafting of the forms represented by Appendices A and B hereto; full name, present or last known home and business addresses and telephone numbers; whether presently employed by Defendant; all job title(s) and dates during which each job was held; if not presently employed by Defendant, Social Security Number and exact date of birth. Defendant objected claiming: See General Objections. American General further objects on the ground that the information sought is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. General, unspecified objections to interrogatories are insufficient and improper. Josephs v. Harris Corp., 677 F.2d 985 (3rd Cir. 1982); Stabilus, A Div of Fichtel, Baldwin, Johnson and Greaves, 144 F.R.D. 258 (E.D. Pa. 1992). Relevance in the context of discovery is construed more liberally than at trial. Fort Washington Resources, Inc. v. Tannen, 153 F.R.D. 78, 79 (E.D. Pa. 1994). Information which is reasonably likely to lead to “other matter which could bear on any issue that is or may be in the case” is relevant. Id. (citing Leksi, Inc. v. Federal Ins. Co., 129 F.R.D. 99, 104 (D.N.J. 1989)). The answer to Interrogatory No. 6 is relevant to determine who prepared Defendant’s documents and whether Defendant’s employees deliberately attempted to deceive Defendant’s customers. It may lead to information about the number of such forms in use by Defendant, which is relevant to issues of numerosity and commonality. Interrogatory Numbers 7 to 13. Defendant objected to Interrogatories 7–13 although they directly address the numerosity and commonalty issues involved in this class action. These Interrogatories were amended during the November 6, 1997 telephone conference, for Defendant to provide the number of borrowers and the state of each in lieu of a full answer at this time. Plaintiff’s amended Interrogatory Number 7 asks: Identify by state, the number of all customers of Defendant from July 1991 through the present who obtained additional loans or refinancings and purchased credit insurance from you substantially similar to Appendix “C”. Plaintiff’s amended Interrogatory Number 8 asks: Identify by state, the number of persons that Defendant sold credit life insurance policies to, from July 1991 until present in a form substantially similar to Appendix “B”. Plaintiff’s amended Interrogatory Number 9 asks: Identify by state, the number of persons that Defendant sold credit disability policies to, from July 1991 until present in a form substantially similar to Appendix “C”. Plaintiff’s amended Interrogatory Number 10 asks: Identify by state, the number of persons that Defendant sold collateral protection policies to, from July 1991 until present in a form substantially similar to Appendix “D”. Plaintiff’s amended Interrogatory Number 11 asks: Identify by state, the number of persons that Defendant sold nonfiling insurance policies to, from July 1991 until present. Plaintiff’s amended Interrogatory Number 12 asks: Identify by state, the number of persons who refinanced their loans with you from July 1991 through the present who did not purchase any insurance from you. Plaintiff’s amended Interrogatory Number 13 asks: Identify by state, the number of persons that Defendant sold term life insurance policies from July 1991 until present in a form substantially similar to Appendix “D”. Defendant objected to these interrogatories claiming: See General Objections. American General further objects to [these] interrogator[ies] on the grounds that, since a class has not been certified, the names and addresses of its customers are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; providing such names and addresses would be unduly burdensome; and providing such names and addresses would invade the privacy of American General’s customers. The information is relevant especially regarding the issue of whether the class action should be certified. Rule 23(a)(1) requires that the proponent of a class action demonstrate that “the class is so numerous that joinder is impracticable.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a)(1). The answers to these interrogatories are appropriate to prove numerosity. These interrogatories are also relevant and probative on this issue of commonality because the greater number of Defendant’s customers who underwent purchases similar to Plaintiff evidences Defendant’s concerted effort to pack loans with high priced insurance. Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a)(2). See Robinson v. Countrywide Credit Industries, No. 97-2747, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15712 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 8, 1997) (common issues included whether the Defendant lender purchased unauthorized coverage for the consumer borrowers, inflated the amount of forced placed insurance and improperly inflated commissions). These limited interrogatories only seek the number of customers, not their finances.