United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
KYLE SPUHLER and NICHOLE SPUHLER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
STTE COLLECTION SERVICES, INC., Defendant.
DECISION AND ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS' EXPEDITED
NON-DISPOSITIVE MOTION TO COMPEL AND DEFENDANT'S
EXPEDITED NON-DISPOSITIVE MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF
JOSEPH United States Magistrate Judge.
December 30, 2016, the plaintiffs filed their amended Class
Action Complaint alleging violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) in relation to
debts they allegedly owe to certain medical care providers.
(Docket # 18.) Currently before me are two expedited
non-dispositive motions. The defendant moves for an extension
of time to respond to the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification (Docket # 48) and the plaintiffs move to compel
production of documents (Docket # 47). I will address each
motion in turn.
Motion for Extension of Time
March 3, 2017, I entered an amended scheduling order
extending the deadline for the plaintiffs to file any motions
for class certification until May 17, 2017. (Docket # 20.)
All other dates set forth in the December 16, 2016 scheduling
order remain the same. (Id.) The plaintiffs filed
their motion for class certification on May 12, 2017. (Docket
# 39.) The defendant now moves for an extension of time to
respond to the plaintiffs' motion. The defendant states
that the plaintiffs' depositions are scheduled for June
22, 2017 and it requests the extension so that it may depose
the plaintiffs prior to responding to the motion. (Docket #
48.) The defendant requests an extension until July 7, 2017.
The plaintiffs oppose the motion. (Docket # 50.)
grant the defendant's motion for extension of time.
Whether to grant an extension of time is within my
discretion. See Murphy v. Eddie Murphy Productions,
Inc., 611 F.3d 322, 324 (7th Cir. 2010). The defendant
moved for an extension of time prior to the deadline for its
response brief and noted that it attempted to depose the
plaintiffs on May 25, 2017 in an effort to conduct the
depositions without disturbing the briefing schedule. The
plaintiffs were unavailable, however, until June 22, 2017.
For these reasons, I find good cause to extend the time to
respond to the plaintiffs' motion for class certification
until July 7, 2017. The plaintiffs will have until
July 21, 2017 to file a reply brief, if any. The remainder of
the Scheduling Order remains in effect. The defendant's
motion (Docket # 48) is granted.
Motion to Compel
1, 2017, I entered an order granting the plaintiffs'
motion to compel answers to Interrogatories Nos. 15-18 and
Requests for Production Nos. 10-14. (Docket # 38.) The
plaintiffs have now filed another motion to compel, arguing
that the defendant has failed to provide responses to
Requests for Production Nos. 10-14. (Docket # 47.) The
plaintiffs state that the defendant's position is that
the order was silent as to production, so they need not
provide the documents. (Id. at 2.)
my order should have been crafted more explicitly, in
granting the plaintiffs' previous motion to compel, the
order contemplated compelling both answers to the
interrogatories and the related requests for production of
documents. However, the defendants oppose the motion not on
the ground that the order did not contemplate Requests for
Production Nos. 10-14, but on the ground that the documents
the plaintiffs seek are beyond the scope of the discovery
requests. (Docket # 51.) That is a different matter
altogether. The plaintiffs do not address what specific
documents they are seeking; however, it appears that the
plaintiffs want to know the names of specific consumers to
ascertain whether certain consumers received multiple
collection letters, thus diminishing the potential class
size. (Pl.'s Br. in Supp. Class Cert. at 8 n.4, Docket #
45.) The defendants state that the plaintiffs are seeking
demographic information on potential class members and that
the plaintiffs are not entitled to this information until a
conditional class is certified. (Docket # 51 at 2-3.)
the plaintiffs argue that the documents they seek are
relevant to the numerosity question and the information is
“normal and necessary to identify the class members for
purposes of impending class certification motions, ”
(Docket # 47 at 2), the plaintiffs need not identify
individual class members prior to class certification.
See Shurland v. Bacci Cafe & Pizzeria on Ogden
Inc., 259 F.R.D. 151, 158 (N.D. Ill. 2009) (“The
case law is clear, however, that a present lack of
identifying details such as contact information or the names
of class members need not defeat class
certification.”). Thus, the plaintiffs' motion to
compel (Docket # 47) is denied.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the defendant's motion for
extension of time (Docket # 48) is GRANTED. The defendant has
until July 7, 2017 to file its response brief and the