Hendrickson v. Fifth Third Bank
- Tony Leung
- 0:18-cv-00086
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 4
In Hendrickson v. Fifth Third Bank, Judge Wright affirmed denial of Fifth Third’s request to limit discovery about its repossession practices.
Fifth Third Bank must continue to respond to the discovery about its internal repossession policies and procedures that the magistrate judge permitted; Hendrickson may pursue that discovery.
What happened
Kelley L. Hendrickson’s claims are based on her allegation that Fifth Third Bank repossessed her vehicle without first sending a required written notice. She sought information about the bank’s repossession policies, related lawsuits, and Minnesota repossession law, including for proposed class-action claims.
Fifth Third asked the court to limit that discovery through a protective order. The magistrate judge denied the request, finding the bank’s internal policies and procedures relevant to Hendrickson’s claims.
Judge Wright affirmed the magistrate judge’s order. The court ruled that the magistrate judge had acted within his discretion and that the discovery ruling was not clearly mistaken or contrary to law.
The detailed version
- Hendrickson v. Fifth Third Bank · No. 0:18-cv-00086
- Tony Leung
- Feb. 28, 2019
Background
Kelley L. Hendrickson asserted multiple claims against Fifth Third Bank and 11th Hour Recovery, Inc. She alleged that Fifth Third failed to send her a “Cobb notice” before repossessing her vehicle. The opinion explains that, under Minnesota law, a creditor that repeatedly accepts late payments must give written notice of its intent to strictly enforce the loan agreement before repossessing collateral.
Hendrickson sought discovery about Fifth Third’s internal policies and procedures for communicating with customers about vehicle repossessions, lawsuits involving vehicle repossessions, and information concerning Minnesota repossession law. Fifth Third moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) for a protective order limiting that discovery. The magistrate judge denied Fifth Third’s motion and granted Hendrickson’s motion to amend her complaint to add class-action allegations. Fifth Third appealed only the denial of the protective order as to its internal policies and procedures.
Legal standard
A district court reviews a magistrate judge’s ruling on a nondispositive issue under a highly deferential standard. The ruling may be changed or set aside only if it is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Under Rule 26, parties may obtain discovery about nonprivileged matters relevant to a claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case. A party seeking a protective order bears the burden of showing good cause for limiting discovery.
Ruling
Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright affirmed the magistrate judge’s order. The court agreed that discovery about Fifth Third’s internal policies and procedures was relevant to Hendrickson’s Cobb-notice claims. It concluded that the magistrate judge acted within his broad discretion to supervise discovery and that Fifth Third had not presented persuasive facts or legal authority showing that the ruling was clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
The court acknowledged that the magistrate judge had referred to language removed from Rule 26(b)(1) in 2015. It concluded that this reference did not materially affect the analysis. The order was therefore affirmed, including the denial of Fifth Third’s motion for a protective order.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.