Seaman v. National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2007-2

Background

The opinion addresses two consolidated putative class actions. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants orchestrated a scheme to obtain state-court default judgments through false or deceptive affidavits. As relevant to this order, the plaintiffs alleged that employees of Transworld Systems, Inc. falsely claimed personal knowledge of information in those affidavits.

The plaintiffs sought to depose a TSI employee who had signed an affidavit submitted in support of a default-judgment application against named plaintiff Sandra Tabar. TSI and the employee moved to quash, meaning they asked the court to cancel the deposition subpoena. They argued that the employee suffered from stress-induced epilepsy and that the stress of a deposition could trigger a seizure. They alternatively proposed that the plaintiffs submit written questions.

Magistrate Judge Barbara C. Moses denied the motion to quash but ordered accommodations: the deposition would occur remotely, would last no more than four hours, and would include breaks to address stress. The employee and TSI objected to that ruling. They argued that the testimony was cumulative or duplicative and that Judge Moses had not adequately considered the employee’s medical condition and the possibility of irreparable harm. The plaintiffs responded that the employee had unique personal knowledge of the affidavit and that the medical evidence was insufficient to prevent the deposition.

Review of the Motion to Quash

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), a district judge may modify or set aside a magistrate judge’s ruling on a nondispositive pretrial matter only if it is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. A finding is clearly erroneous when the reviewing court has a definite and firm conviction that a mistake was made. A ruling is contrary to law when it fails to apply or misapplies relevant law or procedural rules. The court described this as a highly deferential standard and noted that magistrate judges have broad discretion over discovery disputes.

Judge Gardephe concluded that Judge Moses properly found the requested discovery relevant. The employee personally signed the allegedly fraudulent affidavit, making the employee’s testimony relevant to the claims. The court also found that the objectors had not shown that the testimony would be cumulative or duplicative, given the employee’s personal involvement in preparing the affidavit.

The court further held that the objectors had not shown that the deposition, with Judge Moses’s accommodations, threatened the employee’s health. The court found the physician’s statements conclusory and insufficient to justify additional accommodations. It concluded that the objectors had shown only that harm was a potential concern, not that the deposition posed a clearly defined and serious injury.

The court therefore overruled the objectors’ objections to Judge Moses’s order. The opinion does not state that the motion to quash itself was granted or denied by Judge Gardephe; it reviews and leaves in place Judge Moses’s denial of that motion and the ordered accommodations.

Sealing Request

TSI asked to file the objections and reply brief under seal because they referred to the employee’s private medical information. The court explained that documents relevant to judicial decision-making are generally subject to a presumption of public access, but privacy interests of innocent third parties may outweigh that presumption.

The court found that the objections and briefs were judicial documents subject to a presumption of public access. It directed the parties to redact the employee’s name and other identifying information from publicly filed copies of the objections, the reply brief, and the plaintiffs’ opposition brief. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate Docket Nos. 200, 220, and 223.