Hancock v. HF Holdings, Inc.
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:21-cv-01812
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Hancock v. HF Holdings, Judge Broderick granted Roxanne Hancock limited discovery about class certification and damages despite HF Holdings’ default.
Roxanne Hancock and the proposed class may seek limited discovery from HF Holdings, Inc. on class certification and damages. Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron was assigned to oversee the discovery process.
What happened
Roxanne Hancock filed Hancock v. HF Holdings, Inc. under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act as a proposed class action. HF Holdings did not answer or appear, and Hancock obtained a certificate of default.
Hancock asked to take expedited discovery to obtain information about HF Holdings’ net worth and the number of letters it sent, which could help establish damages and the requirements for a class action. She said that without discovery, she could not seek a class-wide default judgment because HF Holdings’ failure to appear prevented the parties from holding the usual discovery-planning conference.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick found good cause and granted the request to the extent Hancock may seek limited discovery from HF Holdings about class certification and damages. The court said the discovery must be reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence and referred discovery oversight to Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron.
The detailed version
- Hancock v. HF Holdings, Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-01812
- Vernon Broderick
- May 28, 2021
Background
Roxanne Hancock filed this Fair Debt Collection Practices Act case as a proposed class action. HF Holdings, Inc. did not answer or appear. Hancock obtained a certificate of default on May 5, 2021.
On May 6, Hancock moved for permission to take expedited discovery under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d). The court directed her to explain why there was good cause for the request, particularly because HF Holdings had already defaulted.
Request for Discovery
Hancock said she needed limited information to establish requirements for class certification and damages, including HF Holdings’ net worth and the number of letters sent to the proposed class. She stated that the information would allow her to seek class certification and then move for a class-wide default judgment. She argued that without discovery, she would be forced to seek a default judgment only for herself.
Rule 26(d)(1) generally prevents a party from seeking discovery before the parties hold a required discovery-planning conference, unless an exception applies, including a court order. The court explained that courts in the district use a flexible reasonableness-and-good-cause standard for requests for expedited discovery. Because HF Holdings had not appeared, the parties could not hold the required conference. The court found that without limited discovery, Hancock would be unable to seek default judgment on a class-wide basis.
Ruling
Judge Vernon S. Broderick granted Hancock’s request to the extent that she may seek limited discovery from HF Holdings. The discovery must seek information reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence concerning class certification and damages. The court stated that Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron would oversee the discovery process and directed the clerk to close the motion at docket entry 12.
The court noted that the situation would be different if Hancock intended to seek default judgment only for herself: liability could then be decided by default, followed by limited discovery during a proceeding to determine damages.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.