Biener v. Credit Control Services, Inc.
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:21-cv-02809
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Biener v. Credit Control Services, Judge Karas ordered discovery extended by 90 days and pre-motion deadlines moved accordingly.
The order affects Yittel Biener and Credit Control Services, Inc. by extending the discovery period by 90 days and moving the deadlines for letters seeking conferences about dispositive motions.
What happened
Biener v. Credit Control Services, Inc. is a proposed class action under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act about a collection letter that Yittel Biener says sought a debt she did not owe.
Credit Control Services asked for 120 additional days of discovery to investigate Two Point Zero’s involvement in the case, including possibly subpoenaing its records and questioning a representative. Biener opposed, calling the requested discovery unrelated to the claims.
Judge Kenneth M. Karas ordered that discovery be extended by 90 days and that the deadlines for letters seeking conferences about dispositive motions be moved accordingly.
The detailed version
- Biener v. Credit Control Services, Inc. · No. 7:21-cv-02809
- Kenneth Karas
- Jan. 26, 2022
Background
This case is a proposed class action under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The complaint concerns a collection letter that Credit Control Services, Inc. sent to Yittel Biener seeking payment of a debt that Biener denies owing.
The parties had exchanged written discovery, including questions and document requests. In response to an interrogatory asking Biener to identify witnesses with information relevant to whether Credit Control Services violated the Act, Biener identified herself, Credit Control Services, and people employed by that company.
At her January 4, 2022 deposition, Biener testified that Two Point Zero had helped gather documents, filed the claim for her, and referred her to her lawyers. Credit Control Services said it had not previously been told about Two Point Zero’s involvement and sought additional discovery from that organization, including its file concerning Biener and possibly a deposition of one of its representatives. The letter states that Biener’s lawyer described Two Point Zero as a credit-repair organization, but the debt at issue was not reported to a consumer-reporting agency.
Requests and opposition
Credit Control Services asked for a 120-day extension of fact discovery and a corresponding extension of the deadline for letters seeking a conference to request permission to file dispositive motions. It argued that it had acted diligently because it learned of Two Point Zero’s involvement during the January 4 deposition and received the transcript on January 12.
Biener opposed the request. Her lawyer characterized the proposed additional discovery as a fishing expedition unrelated to the claims, which concern an alleged attempt to collect a debt that was not owed.
Ruling
The endorsement states: “Discovery will be extended by 90 days.” It also states that 90 days should be sufficient, particularly because this was the second request to extend discovery, and that the pre-motion deadlines were moved accordingly. The court entered the order. The opinion does not decide whether Credit Control Services violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act or whether the proposed discovery ultimately must be produced.
Classification
This is a procedural order concerning discovery and case-management deadlines, not a decision on the underlying debt-collection claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.