Potapova v. Toyota Motor Credit Corporation

Background

Plaintiff brought a case under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. According to Plaintiff’s letter, a fraudster used Plaintiff’s personal information to make Plaintiff a co-signer on a Lexus lease. After the payments were not made, the vehicle was repossessed and the account was charged off. Plaintiff alleges that Toyota reported the resulting debt inaccurately and failed to reasonably investigate Plaintiff’s disputes. Plaintiff seeks actual damages, punitive damages, and attorney’s fees and costs.

Discovery dispute

Plaintiff served Toyota with a deposition notice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6). That rule requires a corporation to provide one or more witnesses who are prepared to give complete, knowledgeable, and binding answers about the listed subjects. One deposition topic was Toyota’s net worth, including its 2022 financial statements.

At the deposition, Plaintiff’s counsel asked Toyota’s witness about a June 30, 2022, quarterly financial report that Toyota had filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and posted on its website. Toyota’s counsel objected and stated that the witness would not answer further questions about the report. The witness also could not answer questions about Toyota’s net worth and stated that he was completely unfamiliar with the subject. Toyota did not provide another witness on net worth.

The opinion states that Toyota had not sought a protective order limiting the deposition topic. It also states that objections to the requested discovery did not excuse Toyota from presenting a prepared witness. The court treated Toyota’s objections concerning relevance, proportionality, and related issues as waived because Toyota had not objected to the deposition notice or obtained a protective order.

Ruling

Judge Jesse N. Furman granted the letter motion as unopposed. The court ordered Toyota to provide the requested information by December 4, 2023, in one of three ways proposed by Plaintiff: stipulate to Toyota’s net worth within a realistic, good-faith range; provide Plaintiff with the financial report; or provide an appropriate witness to testify about Toyota’s financial condition. The order stated that Toyota could face sanctions if it failed to comply. The clerk was directed to terminate Docket No. 32.

This was a discovery ruling. The opinion did not decide whether Toyota violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act or whether Plaintiff was entitled to damages.