EDWARD SHEA, District Judge
Before the Court, without oral argument, is Defendants Suttell Associates, P.S., Mark T. Case, Jane Doe Case, Karen Hammer, and Jane Doe Hammer's (" Gray-Suttell Defendants") Motion to Reconsider and/or Clarify Ruling Concerning Net Worth Discovery (ECF No. 213). The Gray-Suttell Defendants move the Court for an order reconsidering or clarifying its February 10, 2011 Order Granting and Denying in Part Plaintiff's Motions to Compel and Setting Status Conference (ECF No. 205), which required the Gray-Suttell Defendants to provide net worth information:
Plaintiff asks the Court to compel responses to the First Set of Interrogatories, which sought net worth information from Suttell and from Mr. Case, Ms. Hammer, and their spouses. . . .
The Court finds this information is relevant to the issue of statutory damages.
See
15 U.S.C. § 1692ka(2)(B) (allowing class statutory damages of up to 1% of a defendant's net worth). Accordingly, the Court
grants Plaintiff's request; before the parties' December 7-8, 2010 deposition, Midland shall either 1) answer Interrogatories 1-2 and Requests for Production 1-25 or 2) stipulate to its net worth.
(ECF No. 205.)
The Gray-Suttell Defendants ask the Court to honor the parties' stipulation that the Gray-Suttell Defendants need not provide net worth discovery until the Court certifies a class — a stipulation that had been communicated to, but overlooked by, the Court. Plaintiff did not respond. Indeed, the parties' August 11, 2010 Joint Certificate of Counsel Regarding Continuance of Trial Date and Modification of Scheduling Order (ECF No. 90) provided:
The Court may construe Plaintiff's failure to respond as their consent to entry of an adverse order. LR 7.1(e).
In the event the trial date is continued and a new scheduling order entered (as requested by the parties), Plaintiff would propose that
Suttell defendants be required to fully respond to the "net worth" written discovery within thirty (30) days following the Court's Order certifying a class. The Plaintiff requests that the Court then allow sixty (60) days from the receipt of those responses for the Plaintiff to serve (and email to the Court) the net worth expert report. Plaintiff
would then agree that the pending Motion to Compel the Suttell Defendants' Responses regarding Net Worth is mute [sic], should be stricken with permission to re-file if the above is not timely accomplished.
(ECF No. 90) (emphasis added). Counsel for the Gray-Suttell Defendants also advised the Court that the parties had so stipulated during oral argument and in briefing on Plaintiff's motions to compel. (ECF No. 139.)
Based upon the parties' stipulation, IT IS ORDERED:
1. The Gray-Suttell Defendants' Motion to Reconsider and/or Clarify Ruling Concerning Net Worth Discovery (ECF No. 213 ) is GRANTED.
2. The Court's Order Granting and Denying in Part Plaintiff's Motions to Compel and Setting Status Conference (ECF No. 205) shall be amended to:
a. provide that the
Gray-Suttell Defendants need not answer Plaintiff's net worth discovery requests unless and until such time as the Court certifies the class.
b. strike the following language from Page 19, Paragraph E: "Accordingly, the Court
grants Plaintiff's request; before the parties' December 7-8, 2010 deposition, Midland shall either 1) answer Interrogatories 1-2 and Requests for Production 1-25 or 2) stipulate to its net worth." An amended order will follow.
IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Executive is directed to enter this Order and distribute copies to counsel.
DATED this 2nd day of March 2011.