Hoffman v. Transworld Systems Incorporated

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: February 8, 2022
• Docket: 2:18-cv-01132
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3

4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 6 AT SEATTLE 7 ESTHER HOFFMAN, et al., 8 Plaintiffs, 9 v. C18-1132 TSZ 10 TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS MINUTE ORDER INCORPORATED, et al., 11 Defendants. 12

13 The following Minute Order is made by direction of the Court, the Honorable Thomas S. Zilly, United States District Judge: 14 (1) Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Testimony and Class Data, docket no. 226, is GRANTED in part, DENIED in part, and STRICKEN in part as moot. 15 a. Plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED as it relates to testimony concerning 16 the actions Defendant Transworld Systems Incorporated (“TSI”) took in response to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) Consent Order. The 17 Court concludes that the requested testimony is relevant and proportional to the needs of the case. TSI’s actions are not protected from disclosure under the 18 attorney-client privilege, work-product doctrine, or common-interest doctrine. See Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383, 395–396 (1981). The Consent Order 19 required TSI to take specific actions. See Exs. A & B to Second Am. Compl. (docket no. 61). Plaintiffs’ questions regarding whether TSI took actions 20 prescribed in the Consent Order do not require TSI to disclose its attorneys’ mental impressions, opinions, or conclusions about the provisions. 21 b. Plaintiffs’ motion is DENIED as it relates to testimony concerning 22 communications between TSI and Defendant Patenaude & Felix A.P.C. (“P&F”). 1 Plaintiffs seek an order compelling TSI and P&F to disclose all of their communications with each other concerning the Consent Order. TSI “functions as 2 a Special Subservicer for loans owned” by the Trust Defendants. Luke Decl. at ¶ 4 (docket no. 252). On behalf of the Trust Defendants, who have no officers, 3 directors, or employees, TSI enters into contracts with law firms, such as P&F, to provide collection services for the Trust Defendants. See id. at ¶¶ 4–5. The 4 “attorney-client privilege extends to third parties indispensable to an attorney’s provision of legal services to the client . . . .” Greenlake Condo. Assoc. v. Allstate 5 Ins. Co., No. 14-CV-01860, 2015 WL 11921419, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 30, 2015) (quoting State v. Aquino-Cervantes, 88 Wn. App. 699, 771, 945 P.2d 767 6 (1997)). The Court concludes that P&F could not represent the Trusts Defendants without communicating with TSI. The attorney-client privilege extends to 7 communications between TSI and P&F to secure legal advice on matters P&F was handling for the Trust Defendants. 8 c. Plaintiffs’ motion is otherwise STRICKEN as moot. TSI provided 9 the requested class discovery after Plaintiffs filed their motion. See Reply at 8 n.4 (docket no. 254). 10 (2) The Court sua sponte STRIKES Plaintiffs’ Notice of Supplemental Authority, docket no. 257. “Before the court rules on a pending motion, a party may 11 bring to the court’s attention relevant authority issued after the date the party’s last brief was filed . . . .” LCR 7(n) (emphasis added). Plaintiffs filed their reply, docket no. 254, 12 on January 28, 2022. The authority cited in Plaintiffs’ notice was issued before January 28, 2022. 13 (3) Plaintiffs’ motions to seal, docket nos. 228 and 242, are RENOTED to 14 February 25, 2022. 15 a. Pursuant to LCR 5(g), the parties are DIRECTED to meet and confer concerning whether TSI will withdraw the confidential designations or will agree 16 to redact the documents so that sealing is unnecessary. Counsel are DIRECTED to meet and confer before filing documents under seal. To the extent possible, 17 counsel shall submit, along with any document filed under seal, a stipulation and proposed order reciting the reasons for sealing the document. See LCR 5(g); 18 Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006); Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2003). If counsel cannot 19 reach agreement, then a properly noted motion to seal must be filed contemporaneously with the sealed document. If the party wishing to submit the 20 material is not the party designating the material as confidential, the party wishing to submit the material shall provide reasonable notice to the other parties, so that a 21 motion to seal, if necessary, may be prepared and filed by the party designating the material as confidential at the same time as the material is submitted under seal to 22 the Court. 1 b. On or before February 22, 2022:

2 i. The parties shall file a stipulation and proposed order to seal the materials and withdraw Plaintiffs’ separate motions; or 3 ii. TSI shall file a brief in support of the motions to seal, with 4 any opposition by Plaintiffs due on February 25, 2022. 5 c. Should the parties fail to comply with this Minute Order, Exhibit B to the Leonard Declaration, docket no. 229, and Exhibits 28 and 29 to the Beckett 6 Declaration, docket no. 238, will be unsealed. (4) The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Minute Order to all counsel of 7 record. 8 Dated this 8th day of February, 2022. 9 Ravi Subramanian 10 Clerk 11 s/Gail Glass Deputy Clerk 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22