clp10 05

Chapter 5
Repeated Debt Collection Calls as an Invasion of Privacy
Charles Lorant, the founding partner of Alabama Injury Lawyers, P.C., has been representing plaintiffs and consumers in Alabama for over 20 years. Charlie received his B.A. from the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill and his J.D. from the University of Alabama School of Law. While Charlie continues to represent injured individuals in their claims for personal injuries, fraud, and discrimination, for the past five years, his practice has become focused on representing consumers in their claims under the FCRA, FDCPA, and Alabama state law claims. While their firm is small, the lawyers have done battle with numerous giants across the country, including Equifax, Experian, Trans Union, First USA, Wachovia, Bank of America, American Express, Direct Merchants/Metris, Capital One, National Financial Systems, Risk Management Alternatives, Arrow, NCO, and countless others Penny Hays is a partner with Alabama Injury Lawyers, P.C. Penny received her B.A. from Samford University and her J.D. from Cumberland School of Law in 1994. Penny has been representing individuals in their claims for workers compensation, wrongful termination, and social security disability since joining the firm in 1995. For the past five years, her practice has focused on representing consumers in their claims under the FCRA, FDCPA, and Alabama state law claims. Alabama Injury Lawyers, P.C., is a small firm located in Birmingham, Alabama. Section 5.1 is a state court complaint against a collection law firm and some of its debt collectors alleging that they tortiously invaded the consumers privacy1 by calling repeatedly at their home and workplaces, and discussing the consumers debt with third parties. Those acts were also alleged to constitute the tort of intentional infliction of mental distress.2 The complaint sought $74,500.00 in compensatory damages and punitive damages. Section 5.2 adds a debt collector defendant. Section 5.3 is the Second Amended Complaint adding numerous claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and adding attorney fees to the relief sought and increasing the damages sought to $2 million.3 Section 5.4 are the first set of interrogatories, section 5.5 are the first request for admissions, section 5.6 is the first request for the production of documents, and section 5.7 is a notice of taking deposition, all serviced with the first state court complaint. Subsequent discovery and proceedings were conducted in federal court. Section 5.8 is a second request for the production of documents repeating requests for employee compensation information from the collection law firm and for documents relating to consumer suits against the debt collector. Section 5.9 is the third request for production of documents seeking debt collector employees personnel and complaint files, telephone bills and logs, contracts between the collector and the creditor, and other documents. Section 5.10 is the fourth request for production of documents regarding documents mentioned in the following depositions of the debt collectors. Section 5.11 is the deposition of an experienced debt collector who had been assigned the consumers account for collection. Section 5.12 is the deposition of the debt collector owner who was active in the business after she had reviewed the consumers tape recordings of two harassing telephone calls.
1 2 3
National Consumer Law Center, Fair Debt Collection 10.3 (5th ed. 2004). Id. at 10.2. Id. at Ch. 5.
Section 5.13 is a memorandum of law opposing the debt collectors motion for summary judgment. It argues that the evidence established a campaign of intentional harassment and false threats of arrest, garnishment, and suit, and insults that resulted in severe physical and emotional distress, invaded the consumers privacy, and that the employer had failed to exercise due diligence and ordinary care in supervising its employees despite numerous prior complaints. The memorandum of law further argues that the defendants argument that their liability for attorney fees under the FDCPA should terminate with their admission of FDCPA liability is erroneous because the consumers are entitled to a trial on the FDCPA actual damages including mental anguish. Section 5.14 is a consent judgment for the consumers in the amount of $90,000.00.
5.1 Complaint
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JEFFERSON COUNTY, ALABAMA [Consumer 1] and [Consumer 2], Plaintiffs, v. Neuheisel Law Firm, P.C., Ken Jones, Jason Davidson, and Fictitious Defendants A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, and O, all of whose true and correct names are not further known to Plaintiffs at this time, but when ascertained, will be added by way of amendment. Nevertheless, each of said fictitious parties Defendants participated in, contributed to, and conspired with the named Defendants herein to commit the acts that injured and damaged the Plaintiffs as set forth herein below, all acting as collectors and operating the corporate entity collecting corporate accounts. Each of said parties, named and fictitious, acted as principal and agent, each of the other, and combined and concurred each with the other in committing the acts that injured the Plaintiffs herein, Defendants.
COMPLAINT 1. The Plaintiffs, [Consumer 1] and [Consumer 2] are residents and citizens of the State of Alabama and are over the age of twenty-one (21) years. Each brings this action by his and her individual, separate claim. 2. The Defendant, Neuheisel Law Firm, P.C., whose correct corporate status is unknown to Plaintiffs at this time, was, at all respects and at all times relevant herein, doing business in the State of Alabama. 3. The Defendant, Ken Jones, was at all times pertinent hereto an agent, officer or employee of Defendant Neuheisel Law Firm, P.C. 4. The Defendant, Jason Davidson, was at all times pertinent hereto an agent, officer or employee of Defendant Neuheisel Law Firm, P.C. 5. Fictitious Defendants A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, and O, are all entities or individuals who contributed to or participated in, or authorized the acts and did the things complained of which caused the injuries and damages to the Plaintiffs as hereinafter set forth, in the State of Alabama. Each of said fictitious Defendants participated in, and contributed to the acts that injured and damaged the Plaintiffs as set forth herein below, all acting as collectors and operating the corporate entity collecting corporate accounts. Each of said parties, named and fictitious, acted as principal and agent, each of the other, and combined and concurred each with the other in committing the acts that injured the Plaintiffs herein. COUNT ONE: INVASION OF THE RIGHT OF PRIVACY
6. The Plaintiffs adopt the averments and allegations of paragraphs 1 through 5 hereinbefore as if fully set forth herein and add thereto the following: 7. The Defendants undertook a series of communications to the home and workplace of the Plaintiffs constituting an invasion of privacy, as set out and described in the common law of the State of Alabama. Said communications were harassing, unreasonable, systematic and continuous in number and made in disregard for Plaintiffs right to privacy; after repeated requests that the Defendants no longer contact them. Said communications were made to force, coerce, harass, frighten, embarrass and/or humiliate the Plaintiffs into paying a debt. 8. Said invasions were intentional, willful, and malicious, and violated the Plaintiffs privacy. Said invasions were a regular, continuous and systematic, harassing and unreasonable collection effort contrary to the law of the State of Alabama and violated the Plaintiffs privacy. Plaintiffs aver that the Defendants telephoned the Plaintiffs on multiple occasions demanding payment, threatening to send the sheriff to pick them up, and threatening the Plaintiffs physical well being. 9. Plaintiffs also aver that Defendants telephoned their respective places of employment and spoke with third parties regarding the Plaintiffs. 10. The Plaintiffs aver that the communications were made by Ken Jones and Jason Davidson who were the employees of and acting on behalf of the named Defendant. 11. Plaintiffs were harassed, hounded, and threatened. Plaintiffs repeatedly and continuously begged and pleaded with Defendants to stop calling, that the calls were creating great emotional distress, physical sickness, and mental pain and anguish. Defendants refused to cease and desist the calling, hounding, threatening, and harassment. Defendants have continuously and repeatedly called Plaintiffs at home and work after being told not to call and that the calls were making them physically sick and creating great emotional distress and mental pain and anguish. 12. As a proximate consequence of said invasion of the right of privacy, Defendants have caused the Plaintiffs to suffer great worry, loss of sleep, anxiety, embarrassment, nervousness, physical sickness, and physical and mental injury, pain, anguish, fear and fright. COUNT TWO: INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS 13. Plaintiffs adopt the averments and allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 12 hereinbefore as if more fully set forth herein and add thereto the following. 14. The Defendants continual refusal to cease communicating with the Plaintiffs was an intentional infliction of emotional distress, willfully and intentionally undertaken, knowing that the same was designed to abuse and coerce, confuse and create great mental and physical pain and damage, so that the Plaintiffs would pay a debt. As a proximate cause thereof, the Plaintiffs were caused great mental anguish, physical sickness, embarrassment, loss of sleep, and fear and intimidation. 15. The Defendants, named and fictitious, are all corporations and/or individuals, and have committed the acts set out in the above paragraph by directing communications to the Plaintiffs in the State of Alabama. 16. As a proximate consequence of said intentional infliction of emotional distress, the Defendants have caused the Plaintiffs great worry, humiliation, embarrassment, loss of sleep, anxiety, nervousness, physical sickness, physical and mental suffering, pain, anguish and fright.
COUNT THREE: NEGLIGENT TRAINING AND SUPERVISION 17. Plaintiffs adopt the averments and allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 12 hereinbefore as if more fully set forth herein and add thereto the following. 18. Defendants, Neuheisel Law Firm, P.C. and fictitious defendants 1 through 10, knew or should have known of the conduct set forth herein which was directed at and visited upon the Plaintiffs. 19. Defendants knew or should have known that said conduct was improper. 20. Defendants negligently and wantonly failed to train and supervise collectors in order to prevent said improper conduct. 21. As a result of Defendants negligence and wantonness, the Plaintiffs suffered humiliation, loss of sleep, anxiety, nervousness, physical sickness, physical and mental suffering, pain, and anguish. AMOUNT OF DAMAGES DEMANDED WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiffs, each separately and severally, demand judgment against Defendants, Neuheisel Law Firm, P.C., Ken Jones, and Jason Davidson, in the sum of Seventy-Four Thousand, Five Hundred Dollars ($74,500.00) in compensatory damages and punitive damages, hence this suit. Though this Complaint spells out claims and refers to several, separate and different counts, the Plaintiffs claim only the single amount of damages set out in this paragraph at this stage of these proceedings, and Plaintiffs reserve the right to file and make amendments to this Complaint as to causes of action and amounts claimed as discovery is produced pursuant to discovery propounded at this stage of these proceedings and as the Defendants make discovery.
____________________________________ [Attorney for Plaintiffs]
5.2 Amended Complaint Adding Party

PLAINTIFFS AMENDED COMPLAINT Come now the Plaintiffs in the above styled cause and hereby amend their Complaint as follows: 1. The Plaintiffs hereby substitute Kathryn Neuheisel for fictitious Defendant A as an additional Defendant in this matter. 2. The Defendant, Kathryn Neuheisel, was at all times pertinent hereto an agent, officer, owner or employee of Defendant Neuheisel Law Firm, P.C. COUNT FOUR 3. The Plaintiffs hereby adopt, incorporate, and reallege each and every allegation contained in the Plaintiffs original Complaint and Paragraphs 1 and 2 herein above as if fully set out herein. 4. Defendant Kathryn Neuheisel was under a duty to properly train and supervise her agents, officers, and/or employees collecting on past due accounts. 5. Defendant Kathryn Neuheisel knew or should have known of the conduct set forth in the Plaintiffs Complaint which was directed at and visited upon the Plaintiffs. 6. Defendant Kathryn Neuheisel knew or should have known that said conduct was improper. 7. Defendant Kathryn Neuheisel negligently, intentionally, and wantonly failed to train and supervise collectors to prevent said improper conduct.
8. As a result of Defendant Kathryn Neuheisels negligence and wantonness, the Plaintiffs suffered humiliation, loss of sleep, anxiety, nervousness, physical sickness, physical and mental suffering, pain, and anguish.
AMOUNT OF DAMAGES DEMANDED WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiffs, each separately and severally, demand judgment against Defendants, Neuheisel Law Firm, P.C., Ken Jones, Jason Davidson, and Kathryn Neuheisel in the sum of Seventy-Four Thousand, Five Hundred Dollars ($74,500.00) in compensatory damages and punitive damages, hence this suit. Though this Complaint spells out claims and refers to several, separate and different counts, the Plaintiffs claim only the single amount of damages set out in this paragraph at this stage of these proceedings, and Plaintiffs reserve the right to file and make amendments to this Complaint as to causes of action and amounts claimed as discovery is produced pursuant to discovery propounded at this stage of these proceedings and as the Defendants make discovery.
5.3 Amended Complaint Adding FDCPA Claim to Tort Claims

PLAINTIFFS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT Come now the Plaintiffs in the above styled cause and hereby file this Second Amended Complaint to add the following Count and increase the ad damnum as follows: COUNT FIVE 1. The Plaintiffs hereby adopt, incorporate, and reallege each and every allegation contained in the Plaintiffs Complaint and Amended Complaint as if fully set out herein. 2. The Defendant, Neuheisel Law Firm, P.C., (Neuheisel), is a company engaged in the business of collecting consumer debt and regularly collects consumer debts. Accordingly, Neuheisel is a debt collector as defined in the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. 1692 a (6). 3. Ken Jones, Jason Davidson, and Kathryn Neuheisel are the employees and agents of Neuheisel. 4. The Defendants have engaged in acts and practices in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (hereinafter referred to as FDCPA) in collection activity with respect to the Plaintiff, [Consumer 1]s, alleged personal debt. 5. The Defendants violated 15 U.S.C 1692b(2) by communicating with a person other than the consumer and indicating that the Plaintiff and or Plaintiffs owed a debt. 6. The Defendants violated 1692c(a)(1) by contacting the Plaintiffs at a time or place Defendants knew or should have known was inconvenient to the Plaintiffs. The Defendants also violated 1692c(a)(3) by continuing to contact the Plaintiffs at their places of employment after
Defendants knew or had reason to know that the Plaintiffs were prohibited from receiving such communications. 7. The Defendants violated 1692d by engaging in conduct the natural consequence of which was to harass, oppress, or abuse the Plaintiffs. The Defendants further violated 1692d(1) by threatening the use of violence or other means of harm to the Plaintiffs; d(2) by using language the natural consequence of which is to abuse the hearer; and d(5) by repeatedly telephoning the Plaintiffs with the intent to annoy, abuse, or harass the Plaintiffs in an effort to coerce them into paying a debt. 8. The Defendants also violated 1692e(3), (4), and (5) by making false and misleading representations to the Plaintiffs. At the time the Defendants made these representations to the Plaintiffs, the Defendants knew, or should have known, that said representations were false. Said representations made by Defendants were made recklessly, willfully, and/or intentionally. 9. Finally, the Defendants violated 1692f by using unfair and/or unconscionable means to attempt to collect a debt. 10. As a proximate result of the Defendants actions, the Plaintiffs were caused to suffer actual damages for worry, shame, humiliation, loss of sleep, anxiety, nervousness, physical sickness, physical and mental suffering, pain, anguish and fright. 11. As a result of Defendants violations of the FDCPA, the Plaintiffs are entitled to an award of statutory damages, actual damages, costs, and attorneys fees. 12. Plaintiffs further amend their ad damnum and Amount of Damages Demanded therein to seek compensatory damages and punitive damages against the Defendants in the sum of Two Million Dollars. WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiffs hereby demand judgment on all counts against Defendants, Neuheisel Law Firm, P.C., Kathryn Neuheisel, Ken Jones and Jason Davidson in the amount of Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000.00) in compensatory and punitive damages. Plaintiffs also demand actual damages, attorneys fees and costs.
5.4 Interrogatories
PLAINTIFFS FIRST INTERROGATORIES TO DEFENDANTS Come now the Plaintiffs and request the Defendants, separately and severally, to answer the following interrogatories, within forty-five (45) days after service upon you. The Plaintiffs request that the Defendants responses be in the form required by the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure. 1. Please identify the name, address, job title, and job duties and each and every person with factual information concerning the following: a. All communications, whether written or by telephone, made to the Plaintiffs; b. All efforts to collect on the Plaintiffs account, account number [account number]; c. The Defendants policies and procedures regarding collection of accounts; and d. The Defendants policies and procedures for monitoring collection activities, including, but not limited to, telephone calls. 2. Please identify each and every supervisor of collectors for Neuheisel Law Firm, P.C. 3. Please identify each and every person who spoke with, called, or contacted the Plaintiffs, including their names, all assumed names or aliases, addresses, and home and business phone numbers, the dates they called, the reasons for such call or contact, and what specifically was said to Plaintiffs. State the entire, full, total conversation. 4. State whether or not you or any agent, servant, or employee has telephoned Plaintiffs at any time, and:
10
a. b. c.
State the date and time of each call and the nature of the call or calls. State what was said, in detail, by and between your agent, servant or employee and the Plaintiffs. State the name, and any assumed names, and employment of each person making such call or calls, and the purpose of said call.
5. State whether you or your agent, servant or employee has called the Plaintiffs neighbors, spouse, relatives, or employment at any time in connection with an alleged account or for any other reason. a. State the dates, name of each person making the call or calls, the purpose of each such call, and the details of what was said between said agent, servant or employee to Plaintiffs neighbors, spouse, relatives or employer. 6. Identify the employees of each Defendant who had any contact whatsoever with the Plaintiffs. a. State everything said in detail by all parties involved in the contact and the date of same. Specifically, any employee who called the Plaintiffs or directed any written communication to Plaintiffs. 7. State the principal place of business of each corporate Defendant herein. 8. List each and every insurance policy which is applicable to the Plaintiffs claims, including the amount of coverage and applicable deductible. 9. State the name, address and qualifications of any and all experts you have retained, hired or consulted in this case, which are expected to testify. For each, a. State the subject matter on which any and all such expert witnesses are expected to testify. b. Summarize the substance of the facts and opinions to which any such expert witness is expected to testify, including in that summary the grounds for each opinion. c. List all texts, articles, manuals, or any other materials used by the expert in preparation of this matter. 10. State the names, addresses, telephone numbers and places of employment of all persons who have factual knowledge regarding the facts and circumstances involving this lawsuit. ____________________________________ [Attorney For Plaintiffs]
PLEASE SERVE SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH THE COMPLAINT IN THIS CAUSE
11
5.5 Request for Admissions

PLAINTIFFS FIRST REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS Come now Plaintiffs and request the defendants, each separately and severally, to admit to the truth of the following within the time required by law and the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure: 1. That Defendants communicated with Plaintiffs. 2. That Defendants telephoned the Plaintiffs residence. 3. That the Defendants telephoned [Consumer 1] at her place of employment. 4. That the Defendants telephoned [Consumer 2] at his place of employment. 5. That Defendants telephoned the Plaintiffs in the State of Alabama. 6. That Defendants undertook to collect an indebtedness from Plaintiffs in the State of Alabama. 7. That Defendants undertook to enforce and secure an alleged claim against Plaintiffs within the past two (2) years. 8. That the Defendants who communicated with Plaintiffs were not licensed attorneys. 9. That all persons telephoning the Plaintiffs residence concerning an alleged indebtedness were not licensed attorneys. 10. That all persons telephoning the Plaintiffs places of employment concerning an alleged indebtedness were not licensed attorneys. 11. That the Defendants were told by the Plaintiff, [Consumer 1], to stop calling her at work. 12. That the Defendants were told by the Plaintiff, [Consumer 2], to stop calling him at work.
12
13. That the Defendants spoke with third parties at [Consumer 1]s place of employment. 14. That the Defendants spoke with third parties at [Consumer 2]s place of employment. 15. That the Defendants were told by the Plaintiffs to stop calling them at home. 16. That Defendants were notified and had knowledge of notice to cease and desist communication with Plaintiffs. 17. That the Defendants are not licensed to practice law in the State of Alabama.
______________________________ [Attorney For Plaintiffs]
13
5.6 Document Production Request

PLAINTIFFS FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS DIRECTED TO DEFENDANTS Pursuant to the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs request that Defendants produce the documents herein described and permit Plaintiffs and their attorneys to inspect them and copy such of them as they may desire. Plaintiffs request that the documents be made available for this inspection at the offices of counsel for the Plaintiffs, Alabama Injury Lawyers, P.C., 2204 Lakeshore Drive, Suite 200, Birmingham, Alabama 35209. Plaintiffs further request that this inspection be permitted by Defendants immediately after Defendants response to this request has been filed, and that their attorneys be permitted to remove from Defendants custody such documents as they desire to copy, on the understanding that Plaintiffs attorneys will be responsible for these documents so long as they are in their possession, that copying will be done at Plaintiffs expense, and that the documents will be promptly returned immediately after copying has been completed. This request is intended to cover all documents in possession of the Defendants, or subject to its custody and control, regardless of location. As used in this request, the term document means every writing or record of every type and description that is in the possession, control or custody of Defendants, including but without limitation to, correspondence, memoranda, stenographic or handwritten notes, studies, publications, books, pamphlets, pictures, films, voice recordings, reports, surveys; minutes or statistical compilations, data processing cards or computer records or tapes or print-outs; agreements, communications, state and federal governmental hearings, and reports, correspondence, telegrams, memoranda, summaries or records of telephone conversations, summaries or records of personal conversations or interviews, diaries, graphs, reports,
14
notebooks, note charts, plans, drawings, sketches, maps, summaries or records of meetings or conferences, summaries or reports of investigations or negotiations, opinions or reports of consultants, photographs, motion picture film, brochures, pamphlets, advertisements, circulars, press releases, drafts, letters, any marginal comments appearing on any document, and all other writings. REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION Please produce the following: 1. The original file, including original file folder, all memoranda, statements, letters, notations, reports, reports of telephone calls, records of all calls, or other written memoranda, and all communications in Defendants files concerning or pertaining to [Consumer 1] or [Consumer 2], or in whatever form the name is reflected in Defendants records. 2. Any and all collection manuals, all written procedural instructions and regulations regarding and governing collection activities, collection procedures, and collection practices utilized by the Defendants for the three (3) years prior to the filing of the lawsuit herein. 3. Each and every manual, collectors handbook, document, book, record, instruction, regulation, and memoranda concerning collections from consumers, and collections on consumer accounts, including, but not limited to, telephone calls and personal visitations in the control of or possession of Defendants, which was in effect at any time during the two (2) years prior to the filing of this lawsuit. 4. Any and all documents, written statements or reports, records of any kind in your possession regarding the collection of an alleged debt from Plaintiffs. 5. All interoffice communications concerning, relating to, or pertaining to, the Plaintiffs. 6. Any and all documents, letters, and records reflecting attempts to collect sums of money from the Plaintiffs. 7. A copy of any and all documents which you allege create an obligation to you concerning the Plaintiffs herein. 8. All computer printouts or sheets or copies of computer screens regarding the Plaintiffs, the Plaintiffs account, collection activity on the account, and the alleged debt. 9. All code indexes for computer printouts, including abbreviation and symbol lists, computer training and procedures manuals, and computer indexes, if separate from policies and procedures manuals previously requested, which were in effect at any time during the two (2) years prior to the filing of this lawsuit. 10. The salary, commission, and bonus records for collectors, supervisors, and employees involved in your debt collecting operations during the two (2) years prior to the filing of this lawsuit. 11. All manuals and guidelines governing the payment of salary, commission, and bonuses for employees, collecting money in your collection operations, including collectors, supervisors, directors, and persons in control, which were in effect at any time during the two (2) years prior to the filing of this lawsuit. 12. All material, including video and audio tapes, pertaining to training by or for the Defendants and their employees regarding collection efforts which were in effect at any time during the two (2) years prior to the filing of this lawsuit. 13. A current organizational chart for each Defendant.
15
14. All documents between Defendants and any other person or persons or entity regarding the Plaintiffs and collection of an alleged debt. 15. Copies of any litigation filed against the Defendants within the last three (3) years alleging invasion of privacy or Fair Debt Collection Practices Act violations with respect to collection efforts made by Defendants. 16. A list of all current employees engaged in the collection of debts such as the debt you are attempting to collect from Plaintiffs, their positions and responsibilities. 17. Any insurance policies in effect at any time during the two (2) years prior to the filing of this lawsuit covering the Defendants for actions against the Defendants such as is alleged in the complaint herein. 18. All financial reports of the Defendants for the past two years. 19. All income tax returns of the Defendants for the past two years. 20. All internal reports and memoranda of the Defendants regarding the use of its collection notices and collection efforts. 21. All documents relating to the maintenance of procedures by the Defendants adapted to avoid any violation of a persons right to privacy. 22. All documents relating to the maintenance of procedures by the Defendants adapted to avoid any violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. 23. Copies of all reports and documents utilized by an expert which Defendants propose to call at trial. 24. Copies of any and all documents which evidence the purchase of any account of the Plaintiffs from any source. 25. Copies of all tape recordings of conversations between the Plaintiffs and Defendants. 26. Copies of all video tape recordings made to monitor the activities of collectors while they are attempting to collect debts. 27. Copies of any and all documents which evidence or govern the agreement between this Defendant and the seller of the account of Plaintiffs for which this Defendant has attempted collections. 28. All exhibits which Defendants propose to introduce at trial. This Request shall be deemed continuing so as to require further and supplemental production if Defendants obtains additional documents required to be produced herein between the time of the initial production and the time of trial.
____________________________________ [Attorney For Plaintiffs]
16
5.7 Notice of Taking Deposition

NOTICE OF TAKING DEPOSITION To: Neuheisel Law Firm, P.C. 64 East Broadway Road, Ste 245 Tempe, AZ 85282
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to Rule 30(b)(5) and (6) of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure, the Plaintiffs herein will take the deposition of the employee(s) of the Defendant, Neuheisel Law Firm, P.C., or the correct designation thereof, who are most knowledgeable concerning: 1. Any and all contact with the Plaintiffs, whether by phone, letter, or any other means; 2. The policies and procedures of handling collection of past due accounts; 3. The policies and procedures of monitoring collectors in their collection activities; 4. All collection efforts by the Defendant to collect the debt for account number [account number], the subject of this litigation. DATE: TIME: PLACE: May 17, 2002 10:00 a.m. Alabama Injury Lawyers, P.C. 2204 Lakeshore Drive, Suite 200 Birmingham, AL 35209
17
The Plaintiffs request that the above named-deponent(s) produce the following documents at the time of the taking of his/her deposition. For purposes of this request: document means any written, recorded or graphic matter however produced or reproduced and includes but is not limited to memoranda, notes, internal communications, letters, lists, computer generated papers, reports or any other writings (either hand or typewritten) by whatever name called. This request is intended to cover all documents in your possession or subject to your custody and control, whether they are located at your principal place of business, another office, the office of your counsel or at your home or otherwise subject to your access or control. 1. Any and all records in the possession and control or custody of the Defendants, including internal reports, instructions, and manuals regarding its collection activities, efforts, notices, and operations manuals utilized by the Defendants, and all exhibits in the Defendants possession to introduce at trial. 2. All documents relating to the alleged debt of Plaintiffs and the collection thereof, including but not limited to account number [account number]. 3. All material, including video and audio tapes, pertaining to training by or for the Defendants and their employees regarding collection efforts. 4. All internal reports and memoranda of the Defendants regarding the use of its collection notices and collection efforts. 5. All operation manuals utilized by the Defendants. 6. All documents relating to the maintenance of procedures by the Defendants adapted to avoid any violation of a persons right to privacy. 7. All exhibits which Defendants propose to introduce at trial. 8. The original file and file folder regarding the Plaintiffs. 9. Produce and attach a true and correct copy of each collectors personnel file that has ever spoken with or communicated with the Plaintiffs. 10. Produce and attach the compensation scale, including salaries, incentives, and bonuses for every collector of Defendants that have ever spoken with or communicated with the Plaintiffs. 11. The organizational structure of each corporate defendant herein. Said depositions shall continue from day to day until completed. ____________________________________ [Attorney For Plaintiffs]
PLEASE SERVE SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH THE COMPLAINT IN THIS CAUSE.
18
5.8 Second Document Production Request

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JEFFERSON COUNTY, ALABAMA [Consumer 1] and [Consumer 2], Plaintiffs, v. Neuheisel Law Firm, P.C., Ken Jones, Jason Davidson, and Kathryn Neuheisel, Defendants.
PLAINTIFFS SECOND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS DIRECTED TO DEFENDANTS Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs request that Defendants produce the documents herein described and permit Plaintiffs and their attorneys to inspect them and copy such of them as they may desire. Plaintiffs request that the documents be made available for this inspection at the offices of counsel for the Plaintiffs, Alabama Injury Lawyers, P.C., 401 Office Park Drive, Birmingham, Alabama 35223. Plaintiffs further request that this inspection be permitted by Defendants immediately after Defendants response to this request has been filed, and that their attorneys be permitted to remove from Defendants custody such documents as they desire to copy, on the understanding that Plaintiffs attorneys will be responsible for these documents so long as they are in their possession, that copying will be done at Plaintiffs expense, and that the documents will be promptly returned immediately after copying has been completed. This request is intended to cover all documents in possession of the Defendants, or subject to its custody and control, regardless of location. As used in this request, the term document means every writing or record of every type and description that is in the possession, control or custody of Defendants, including but without limitation to, correspondence, memoranda, stenographic or handwritten notes, studies, publications, books, pamphlets, pictures, films, voice recordings, reports, surveys; minutes or statistical compilations, data processing cards or computer records or tapes or print-outs; agreements, communications, state and federal governmental hearings, and reports, correspondence, telegrams, memoranda, summaries or records of telephone conversations, summaries or records of personal conversations or interviews, diaries, graphs, reports, notebooks, note charts, plans, drawings, sketches, maps, summaries or records of meetings or conferences, summaries or reports of investigations or negotiations, opinions or reports of consultants, photographs, motion picture film, brochures, pamphlets, advertisements, circulars, press releases, drafts, letters, any marginal comments appearing on any document, and all other writings. REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
19
Please produce the following: 1. The salary, commission, and bonus records for collectors, supervisors, and employees involved in your debt collecting operations during the two (2) years prior to the filing of this lawsuit. 2. All manuals and guidelines governing the payment of salary, commission, and bonuses for employees, collecting money in your collection operations, including collectors, supervisors, directors, attorneys, and persons in control, which were in effect at any time during the two (2) years prior to the filing of this lawsuit. 3. Copies of any litigation filed against the Defendants within the last three (3) years alleging invasion of privacy or Fair Debt Collection Practices Act violations with respect to collection efforts made by Defendants.
20
5.9 Third Document Production Request

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JEFFERSON COUNTY, ALABAMA [Consumer 1] and [Consumer 2], Plaintiffs, v. Neuheisel Law Firm, P.C., Ken Jones, Jason Davidson, and Kathryn Neuheisel, Defendants.
PLAINTIFFS THIRD REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS DIRECTED TO DEFENDANTS Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs request that Defendants produce the documents herein described and permit Plaintiffs and their attorneys to inspect them and copy such of them as they may desire. Plaintiffs request that the documents be made available for this inspection at the offices of counsel for the Plaintiffs, Alabama Injury Lawyers, P.C., 401 Office Park Drive, Birmingham, Alabama 35223. Plaintiffs further request that this inspection be permitted by Defendants immediately after Defendants response to this request has been filed, and that their attorneys be permitted to remove from Defendants custody such documents as they desire to copy, on the understanding that Plaintiffs attorneys will be responsible for these documents so long as they are in their possession, that copying will be done at Plaintiffs expense, and that the documents will be promptly returned immediately after copying has been completed. This request is intended to cover all documents in possession of the Defendants, or subject to its custody and control, regardless of location. As used in this request, the term document means every writing or record of every type and description that is in the possession, control or custody of Defendants, including but without limitation to, correspondence, memoranda, stenographic or handwritten notes, studies, publications, books, pamphlets, pictures, films, voice recordings, reports, surveys; minutes or statistical compilations, data processing cards or computer records or tapes or print-outs; agreements, communications, state and federal governmental hearings, and reports, correspondence, telegrams, memoranda, summaries or records of telephone conversations, summaries or records of personal conversations or interviews, diaries, graphs, reports, notebooks, note charts, plans, drawings, sketches, maps, summaries or records of meetings or conferences, summaries or reports of investigations or negotiations, opinions or reports of consultants, photographs, motion picture film, brochures, pamphlets, advertisements, circulars, press releases, drafts, letters, any marginal comments appearing on any document, and all other writings. REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
21
Please produce the following: 1. Produce and attach a true and correct copy of each collectors personnel, payroll file, training file, and all complaint letters received regarding each collector that has ever spoken with or communicated with the Plaintiffs. 2. Provide a copy of each and every telephone bill or log for every telephone line used by Defendants or any of its agents for collection calls from December 1, 2001 through June 1, 2002. 3. A copy of the contract entered into between Collect America and the Defendants regarding this account and/or the portfolio which contained this account. 4. A copy of the contract entered into between MBNA and the Defendants regarding this account and/or the portfolio which contained this account, if any. 5. A copy of each and every collection and monitoring criteria required by Collect America or MBNA. 6. A copy of each and every form used to monitor the collection of accounts. 7. A copy of each and every form used to monitor the collection of Collect America and MBNA accounts. 8. A copy of each and every monitoring form completed for Collect America for 2001 and 2002. 9. A copy of each and every complaint filed against any of the Defendant with the Federal Trade Commission, United States Attorney General and/or all states Attorneys General from 1995 to the present. 10. A copy of each and every Consent Decree, Consent Order, Order or Injunction entered against the Defendants from 1995 to the present. 11. A copy of each and every monitoring procedure, including all form documents, maintained by the Defendant from 2000 to the present.
22
5.10 Fourth Document Production Request

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JEFFERSON COUNTY, ALABAMA [Consumer 1] and [Consumer 2], Plaintiffs, v. Neuheisel Law Firm, et al., Defendants.
PLAINTIFFS FOURTH REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 1. The licensing agreement between CUBE Recovery and Collect America; 2. All materials provided to Neuheisel Law Firm, CUBE Recovery, or Kate Neuheisel from Collect America including all books provided in the fall of 1999 and April 2003; 3. All case law received from Collect America; 4. The 3-ring binder received from Collect America which is used in training all collectors; 5. The FDCPA Blue Book which was used in training collectors; 6. All memos received from Collect America on policies, procedures or legal issues; 7. The form used for lawsuit requests by collectors; 8. All collectors meeting memos and training materials which are provided to collectors during the monthly meetings from June 2001 through June of 2002; 9. All monthly reviews performed on Jason Davidson and Ken Jones; 10. All performance evaluations performed on Jason Davidson and Ken Jones; 11. All collection memos provided to collectors from June 2001 through June 2002; 12. A copy of all testing given to collectors from June 2001 through June 2002; 13. A copy of all letters received from attorneys from January 2001 through the present complaining about the collection activities or conduct of Neuheisel collectors. 14. A copy of all complaint letters received from consumers from January 2001 through the present complaining about the collection activities or conduct of Neuheisel collectors. 15. A copy of all complaints received from Better Business Bureaus from January 2001 through the present complaining about the collection activities or conduct of Neuheisel collectors. 16. A copy of all bar complaints made to the Arizona State Bar from January 2001 through the present. 17. All memos received by Ken Jones from anyone at Neuheisel Law Firm while an employee of Neuheisel Law Firm. 18. A copy of all of Ken Jones laminated cards provided to him by Neuheisel Law Firm. 19. The legal referral form completed by Ken Jones for suit to be filed against [Consumer 2]. 20. The name of the lawsuit wherein Ken Jones testified by deposition.
23
21. A copy of Ken Jones and Jason Davidsons W-2s for 2001 and 2002. 22. A copy of each and every document recognizing, naming, or in any way memorializing that Ken Jones and /or Jason Davidson received any monthly or daily prizes and awards, i.e. collector of the most gross dollars, etc. 23. A copy of all talk-offs or scripts used by Ken Jones while an employee at Neuheisel Law Firm. 24. A copy of all talk-offs or scripts used by Ken Jones while an employee at Neuheisel Law Firm. 25. Neuheisel Law Firms monthly report cards from Collect America from November 2001 through March, 2002. 26. All phone records whether from Collect America or Touch America from December 2001 through February 2002, which have not been provided. Due to the voluminous nature of these documents, please just make them available for inspection and copying if necessary.
24
5.11 Deposition of Collection Agency Employee
25
0001 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0002 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0003
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION [CONSUMER 1] AND ) [CONSUMER 2], ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) CIVIL ACTION NUMBER ) NEUHEISEL LAW FIRM, ) ET AL., ) Defendants. )
DEPOSITION OF KENNETH JONES 9:18 a.m. June 17, 2003
STIPULATIONS IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the parties through their respective counsel that the deposition of KENNETH JONES, a witness in the above-entitled cause, may be taken before Dionne M. Motley, a Court Reporter and Notary Public for the State of Alabama, at the law offices of Lloyd, Gray & Whitehead, P.C., 2501 20th Place South, Suite 300, Birmingham, Alabama 35223, on the 17th day of June, 2003, commencing at 9:18 a.m., pursuant to the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure.
IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the signature to and the reading of the deposition by the witness is waived, the deposition to have the same force and effect as if full compliance had been had with all laws and rules of court relating to the taking of the depositions.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0004 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0005 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
STIPULATIONS (continued) IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that it shall not be necessary for any objections to be made by counsel to any questions except as to form or leading questions, and that counsel for the parties may make objections and assign grounds at the time of trial or at the time said deposition is offered in evidence or prior thereto.
A P P E A R A N C E S For The Plaintiffs: Ms. Penny D. Hays Attorney at Law Lorant & Associates, P.C. 401 Office Park Drive Mountain Brook, Alabama 35223 For The Defendants: Ms. Laura C. Nettles and Mr. Chris D. Cobb Attorneys at Law Lloyd, Gray & Whitehead, P.C. 2501 20th Place South, Suite 300 Birmingham, Alabama 35223 Also Present: Mr. Brett Garrett, and Ms. Kathryn A. Neuheisel Reported by: Dionne M. Motley EDMONDSON REPORTING & VIDEO 2119 3rd Avenue North, Suite 205 Birmingham, Alabama 35203 I N D E X Page(s) Examination by Ms. Hays....................... 6-221 Reporter Certification.......................... 223 E X H I B I T S Page/Line: Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 1................... 65:20
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0006 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0007 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Plaintiff's Plaintiff's Plaintiff's Plaintiff's Plaintiff's Plaintiff's
Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit
No. No. No. No. No. No.
2................... 135:5 3.................. 139:10 4.................. 140:15 5................... 142:1 6.................. 144:16 7................... 155:9
I, Dionne M. Motley, a Court Reporter and Notary Public for the State of Alabama, acting as commissioner, certify that there came before me at the law offices of Lloyd, Gray & Whitehead, P.C., 2501 20th Place South, Suite 300, Birmingham, Alabama 35223, on the 17th day of June, 2003, beginning at 9:18 a.m., KENNETH JONES, witness in the above cause, for oral examination, whereupon the following proceedings were had: KENNETH JONES, having been first duly sworn, testified as follows: THE REPORTER: Usual stipulations? (Affirmed by counsel.) EXAMINATION BY MS. HAYS: Q. Will you state your name for the record? A. Kenneth M. Jones. Q. And your current address? A. [Redacted.] Q. A. Q. A. What's your phone number there? I'm sorry? What's your phone number there? [Redacted.]
Q. And are you still employed with Neuheisel Law Firm? A. Yes. Q. And do you work in their office in Tempe, Arizona? A. Yes. Q. When did you first begin your employment at Neuheisel? A. April 9, 2001, I believe. Q. Have you ever given a deposition before? A. Once. Q. When was that? A. Sometime in the year 2000. Well, could be early 2001. Q. Was that in reference to work, or was that a personal matter? A. Work. Q. Where were you working?
19 20 21 22 23 0008 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0009 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0010 1 2 3
A. Well, I would say more personal. Q. All right. Tell me about what kind of case it was when you gave this deposition. A. Without mentioning companies, I was a witness for a company I used to work for. I think they were being sued for something, and they asked me to be a witness. Q. Were you a collector for that company? A. Yes. Q. Have you ever testified in court before? A. No, not that I recall. Q. I'm sure that this myriad of lawyers has gone over what a deposition is with you. But if you need to take a break, just let us know, and we'll take a break whenever you need to. A. Okay. Q. If you don't understand a question, let me know, and I'll try and rephrase the question. If you answer the question, then we will all assume that you understood the question, okay? A. Correct. Q. Now, tell me about your education. A. Can you be more specific? Q. Did you go to high school? A. Yes. Q. Where did you graduate from high school? A. Laura Richland High School. Q. And where is that located? A. Hopkins, South Carolina. Q. I'm sorry? A. Hopkins, South Carolina. Q. What year did you graduate? A. May of 1979. Q. Did you go to any colleges? A. Yes. Q. Where did you attend college? A. Carson Newman College in Jefferson City, Tennessee and the University of South Carolina. Q. Did you graduate from either college? A. No. Q. What did you study? A. Criminal law. Q. How long did you attend Carson Newman? A. Two years. Q. And what about the University of South Carolina? A. Year and a half. Q. Did you study criminal law at both universities? A. Yes. Q. Have you ever attended law school? A. No. Q. And you're not an attorney? A. No.
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0011 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0012 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Q. Tell me where you started working after college. A. Wow. Oh, my. After college? Let's see. Let me go back. Let's see. Sales. Q. What was the name of the company? A. Vorwerk. Q. Can you spell that, please? A. V-O-W -- excuse me -- V-O-R-W-E-R-K. Q. And where is Vorwerk located? A. Vorwerk. It's a German company -- or was. It was in Columbia, South Carolina. Q. When did you start working for them? A. Giving my memory a real test here. Q. Just your best judgment. A. 1981 -- well, yeah, I would say around '81. Q. And what were you doing for that company? A. Q. A. Q. Sales. What type of sales? Door-to-door. What were you selling?
A. Vacuum cleaners or home care systems. Q. How long did you do that job? A. Pretty close to a year. Q. Were you doing that job while you were attending the University of South Carolina? A. No. Q. That was after school? A. Right. Q. What was your next job? A. There were too many little ones at convenience stores, the sales jobs, and it's too many to try to remember. Q. When was your next employment where you worked for more than two months? A. Oh, gosh -- hotel. Q. Okay. What was the name of the hotel? A. Comfort Inn, I believe. Q. Which Comfort Inn? A. I don't remember streets. It was in Columbia. Q. Where in Columbia? A. I just said I don't remember the street. Q. What general vicinity? A. Don't remember. I haven't lived there in years. Q. Okay. What did you do at the Comfort Inn? A. Bellman. Q. Bellhop? A. They call it bellman. Q. Bellman. How long did you do that job? A. It was a while. I don't remember. I'd say pretty close to a year. Q. And that Comfort Inn was in Columbia, South Carolina somewhere?
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0013 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0014 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
A. Yes. Q. What was your next job of more than two months after the Comfort Inn? A. Oh, wow. Gosh, for more than two months. Probably, say, collections. Q. Okay. Where was the first company? A. NCSE. Stood for National Credit Services Corp. Q. Where is National Credit Services Corp. located that you worked? A. Was located? Q. All right. A. Glenn Park, Kansas. Q. Is that company out of business today? A. Bought out by another company. Q. Who was it bought out by? A. I have no idea. Q. When did you work there? A. October '85 to January of '94. Q. What was your first job at National Credit Services? A. Collector. Q. What type of collections did they handle? A. Retail, primarily. Q. When you began there in collections, did you receive some training? A. Yes. Q. What type of training? A. Be specific. Q. Tell me all the areas you received training when you began as a collector. A. Could you rephrase it? Q. Yeah. Tell me all the training you received when you began as a collector at National Credit Services Corp. A. FDCPA training, ACA training, telephone training, telephone monitoring, management training, client relationship training. Q. Anything else? A. Budget training. That's all I can recall. Q. Okay. ACA, is that the American Collectors Association? A. That's correct. Q. Were you a member of the ACA? A. Correct. Q. Are you still a member of the ACA? A. I don't know. Q. What is it based on? A. I don't remember. Q. You don't remember? A. I don't remember. Q. Is Neuheisel Law Firm a member of the ACA? A. I don't know. I would assume so. Q. How long did you work as a collector at NCSC,
20 21 22 23 0015 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0016 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0017 1 2 3 4
the whole time, or did you move up to a supervisor? A. I did both. Q. You did both? A. Yes. Q. When did you work as a supervisor? A. Probably from '87 to '94. Q. How many collectors were you supervising? A. At what time? Q. Well, let's start in '87. A. Don't remember. Q. During the tenure of your supervisory responsibilities, on average how many collectors did you supervise? A. Don't remember. Q. Give me your best judgment. Was it more than ten? A. Yes. Q. More than 20? A. Yes. Q. More than 50? A. Yes. Q. More than 100? A. No. Q. Between 50 and 100, give me your best judgment of how many people you supervised. A. At what point? Q. On average. A. 56. Q. 56? A. Yes. Q. Were any of those 56 individuals also supervisors of collectors? A. Yes. Q. What was your job title in '87? A. Supervisor -- unit manager, I think it was what they called it, I think. Q. And did that job title change between '87 and '94? A. Yes. Q. What was your next job title? A. In terms of a change of title, I would probably say department manager. Q. When did that occur? A. Don't remember. Q. Best judgment. A. Don't remember. Q. Was it more than a year after you were unit manager? A. I really don't remember. Q. Did your responsibilities change at all when you went from unit manager to department manager? A. Absolutely. Q. What did your duties become as department manager?
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0018 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0019 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
A. Be more specific. Q. What part of that don't you understand? And then I'll try and be more specific. A. Are you wanting every single thing I did every single day or just a broad stroke? Q. I'd like to know what your responsibilities were as department manager. A. Manage supervisors, keep up with schedules, do a budget for each unit that I was responsible for, do file reviews, phone monitoring, maintain relationships with clients, pick up new business. I don't know if I said do a budget, do goals, goal-setting training. Q. When you were the department man -- I'm sorry. Were you finished or were there others? A. That was enough, I'm sure. Q. When you were department manager, how many different units were there you were supervising? A. During the course of that time or at any one time? Q. When you first became department manager, how many units were there? A. Three. Q. And when did it change? A. Don't remember. Q. When you -- how long were you department manager? A. I would say at least -- I don't remember exactly. Q. More than a year? A. Yes. Q. More than two years? A. Yes. Q. More than 3 years? A. Yes. Q. More than four years? A. Not sure. Q. So during the three to four years toward the end of that time period, how many units were there? A. Between four and six. Q. And in those four to six units, how many collectors were there on the floor? A. That I was responsible for? Q. Yes. A. Give or take 55. Q. Tell me about the phone monitoring that you were responsible for as the unit manager. What did that include? I'm sorry, as department manager. A. Be specific, please. Q. What did you do to monitor phones? A. I need you to be a little lucid, please. Q. Well, you said you were responsible for phone monitoring. A. Right. Q. So tell me how you were responsible for phone
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0020 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
monitoring. A. Just to make sure people were in compliance with FDCPA regulations, that they were being professional, maintaining their composure on the phone, getting F and C. Q. I'm sorry? A. Getting F and C. Q. What is that? A. Full and complete information, and asking for help if they needed it. Q. How did you actually monitor the telephone calls? A. Be specific, please. Q. How did you monitor telephone calls? A. From my phone. Q. All right. And how did you do that? A. With a system where you just punched in a code, and I could -- and the extension, and I could listen to any call. Q. We've sometimes heard that referred to as shadowing where you were listening to a call. Did you have a term that you used to describe that -when you would push the button to listen in on a call? A. Monitoring. Q. Monitoring? Did the -MR. JONES: Excuse me for a second. Is there any way I can get some water? Q. (By Ms. Hays) Approximately, of the 55 collectors when you were the department manager, how many calls would you monitor a day? A. I don't recall that. Q. More than ten? A. Oh, yeah. Q. More than 20? A. Yes. Q. During this same time when you were department manager, were you also responsible for collections? A. No. Q. At that time you had no responsibility to actually collect on individual accounts? A. Personally? Q. Correct. A. No. Q. What type of training did you provide the collectors? A. Be more specific. Q. Were you actually responsible for the training that was given to collectors when they were hired? A. Yes. Q. And did that training include what we talked about earlier on the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act?
23 0022 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0023 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0024 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
A. Absolutely. Q. And also on ACA? A. Absolutely. Q. And on the telephone? A. Yes. Q. And on telephone monitoring? A. Yes. Q. And on management training? A. Yes. Q. And client relationships? A. Yes. Q. And budget training? A. Yes. Q. And you personally trained these collectors? A. Yes. Q. Did you draft or compile any materials that you used in training? A. Some. Q. Do you still have some of those items? A. No. Q. Do you have any of the materials that you used in your employment at NCSC? A. No. Q. Do you have any of the materials on ACA? A. Personally or in the office? Q. Either. A. In the office, yes. Q. And what do those materials include? A. Be specific, please. Q. Yeah. Describe each document you have, either in your possession or in your office, from ACA. A. Oh, I'm sorry. I misunderstood. I thought you said FDCPA. My mind wondered. My apology. No ACA. Q. You have no materials on ACA? A. Unless there's some cross-reference from the FDCPA, no. Q. You have in your possession materials on the FDCPA? A. Yes. Q. Describe each document you have on the FDCPA. A. There's no way I could. Q. Well, are they in a binder? A. Yes. Q. All right. Tell me about the binder. A. Be specific. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. Is it a three-ring binder? Yes, I believe so. What color is it? White. Where is it located? On my desk, cubicle. What's in it?
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0025 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0026 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
A. Rules, regulations, company policies, procedures. Q. On the rules and regulations, does that document have a title? A. I don't recall. Q. Is it something that was given to you by Neuheisel Law Firm, or is it something that you've had throughout the course of your work as a collector and manager? A. Neuheisel Law Firm. Q. What about the policy and procedures, was that something provided to you by Neuheisel Law Firm? A. Neuheisel Law Firm. Q. Do you have any other documents in this three-ring binder? A. No. Q. So besides the company policies and the rules and regulations, you have nothing else in this binder? A. Memos from the company. Q. How many memos? A. I have no idea. Q. Are they dealing with collection? A. Yes. Q. And they're from Neuheisel? A. Yes. Q. Are they given to all collectors? A. Yes. Q. Are there more than five memos? A. I would presume. Q. More than ten? A. I have no idea. Q. Do you have any other three-ring binders on your desk? A. No. Q. Do you have any other materials, other than this binder, whether they be loose or bound, in some other fashion -A. Yes. Q. -- that you use? What are those other materials? A. More memos, other training materials. Q. What are those memos? Are they from Neuheisel Law Firm? A. Yes. Q. How many? A. I have no idea. Q. More than five? A. Don't recall. Q. Give me your best judgment. A. I'd rather not. I have no idea. Q. And you said you had other training materials? A. Yes.
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0027 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0028 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0029 1
Q. What are those training materials? A. Specific state laws regarding contact, things of that nature. Q. I'm sorry? A. Things of that nature. Q. Okay. Describe this document that contains the specific state laws. Are they contained within little boxes or are the actual state laws set out? A. I'm sorry, could you rephrase it? Q. Is that what your state laws section looks like (indicating)? A. Yes. Q. And that was provided to you by Neuheisel Law Firm? A. Yes. Q. Other than how it appears in this document, which is page 54 of documents that have been provided in this lawsuit, which contain all 50 states, are there any other state laws that you have in your possession? A. I have a laminated copy of some other states' laws. Q. What are those states? A. I have no idea. I look at it daily. Q. You look at it daily? A. Yes. Q. And you can't tell me what laws are laminated? A. No. That's why it's laminated. Q. Why do you use it daily? A. To make sure I know what I can do on calling each state. Q. Do you make collection calls to every state every day? A. No. Q. Which states do you collect in? A. Be more specific, please. Q. Which states in the United States of America do you make collection calls to collect accounts? A. All states except Alabama. Q. Why do you no longer collect in Alabama? A. The reason why we're here. Q. Because of this lawsuit? A. That's my interpretation. Q. Have you been told by your employer to no longer make calls to Alabama? A. No. Q. Then why -A. I would say yes. What it is is the way the accounts are placed, they're just automatically taken out of my file, so I never run into them. Q. So Alabama accounts are no longer placed in your collection queue to make calls? A. Right.
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0030 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0031 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Q. When you -- I want to go back to when you were working at NCSC -- because we sort of got off track -- and you were the department manager. When you were monitoring phone calls of your collectors, did you ever hear one of your collectors violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act? A. No. Q. If one of your collectors had told a consumer or debtor that they were dead meat, would that have violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act? A. Yes. Q. If one of your collectors would have told the consumer: I'm going to send the sheriff out to pick you up, would that have violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act? A. Yes. Q. If a collector had called a place of employment and spoken to a supervisor and informed the supervisor that they were sending the sheriff out to serve a summons because of a debt, would that violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act? A. Yes. Q. And would you have written up those collectors? A. Yes. Q. If one of your collectors had violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, how would they have been disciplined under your management? A. Too long ago to recall. Q. Would they have been fired? A. Potentially. Q. What would have been necessary, in your judgment, for a collector to be fired? A. It wasn't entirely my judgment. Q. I'm sorry? A. It was not entirely my judgment. Q. Okay. What was it based on? A. The facts, tangible proof. I had some input, but the final say was by the owner. Q. Who was the owner; do you recall? A. There were two. Q. Who were they? A. A. L. Simmerlin and Richard Wilson. Q. At NCSC did you -- or did the company or you, as the department manager, ever record telephone conversations? A. Yes. Q. In your best judgment, how many telephone calls were recorded on a daily basis? A. There's no way I could recall that. Q. Was it random where they would record just every, you know, fifth call or every tenth call, or was there some pattern of trying to record specific collectors at certain times? MS. NETTLES: Object to the form of the
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0032 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0033 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
question. MS. HAYS: You can answer it if you can. A. I don't recall. Q. (By Ms. Hays) Were calls recorded on a daily basis at NCSC? A. Yes. Q. Were video cameras used to record or monitor the work area of collectors? A. Not that I'm aware of. Q. And recording calls was a means used at NCSC to monitor collectors' activity? A. Primarily train, but monitor, also. Q. Now, you left NCSC in '94? A. Yes. Q. Did you quit or were you terminated? A. I quit. Q. And where did you go after NCSC? A. Took five months off to be with my newborn daughter. Q. All right. And then where did you go? A. Diversified Recovery, something or the other. Q. Where was Diversified Recovery located? A. Kansas City, Kansas. Q. Would that still have been in '94, or did that five months push you over into 1995 when you started Diversified? A. When I started, it was still '94. Q. '94? And how long did you work at Diversified Recovery? A. Few months. Q. Were you a collector there or a manager? A. Collector. Q. Did you have any supervisory responsibilities at Diversified? A. No. Q. All right. And did you quit at Diversified or were you terminated? A. I quit. Q. And where did you go next? A. Citibank, slash, Equifax. Q. Which branch did you work at? A. Two different companies I worked at the same time. Q. Okay. Which Citibank did you work at? A. Kansas City, Missouri. Q. And were you a collector at Citibank? A. Yes. Q. Did you have any supervisory role at that job? A. No. Q. And you were working a separate job at Equifax at the same time? A. Yes. Q. Where was the Equifax branch, the same
19 20 21 22 23 0034 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0035 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0036 1 2 3
location, Kansas City? A. No. It was in Kansas. I think it was Shawnee Mission. Q. I just didn't hear you. Shawnee Mission? A. That's correct. Q. Okay. What did you do at Equifax? A. When? Be specific. Q. Well, when did you start at Equifax? A. Collector -- oh, when I started there? Seems like the latter part of '94. Q. And when you started, you were a collector? A. Yes. Q. What type of accounts were you collecting for Equifax? A. Retail. Q. How long did you do the collector job at Equifax? A. '97, '98, somewhere in there. Q. Did you ever do any other job besides collector at Equifax? A. Uh-huh. Q. What was the next job after collector? A. I don't know if they call it unit supervisor or unit manager. I'm not sure which. Q. When you held the unit manager job or supervisor, whichever, was the correct title -- did you also collect on accounts or were you just the supervisor? A. I collected, also. Q. Do you recall how many collectors worked for you at that time? A. At what time? Q. When you were working as the unit supervisor manager. A. At what point? Q. At any point. A. You're going to have to be a little bit more specific than that. Q. When did you become unit supervisor? A. Don't remember exactly. Q. How long were you unit supervisor? A. Don't remember. Q. Well, I can't be more specific if you can't give me a time period. So during the time that you worked as a unit supervisor, how many collectors did you supervise? A. As few as five. Q. And as many as? A. This is going to be strictly a guess because I don't recall. Q. Was it more than ten? A. Yes. Q. More than 15? A. Yes.
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0037 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0038 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Q. More than 25? A. Yes. Q. More than 40? A. Yes. Q. More than 50? A. Don't remember. Q. More than -- so between 40 and -- can you give me your best judgment? A. I'd rather not. I really don't remember. Q. But more than 40? A. Yes. Q. During that time, were you responsible for training? A. Yes. Q. Monitoring? A. Yes. Q. Did Equifax record telephone calls? A. No. Actually, you know what, that's not true; yes, they did. Q. Did you ever review the recordings of calls? A. Yes. Q. How often? A. Daily. Q. And the purpose of reviewing the recordings was to make sure that collectors were not violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act; correct? A. Among other things. Q. And what were the other things? A. Training. Q. How were they used in training? A. Voice inflection, professionalism, sticking to a script. Q. At Equifax were the collectors provided with talk-offs or scripts for calls? A. Yes. Q. And they were expected to follow those scripts? A. Yes. Q. Was that the same at NCSC? A. To some degree. Q. What about Citibank? Were you provided scripts at Citibank? A. I don't remember. Q. Did you do any jobs at Citibank other than collector? A. No. Q. Do you have a judgment as to how long you worked at Citibank? A. About 45 days, maybe 60. Q. Did you quit that job or were you terminated? A. Quit. Q. When you monitored calls at Equifax, was that the same way as it was at NCSC where you would pick up a line and actually listen in on a telephone call?
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0039 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0040 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
A. Yes. Q. Was there any other form of monitoring of collectors that was done by you at Equifax? A. Yes. Q. What were the other forms of monitoring? A. Sometimes I sat with the collector. Sometimes we used a recorder, and we would play back the tape with them for training purposes. Q. Any others? A. Any other what? Q. Means or ways of monitoring collectors that you did while at Equifax? A. Sit with the collector. That's about it. Q. Did you have any other jobs besides collector and unit supervisor at Equifax? A. Actually, let me go back. We also monitored their files and notes. Q. How did you monitor their files? What do you mean by that? A. When their que came, randomly we went through their files. Q. I'm sorry. What -A. Went into their cues -Q. Okay. A. -- and randomly looked through their files, the work that they had done or hadn't done. Q. To see if they were actually making calls on accounts? A. That, and compliance with how the calls went; were they asking the right questions; were they getting any F and C. Q. When you were reviewing the notes, did you review the notes on the calls that you had actually listened to? A. Those, also. Q. And collectors' notes are based on what the collector enters into the system? A. Correct. Q. And that's the case across the board? A. (No response.) Q. It was the case at Equifax? A. Yes. Q. And Citibank? A. Yes. Q. And NCSC? A. Well, I don't know. See, I don't know much about Citibank's training or monitoring, I should say. Q. Collectors' notes at NCSC are based on what was entered by the collector? A. Partially. Q. What else could they be based on? A. If you happen to be monitoring the call during that particular conversation. Q. Okay. And at Neuheisel, what's entered by
22 23 0041 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0042 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0043 1 2 3 4 5 6
the collector makes up the collection notes, other than system entries? A. I'm sorry. Could you -Q. At Neuheisel Law Firm, the collection notes that are entered by collectors are based solely on what's entered by the collector unless it's a system entry? A. Right. Q. Did you quit Equifax? A. No. Actually, I was fired. Q. Why were you fired? A. Conflict of interest. Q. What was that? A. They thought I was recruiting employees. Q. Recruiting employees for what? A. Another business. Q. What was the other business? A. Import/export. Q. Was there a name of a company? A. Jones Enterprises. Q. Was that your company? A. Yes, and my ex-wife's. Q. I don't think I got an answer, so let me just go back. At Equifax, did you hold any other jobs besides collector and unit manager? A. Yes. Q. What were the other jobs? A. Department manager and corporate trainer. Q. How long were you department manager? A. I don't remember. Q. More than six months? A. Yes. Q. More than a year? A. Yes. Q. More than two years? A. Don't remember. Q. As department manager, were you also responsible for monitoring collectors at that time? A. Yes. Q. And corporate trainer -- how long did you work as the corporate trainer? A. Don't remember. Q. Okay. More than a year? A. I would say at least. Q. As corporate trainer, was that nation-wide or was that limited to the Kansas branch in Shawnee? A. I'm sure that question is simple, but could you ask it a different way, please? Q. Corporate trainer, were you responsible for training the employees only at the Shawnee Mission, Kansas location, or did you train collectors or other employees in other branches? A. In other branches, also. Q. How many other branches?
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0044 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0045 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
A. Two. Q. Where were they? A. Overland Park, Kansas and Atlanta, Georgia. Q. Did Equifax have collectors working in any other location than the Shawnee Mission, Overland Park, and Atlanta, Georgia branches? A. Oh, yeah. Q. Okay. And there was another corporate trainer for those areas? A. Yes. Q. Where did you go to work after Equifax? A. I worked for myself. Q. Jones Enterprises? A. Among other things. Q. Did you have names of companies when you were working for yourself? A. Just worked as an independent contractor. Q. What were you doing as an independent contractor? A. Sold health insurance to small business owners, sold meat door-to-door. Steak and Seafood I think is what we called it. Q. Do you remember what company you sold the health insurance for or through? A. Oh, it was too many. Q. When you were working as the independent contractor selling health insurance, did you have a tax ID number or were you using your Social? A. Social. Q. What about for the steak and seafood that you were selling door-to-door? A. Social. Q. Jones Enterprises, was that incorporated? A. Sole proprietorship. Q. Did you use a Social or have a tax ID number? A. Social. Q. How long did you do those jobs? A. Varying times. Q. When was your next employment? A. Corporate Receivables. Q. Where is that located? A. Phoenix, Arizona. Q. When did you start there? A. 2000 sometime, early 2000. Q. What was your first job at Corporate Receivables? A. Collector. Q. What type of accounts were you collecting? A. Primarily retail. Q. Credit card retail? A. That's the only kind of retail I know. Q. How long did you work as a collector? A. For Corporate Receivables? Q. Yes. A. A little over a year.
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0046 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0047 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0048
Q. Did you have Receivables? A. No. Q. Did you quit A. Yes, I quit. Q. At Corporate additional training Practices Act?
any other jobs at Corporate
or were you fired? Receivables, did you receive any on the Fair Debt Collection
A. Yes, some. Q. Did you handle any training at Corporate Receivables? A. No. Q. Did Corporate Receivables monitor telephone calls? A. Yes. Q. Did they record calls? A. I don't know. Q. Did managers sit with collectors at their desk? A. Sometimes. Q. Are you aware of any other ways that your activities as a collector were monitored by Corporate Receivables? A. Review notes. Q. Anything else? A. Basic file maintenance. Q. What does that mean? A. How often you were making calls; how often you were sending letters; were you following-up on broken promises; things of that nature. Q. How often were you expected to call on an account at Corporate Receivables? A. Depended on the state. Q. I'm sorry? A. Depended on the state. Q. Okay. Were there states where you would call on an account more than once a day? A. No. Q. More than once a week? A. Some. Q. What states can you not call more than once a week? A. I'd have to reference my manual. Q. It's the same one that we have? A. Yes, I would assume. I don't know. Q. When you were working at Corporate Receivables, did you have any complaints made against you as a result of collection activity? A. No. Q. Any that you're aware of that the attorney general filed against you while you were an employee at Corporate Receivables? A. No. Q. What about at Equifax, any complaints, either
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0049 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0050 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
to Equifax, or a manager, or the attorney general? A. One. Q. Who was that to? Who was the complaint made to? A. Attorney general. Q. Which one; do you remember? A. What state? Q. Yes. A. Texas. Q. What was the basis of that complaint? A. The lady said I asked her for postdated checks. Q. Did it result in a lawsuit? A. Nope. Q. Any type of discipline from the attorney general? A. I hadn't broken any laws. They were just sending a letter in response to the person's letter. Q. Citibank, any complaints there, in that short time? A. No. Q. Diversified Recovery? A. No. Q. National Services Credit Services Corp.? A. Nope. Q. Where did you go after Corporate Receivables? A. I took five months off with my daughter. Q. And then where did you go? A. Diversified Recovery. Q. After Corporate Receivables, you went back to Diversified Recovery? MS. NETTLES: I think he misunderstood. I think he got confused a minute ago. Q. (By Ms. Hays) I'm sorry. Let's go back. A. Okay. Q. You went to Corporate Receivables in early 2000 in Phoenix; correct? A. Correct. Q. Where did you go after Corporate Receivables? A. Oh, I'm sorry, Neuheisel Law Firm. I was thinking of NCSC. Q. And you started there in April of 2001? A. Yes. Q. When you started there, did you receive any training? A. Yes. Q. Tell me about the training you received when you were hired. A. Went over FDCPA rules and regulations and how to use the computer. Q. Was the training one day, two days, a class, individualized? A. It was individualized over a couple of weeks -- actually, a little longer. It was a little longer than that.
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0051 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0052 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Q. How much time was spent on a daily basis for training? A. The whole day. Q. So you had over two weeks of individualized training when you first started and did nothing else? A. No. Q. When you started work at Neuheisel, were you a collector? A. Yes. Q. Have you held any other jobs other than collector at Neuheisel? A. No. Q. And you're still employed today? A. That I'm aware of, yes. Q. Has there been any break in your employment at Neuheisel? A. No. Q. Tell me about the computer system that you use at Neuheisel. Does it have a specific program for collection? A. Yes. Q. What's the name of the program? A. STARS. Q. Does that stand for something, that you're aware of? A. I have no idea. Q. When you started in 2001, how many collectors were working at Neuheisel? A. Don't remember. Q. How many are there today? A. I don't count. I don't know. Q. Give me your best judgment. More than ten? A. Yeah, it's more than ten. Q. More than 20? A. No. Q. So more than 15? A. I think there's more than 15. Q. But not more than 20? A. I don't think so. Q. Tell me about your work area. Are you all in one room or do the collectors have individual offices? A. Oh, we're all in one room. Q. Do you have work stations that are next to one another, sort of lined up? A. Yes. But they're divided by -- what do you call them -- partitions. Q. Okay. Who's your supervisor? A. Be more specific. Q. Who is your immediate supervisor? A. I would say Matt Gascon. I'm not sure. Q. Can you spell his last name? A. G-A-S-C-O-N. Q. What's his title?
19 20 21 22 23 0053 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0054 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0055 1 2 3
A. I think general manager of recoveries. Q. Are there any other supervisors of collectors? A. Yes. Q. Who are they? A. Matt Filak. Q. Can you spell his last name? A. F-I-L-A-K. Q. What's his title? A. Supervisor. That's all I know. Q. Who's the other supervisor? A. David Lerner. Q. Is his title supervisor or does he have some other title? A. I believe it's the same. Q. Any other supervisors? A. No. Q. Who does Matt Filak supervise? A. Well, when you say, "Are there any other supervisors," can you be a little bit more specific? Q. Collectors -- right above collectors are supervisors; is that right? A. I believe so, yes. Q. I want to know the names of the supervisors who are directly above the collectors. A. Okay. That's it. Q. Okay. And are the collectors divided into units or groups? A. Unit or group. I mean, pick your word, "group" or "unit." Q. How many units are there? A. Two. Q. Are they called specific names? A. Are who called specific names? Q. The units. Do they have names? A. Not that I'm aware of. Q. All right. And does David Lerner supervise one unit of collectors? A. Yes and no. Q. All right. Tell me what you mean by that. A. I mean, they both pretty much supervise the whole floor, but they have divided the specific people that they spend more time with than the other side. Q. So they're responsible for the whole floor, but they mainly supervise their unit? A. Right. Q. And which unit do you work in? A. Filak. Q. Do the units -- are they divided based on what type of account you're collecting -A. No. Q. -- or who owns the account? A. What you mean who owns the account?
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0056 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0057 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Q. Who assigned the account to Neuheisel for collection? A. No. Q. Is there any basis at all for how the collectors are divided? A. Everybody gets some of everything. I know that. But beyond that, you're asking me to speculate. Q. And then who supervises Matt Filak and David Lerner? Who's the next level above them? A. Matt Gascon and Kate Neuheisel. Q. Does Matt report to Kate Neuheisel? A. Yes, I would assume so. Q. You've been there for over two years now; correct, at Neuheisel? A. That's correct. Q. Have you ever collected on an account owned by Neuheisel Law Firm? A. Not that I'm aware of, but I don't know. Q. Are you familiar with accounts that are assigned by Collect America to Neuheisel for collection? A. Am I -Q. Aware of accounts assigned by Collect America to Neuheisel for collection? A. Be more specific, please. Q. Sure. Collect America assigns accounts to Neuheisel Law Firm for collection. A. Okay. Q. Are you aware, when you're collecting the account, it comes up on the collection notes, who it's been assigned from? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And are you aware that Collect America is one of the companies that assigns accounts to Neuheisel Law Firm? A. Yes. Q. When collecting an account assigned by Collect America, who makes the determination of when a lawsuit is filed to collect the debt? A. Who makes the determination? Q. Correct. A. I'm assuming Kate does. Q. Do you, as a collector, have any authority to recommend a lawsuit on an account? A. Yes. Q. What authority do you have to recommend a lawsuit? A. It's just based on the company requirements as far as dollar amount, state. I can make a recommendation, but it's her decision. Q. To your knowledge, has Neuheisel Law Firm
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0058 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0059 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
filed any lawsuits in Alabama for collection? A. Do not know. Q. I'm sorry? A. I do not know. Q. Are there specific states where you're aware that Neuheisel Law Firm does file lawsuits to collect on the accounts? A. Yes. Q. What are those states? A. That I'm aware of, California and Arizona. Q. And there's a branch of Neuheisel Law Firm in California? A. Yes. Q. Are collectors employed in the California office, as well? A. I have no idea. Q. Never been there? A. No. Q. Are you aware of lawsuits being filed in any states other than California and Arizona? A. Am I aware of any particular ones? Q. During the last two years that you've been working for Neuheisel Law Firm. A. I have no idea. Q. Never seen a lawsuit filed anywhere other than Arizona or California? A. Ask the question differently, please. Q. Sure. During the -- over the two years that you've been working at Neuheisel, have you ever heard of, seen, or been aware of a lawsuit being filed in any state other than Arizona and California? A. Don't recall. I don't know. Q. Did you ever recommend the lawsuit be filed in the [Consumer] case -- or on the [Consumer] account? A. Yes. Q. When? A. Don't know. Q. Did you file any paperwork or make any notes that suit had been recommended? A. Yes. Q. Do you have that? A. No. Q. Who did you give it to? A. It's done internally -- well, you fill out a legal referral form, and we usually turn them in to Matt Gascon. Q. And it's your testimony today that you completed a legal referral form on the [Consumer] account? A. Yes. Q. And that you gave it to Matt Gascon? A. Yes. Q. And do you have a judgment as to when that
18 19 20 21 22 23 0060 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0061 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0062 1 2
occurred? A. No. Q. Would that be something noted in the notes? A. I think so, yes. Q. And once the form is given to Matt Gascon, Kate Neuheisel makes a decision on whether the lawsuit will be filed? A. I would assume so. Q. Do you know if the lawsuit -- it was ever approved for a lawsuit to be filed on the [Consumer] account? A. I have no idea. Q. How would you know if a suit had been approved? Would it come back to you? A. No. Q. So how would you know if the lawsuit had been approved? A. I have no idea. Q. Have you ever recommended a lawsuit be filed on an account? A. Yes. Q. And are you aware if any of those recommendations have ever been followed? A. Be more specific. We're not -- what's the word I want to use -- we're not -- they don't confer with us once the recommendation has been made, so the collects are pretty much out of the loop after that, unless they need additional information. Q. As a collector, how do you know to stop calling someone when a lawsuit has been filed, or do you stop calling? A. It's taken out of the system. Q. So you have no other means of knowing when a lawsuit has been filed based on your recommendation? A. No. Q. Do you have any means of knowing when a recommendation has been approved for a lawsuit? A. No. Q. What are the requirements that you look for in recommending that a lawsuit be filed? A. It depends on the state. Q. All right. In Alabama, what do you look for in order to recommend that a lawsuit be filed? A. I don't work Alabama anymore. Q. Well, you did in 2001 and 2002. A. I don't recall what the requirements were then. Q. When did you stop working Alabama? A. I don't remember. Q. And it's your testimony today that you have no recollection whatsoever what was necessary in order to recommend a lawsuit in Alabama? A. The only thing I recall is that it had to be at least $2500, preferably with a place of
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0063 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0064 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
employment and/or personal property. Q. Anything else that you would look for that you recall? A. Bank accounts. Q. What were you looking for on bank accounts, that you had the bank account information or that they had an account? A. That they had an account and what bank they banked at. Q. Anything else? A. No, nothing I can recall. Q. You still work Georgia, handle collections in Georgia? A. Yes. Q. Mississippi? A. Every other state but Alabama. Q. All right. And when recommending a lawsuit in those states -- I understand that there are some states like Pennsylvania, which are -- have much more strict requirements other than the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act; correct? A. Uh-huh. Q. Other than a state like Pennsylvania, what are you looking for when you recommend that a lawsuit be filed? A. I have that criteria outlined, I believe, on the legal referral sheet, but I don't have that in front of me. But, usually, pretty much -- well, it's the same criteria, but I think the dollar amount has been increased, except for California and Arizona. Q. Okay. So the criteria that are used are contained on that legal referral form? A. I think so. MS. NETTLES: Penny, why don't we have a very short bathroom break at this point? MS. HAYS: Okay. That's fine. (A break was taken.) MS. HAYS: Can you tell me the last question? (Question read back by reporter.) Q. (By Ms. Hays) Is there just one legal referral form that you've used in your two years at Neuheisel? A. No. It's been revised. Q. It's been revised. When was it last revised? A. Don't remember. Q. More than two months ago? A. I don't think so. Q. And what changed on it, as best you recall? A. More specific about -- you know, I don't remember. I'd have to be looking at it. Q. Is that it (indicating)? A. No. That's not the one we fill out. Q. Have you ever seen that document in the two years you've worked at Neuheisel Law Firm?
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0065 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0066 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
A. Don't remember. Q. Have you ever used this document? A. I don't remember. Q. Well, have you ever seen this document before? A. I don't remember. Q. Are you on any kind of medication that affects your memory? A. No. Q. Are you taking any medication today? A. No. I never take medication. Q. All right. Are you on any kind of -- have you had any alcohol or drugs that affects your memory today? A. No. Q. Do you have a learning disability? A. No. Is this an insult? Q. No -A. No, not that I'm aware of. Q. -- but every question I get, you don't understand or you don't remember. So I want to know if you're on any medication or anything that impacts your abilities to remember. A. I've never been diagnosed with a learning disability. Q. Okay. You understand you're a defendant in this lawsuit? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Now, I'm going to ask you what I've marked Plaintiff's Exhibit 1. Have you ever seen that form before today? (Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 1 marked for identification.) A. I do not remember. Q. So you've never used that form? A. I do not remember. Q. You don't recall or have any recollection -A. I do not remember. Q. Let me finish my question. You have no recollection of ever seeing Plaintiff's Exhibit 1 prior to today? A. I don't remember. Q. Have you reviewed -- well, tell me your form -- describe the form that you've used that contain the legal criteria for recommending a lawsuit. A. "Describe." What do you mean? It's on a white sheet of paper. Q. Okay. Does it have a title? A. I think it says, "Legal Referral Sheet." Q. And what's the information that it requests on this legal referral sheet? A. Name, state, Social Security number. Q. What else? A. I think that's all that's required from us. Q. So the only items on a legal referral sheet
21 22 23 0067 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0068 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0069 1 2 3 4
that you use to recommend a lawsuit is the name on the account, a state, and a Social Security number? A. I believe so on the legal referral. Q. Have you seen the legal referral form that you've testified earlier that you completed on the [Consumer] account? A. Have I seen it? Q. Yes. A. The one I filled out? Q. Yes. A. Not since the day I filled it out. Q. Tell me what you reviewed for this deposition. A. Some transcripts, my personnel file. That's all I remember. Q. The transcripts of what? A. Some conversations. Q. Did you listen to any tapes? A. Yes. Q. You reviewed your personnel file? A. Not the entire file, parts of it. Q. Any other employees' personnel files? A. No. Q. Did you review the complaint in this case? A. Yes. Q. Anything else that you reviewed for this
deposition? A. Nothing else I can remember. Q. When did this review of documents and the tape recordings take place? A. I'm sorry? Q. When did this review of documents and tape recordings take place? A. The recording yesterday; the documents at different times. Q. When? A. Well, I reviewed some documents yesterday. Q. Which ones? A. Don't remember. There were some transcripts, but I can't be specific. Q. Other than the transcripts, did you review any other documents yesterday? A. Parts of the personnel file. Q. Which parts? A. I don't remember. Q. You don't remember what you reviewed yesterday? A. The things that I remember are complaints and my voided check from a banking account. Q. And the complaints are complaints that were filed against you as a collector? A. Actually, I don't want to use the word "complaint." I think it was -- what do you refer to
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0070 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0071 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
them as -- write-up, disciplinary? I'm not sure what you would call it. Reprimand -- written reprimand, I guess. Q. Anything else that you recall reviewing yesterday? A. I'm not quite sure what you would call the documents. Q. Describe them for me. A. Some of the complaints against me. Oh, and [Consumer 1]'s response, I guess, letter. Q. Her letter? A. Yes. Q. What does this letter look like? A. Handwriting. Q. And what did it say? A. I stopped reading it. It gave me a headache. Q. The part you remember. A. I couldn't understand her handwriting. It was real difficult to read. Q. Anything else that you reviewed? A. I think when this was initially filed, I think I -- I don't know what the document was, but something that we were provided. Q. Have you had any conversations with collectors at Neuheisel Law Firm regarding the [Consumer] account or this deposition or this lawsuit? A. Please state that again. Q. Have you had any conversations with any other collectors at Neuheisel Law Firm, whether presently employed or past employed, regarding the [Consumer] account? A. Jason Davidson. Q. Tell me about your first conversation with Jason Davidson. A. My first and only conversation was that they had filed suit. Q. When did this conversation take place? A. It was right after we were called in and told about it. Q. Was he still working at Neuheisel at the time? A. At the time. Q. Do you know where he is today? A. No. Q. Do you know where he lives? A. No. Q. Is he still in Arizona? A. I don't know. Q. During this conversation -- tell me everything that you recall that you said during this conversation. A. "You're kidding?" Q. No. A. That's what I said, "You're kidding?" Q. And what did Jason say?
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0072 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0073 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
A. Q. A. call." Q. A. second didn't didn't sorry.
"No. I'm not kidding." And then what did you say? "I'm sorry I even asked you to make the phone Why did you say that? Well, it was my account. I asked for a voice for help -- or some assistance. And I do it for him to get in any trouble. And I think he would get into any trouble, so I was
Q. And at the time you asked Jason Davidson to make a phone call for you, he was also a collector? A. Yes. Q. He was not a supervisor? A. Not to my knowledge. Q. He certainly wasn't your supervisor? A. No. Q. He was the same level that you are -- or were at the time at Neuheisel? A. I think so. Q. And he actually made more than one call on the account? A. I only know of one. Or I only recall one, I should say. Q. Do you use aliases at Neuheisel? A. No. Q. Why did you want a second voice on the account? A. I thought we had a pretty good rapport -- or I had a pretty good rapport with the [Consumer]s. And then at the time that I thought the arrangement was going to be completed, there seemed to be an about-face on the [Consumer] part. I thought maybe I'd just talked to them too many times. Sometimes people just get tired of hearing you. You lose your effectiveness. I thought I'd asked for a second voice to just, you know, pretty much reiterate everything I said. I thought maybe I had lost some credibility, that maybe they thought I wasn't telling them the truth about the fact that we would honor the agreement and just asked for a second voice just to reconfirm. Q. Did you listen to the call that Jason Davidson made? A. No. Q. When you asked Jason Davidson to make the call, was it your goal for him to be more firm with the [Consumers]? A. No. Just to reiterate the arrangement and that we would honor it if they completed it. Q. Was it at all your purpose in having Jason Davidson make the call for the [Consumers] to have the impression or believe that the account was moving to
22 23 0074 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0075 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0076 1 2 3 4 5 6
someone at a higher level? MS. NETTLES: Object to the form of the question. MS. HAYS: You can still answer. A. "Higher level." What do you mean? Q. (By Ms. Hays) To a supervisor or someone with more authority than yourself. A. No. Q. Was it your purpose in having Mr. Davidson call for the [Consumers] to believe that the lawsuit was going to be filed? MS. NETTLES: Object to the form of the question. MR. JONES: Am I to answer it? MS. NETTLES: You can answer it. MS. HAYS: You can answer. A. That after a second opinion, that we would make a recommendation. Q. (By Ms. Hays) Is a second opinion needed from a different collector in order to recommend suit? A. Not usually. Q. On what occasions would a second opinion be necessary in order to recommend suit? MS. NETTLES: Object to the form of the question. He states his testimony. A. There isn't any criteria. Q. (By Ms. Hays) Did you need a second opinion to recommend suit on the [Consumer] account? A. No. Q. So Jason Davidson -- you didn't ask Jason Davidson to make the calls so he could sign off on your recommendation that a suit be filed? A. No. Q. Did Jason Davidson have to sign off on your referral for the lawsuit to be filed? A. No. Q. Did you ever send a wage verification form to [Consumer 1]'s place of employment? A. No. Q. Can you describe for me what the wage verification form looks like? A. I don't send them so I have no idea. Q. You never send them? A. No. Q. Have you ever seen a wage verification form? A. No. Q. Are you aware of one being used by collectors at Neuheisel Law Firm? A. No. Q. Are you aware of any other collectors using any type of wage verification form? A. No. Q. Do you know where a wage verification form is?
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0077 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0078 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
A. No. Q. Do you know what it is? A. No. I mean, I -- no. Q. Do you know what wage verification means? A. Yes. Q. Tell a jury what wage verification means. A. I would assume dates they started, if they're presently employed, position or title, income, address of location where they work, name of the company, phone number. That's about all I can recall. Q. But you don't use that, and you've never seen one as a collector at Neuheisel Law Firm? A. No. Q. As a collector, you're covered by the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act; correct? A. Yes. Q. And Neuheisel Law Firm is covered by the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act? A. Yes. Q. Is there an auto-dialer at Neuheisel? A. I don't know. Q. Have you ever had an account that was dialed and then transferred to you to handle the call? A. I don't recall. Q. You are familiar with an auto-dialer; correct? A. Yes. Q. And they've been used in your other places of employment? A. Yes. Q. And if there was an auto-dialer at Neuheisel, you would be aware of it? A. Not necessarily. Q. So in two years that you've worked there, you have no idea whether they have an auto-dialer? A. I don't know if they have one now. They had one. Q. When did they have an auto-dialer? A. I do not know. Q. Was it prior to you coming to work for them or after you came to work for them? A. I don't know. Q. And your job is the same today as it was when you began in April of 2001? A. Yes. Q. And it's your testimony that you have no idea whether there was an auto-dialer at the time you started your employment at Neuheisel? A. Correct. Q. And they don't currently use an auto-dialer? A. I have no idea. Q. Oh, you still have no idea whether they use an auto-dialer today? A. No.
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0079 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0080 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Q. Are collection calls recorded at Neuheisel? A. I have no idea. Q. You have no idea? A. Which part of that didn't you understand? Q. When you were hired at Neuheisel, were you informed that your calls might be recorded? A. Yes, or monitored. I don't know if the word "recorded," but they would be monitored. Q. How are calls monitored at Neuheisel? A. The only one I'm aware of is they can tap into a line kind of like others places I've been. Q. And actually listen to the call at the time it's happening? A. Uh-huh. Q. Is that a yes? A. Yes. Q. Have you had a supervisor sit with you at your desk other than the initial training period that we talked about? A. Yes. Q. Who sat with you to monitor calls? A. Matt Gascon. Q. And how many times has he sat with you to monitor calls? A. I have no idea. Q. More than once? A. Yes. Q. More than five times? A. Yes. Q. More than ten times? A. Don't recall. Q. When he sat with you on those occasions, how long did he sit there to monitor calls? A. Don't remember. Q. Give me your best judgment. A. Don't remember. Q. More than 30 minutes? A. Don't remember. Q. Are there any type of monitoring forms that are used when a supervisor sits with a collector that they fill out to say: I monitored the call and he was doing a good job? A. I have no idea. Q. Have you ever seen a monitoring form? A. No. I'm not sure, no. Q. In your employment prior to Neuheisel, did you use monitoring forms? A. Uh-huh. Q. Is that a yes? A. Yes. Q. And that's something that you're familiar with, a monitoring form? A. Yes. Q. And it's used to document that a call was
0081 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0082 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0083 1 2 3 4 5 6 actually monitored by a collector? A. No. It was monitored by a supervisor. Q. Right. Of a call made by a collector. Excuse me. A. Yes. Q. Okay. And have you ever seen a monitoring form used by anyone at Neuheisel? A. No. Q. Have you ever seen a monitoring form completed based on your telephone calls? A. No. Q. Have you ever seen a performance evaluation completed based on your work at Neuheisel? A. Yes. Q. Where is it? A. I have no idea. Q. When you reviewed your personnel file, did you see a copy of the performance evaluation in there? A. No. Q. Do you have a copy of the performance evaluation? A. No. Q. How many times have you been evaluated based on performance? A. I don't remember. Q. More than two? A. Yes. Q. More than five? A. Don't remember. Q. Before I forget, I want to go back to the deposition that you told me about earlier that you had given. Was that when you were working at Corporate Receivables? A. Yes. Q. Tell me the situation involved in that deposition -- or that lawsuit. A. The situation? Q. The facts of the case. A. I wouldn't be at liberty to discuss that with you. Q. Is that deposition sealed by court order? A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. I think so. Where was the lawsuit filed? I have no idea. You have no idea what state? I don't know what state it was filed in, no. Who was the attorney? Don't remember. Do you have any notes of this lawsuit? I'm sorry? Do you have any notes or records of this
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0084 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0085 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
lawsuit? A. No. Q. Give me the name of the party. A. Of what party? Q. The person suing. A. I don't remember which side sued. Q. Was it a consumer/debtor that sued Corporate Receivables? A. Oh, no. It actually had nothing to do with Corporate Receivables at all. Q. What were the -- it was given at the time that you worked there, but not as a result of your employment there? A. Right. Q. Did it relate to -- tell me one of the parties of the lawsuit. A. I'm not at liberty to say that. Q. Why not? A. Because it's not -Q. Why? It's public records? A. Well, then you would know to look it up then. Q. Well, I have to have a party to look it up. A. You would have to consult with the people there. I don't remember. Q. Tell me who I need to consult with to get that information. A. I'll have to go find out. I don't remember. MR. LORANT: Laura, are you going to let him do this, or are you going to get us the lawsuit and the records or get it ourselves? Get a court order -- having this man tell us what the lawsuit parties are? MS. NETTLES: Well, I don't know that he knows who the parties are. So he's not going to pull a name out of a hat, okay? MR. COBB: He just said he didn't know. MS. NETTLES: He just said he didn't know, all right? MR. LORANT: He said names not to be mentioned, is what he said, in the very first word out of his mouth. MR. JONES: Because I don't know specifically if they're the parties actually filing or the parties actually involved. MR. LORANT: But he knows some parties in the lawsuit. And he's sitting here -MS. NETTLES: You're reading his mind now, Charlie. Q. (By Ms. Hays) All right. Will you get that information and provide it to your counsel? MR. LORANT: Ask him every name he knows associated with the lawsuit. Q. (By Ms. Hays) Tell me every name you know associated with this lawsuit. A. General Electric, Direct TV. That's all I
16 remember. 17 MR. LORANT: Where was he when he deposed the 18 lawsuit? 19 Q. (By Ms. Hays) Where were you when you gave 20 the deposition? 21 A. Phoenix, Arizona. 22 Q. Were you in a law office? 23 A. No. 0086 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0087 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Q. Were you at a business? A. Yes. Q. Where? What business? A. Don't remember. It was a hotel, hotel meeting room. Q. Do you remember who contacted you for the deposition? A. No. Q. Did you receive a subpoena to appear? A. No. Q. Do you remember any of the attorneys involved? A. No. Q. Do you have any idea where the lawsuit was filed? A. No. Q. Do you have a copy of any documents you received for that lawsuit? A. No. Q. Do you have information concerning this lawsuit somewhere at home or -A. No. Q. But did you -- at the time of your deposition, did you sign any type of confidentiality agreement? A. I think so. Q. Do you have a copy of that? A. Not that I recall. Q. Will you, please, make a search for those items, and if you find them, give them to your counsel? A. No. Q. You will not? A. I wouldn't even know where to begin to look. Q. What was your involvement with the lawsuit? A. I was a witness. Q. What did you witness? A. Be specific. Q. Tell me everything that you recall testifying about in the deposition. A. Things that I saw, policies, procedures. Q. Whose policies and procedures? A. The company I was working for at the time. Q. What company was that? A. Equifax. Q. What did the policies and procedures deal
0088 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0089 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0090 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
with? A. How certain accounts were worked. Q. How accounts were ordered? A. Were worked. Q. What does "worked" mean? A. Called, noted. Q. Anything else? A. That's all I recall. Q. So it involved collection activities on specific accounts? A. Yes. Q. And you were involved in that collection activity? A. No. Q. Were you the supervisor at the time the collection activity took place? A. Be more specific. Q. Yeah. Were you supervising the individuals responsible for the collection activity? A. No. Q. Were you a supervisor at the time of the lawsuit? A. Yes -- oh, at the time of the lawsuit? No. Q. At the time of the deposition? A. No. Q. Were you a supervisor at the time that the collection activity took place? A. Yes. Q. Did you have specific information regarding the collector involved or collectors? A. Yes. Q. What was that information? A. I don't recall now. Q. Who were the collectors? A. Don't recall at this moment. Q. Do you recall any of them? A. Not at this moment. Q. Was there more than one? A. Don't recall at this moment. Q. Did the collectors work for Equifax? A. Yes. Q. So was Equifax -A. You know what? Let me backtrack. I don't know if they worked for Equifax because they used a temp service on occasion. So I'm not sure if they were temp employees or what, Equifax employees. Q. But they were collectors who were calling on accounts handled by Equifax? A. Yes. Q. And was Equifax a party to the lawsuit? A. I have no idea. Q. Do you recall who asked you to appear at the deposition? A. No.
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0091 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0092 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Q. Was it your supervisor? A. No. Q. Someone at Equifax? A. I don't remember. It wasn't anybody at Equifax, though. Q. So somebody that you don't know called you -A. I don't remember. Q. -- someone other than your employer? A. I don't remember. Q. What was the year of the deposition? A. Either 2000 or 2001. I'm not sure which. Q. At the time of the deposition, was there any involvement by the Federal Trade Commission? A. None I'm aware of. Q. Did the lawsuit claim that the collection
activity violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act? A. No, not that I'm aware of. Q. Let me go back to the work environment at Neuheisel. You're all in the same room? Does Neuheisel Law Firm use any type of video cameras to monitor collectors? A. Not that I'm aware of. Q. Other than sitting by you or monitoring a telephone call, are you aware of any other means used to monitor your calls? A. I think they go through and do file reviews. Q. What's involved in a file review? A. I have no idea. Q. You have no idea? A. I don't have any idea what they do. That's what you're asking; right? Q. Yeah. A. Okay. Q. And have you ever received any kind of form or document as a result of a file review based on one of your accounts? A. Not that I recall. Q. In reviewing your personnel record yesterday, did you see any documents regarding file reviews? A. I cannot recall for sure. Q. You receive a bonus based on the amount you collect for Neuheisel? A. Be more specific, please. Q. Do you receive a payroll bonus, monetary bonus, based on the amount of money you collect? A. Yes. Q. What is that bonus based on? A. It depends on what I had. Q. All right. Tell me how it's broken down. A. Once you hit ten times your base salary, you get 2.5 percent for the first $10,000 gross. And then for anything $10,000 or more, over and above your ten times your base, it's 5 percent retroactive
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0093 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0094 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0095 1
to your base salary or your goal that you covered for your base. Q. The ten times your base salary, is that per month or per year? A. Per month. Q. What's your current base salary? A. Hourly, yearly, monthly? Monthly. 3,000. What was it when you started? 3,000. What was your gross salary last year? I don't remember. Give me your best judgment of what your -Don't remember. Did you file taxes for 2002? Not yet. You haven't filed yet? No. Do you have a W-2? For? 2002. Yes, somewhere. Was it more than 50,000? No. More than 40,000? Don't remember. You don't remember what you made last year? MS. NETTLES: Penny, we've given you his pay records. So if you've got something you can put in front of him that might refresh his recollection, I think that would be more productive than arguing with him. MS. HAYS: I'm not arguing with him. MR. LORANT: I think it's kind of nice to have somebody on the record that doesn't know what he made last year. MS. NETTLES: Charlie, you're not an attorney of record in this case. MR. LORANT: I most certainly am. MS. NETTLES: When did you notice -- file a notice of appearance? MR. LORANT: (Inaudible.) MS. NETTLES: I don't recall that. I don't recall you being involved in anything in this case until you showed up for mediation. So until I get that, I'd appreciate it if you would not make objections on the record. If you want to hand her documents or give her notes -MR. LORANT: I didn't make any objection on the record. MS. NETTLES: Well, you're talking on the record right now. If you want to give her notes, tell her what to say, and tell her how to take a Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q.
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0096 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0097 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
deposition, that's fine. But don't go on the record until I have a notice of appearance in this case from you. MR. LORANT: Where are we filed? MS. HAYS: Federal court here. MR. LORANT: Did I not sign the form? MS. HAYS: I don't know. MR. LORANT: Do you know, Chris? MR. COBB: I don't think so. MS. NETTLES: Charlie, he was just showing it to you. You're not on there. The only point I was trying to make is if you've got a document that reflects it, why don't you put it in front of him instead of asking him to guess. MR. LORANT: Laura, the point I'm making is, she doesn't have to put anything in front of him if she doesn't want to. MS. NETTLES: All right. Well, I'm instructing him not to guess anymore, okay? MR. LORANT: That's fine. Not to guess about what he made on his income tax, that's fine, for last year. MS. NETTLES: That's right. MR. LORANT: Qualify that it be a guess and go from there. MS. HAYS: I'm sorry. Say that again. MR. LORANT: Qualify that it be a total guess of what his gross was. Q. (By Ms. Hays) It's your testimony that you have absolutely no idea what you made last year working for Neuheisel Law Firm? A. At least $36,000. Q. Other than $36,000, it would be a guess to say how much you made? A. Yes. Q. Okay. I'm just going to show you what's been provided as documents 107 through 141, as being the payroll records provided by your counsel. And if you can look at those and make any sense of what you made last year, please do so and let me know. A. I don't even see my name. MS. NETTLES: Well, he's already said it was less than 50. A. And you're showing me other people's incomes, which I'm really not interested in. Q. (By Ms. Hays) Well, I want you to look at the documents provided as the payroll records by your counsel in this case. A. Can you highlight my name? Q. No. I can't because I don't see your name on that record. A. I don't either. If you want to highlight my name, I'll look at it. Q. So what other document, other than what's
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0098 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0099 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
been provided and represented to us as the entire payroll record from Neuheisel Law Firm where you are an employee -A. Okay. Q. What other document would you need to tell me how much you make? A. To look at my W-2. Q. Okay. And do you have that at your home? A. I'm sure I do somewhere. Q. So you can get that to your counsel and provide us a copy? A. At some point. MS. HAYS: Laura, will you get us a copy of his W-2? MS. NETTLES: I'll take it under advisement. MS. HAYS: Okay. Q. (By Ms. Hays) Have you received bonuses as a collector at Neuheisel Law Firm? A. At what time? Q. At any time. A. Yes. Q. And they're paid on a monthly basis? A. If you earn it, yes. Q. And have there been months where you did not earn a bonus -A. Yes. Q. -- during the two years you worked there? A. Yes. Q. How many times did you not earn a bonus? A. Don't recall. Q. Give me your best judgment. A. Don't recall. Q. Are you paid weekly, monthly, biweekly? A. Biweekly. Q. You have deductions taken out for anything other than taxes and Social Security? A. I don't think so. Q. Are bonuses paid in a separate check? A. Yes. Q. Do you recall if in June of 2001 you received a bonus? A. Don't remember. Q. Let me show you document 121, and I'll turn down the first part. It's got the date on the top, Check Date 6/21/01. And it has your name on here twice. A. Okay. Q. Thirteen eighty-four sixty-two, that's your normally biweekly check amount; correct? A. Okay. Q. Is that correct? A. I don't remember. If that's what it says, that's what it was at that time then. Q. You make the same thing today as you made when you started?
20 21 22 23 0100 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0101 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0102 1 2 3 4
A. Yes. Q. And what's your biweekly check today? A. Oh, I don't remember the exact amount. I have different deductions than I did then. Then they took out insurance, now they don't. Q. I just asked you about deductions. So they took out deductions when you started for insurance? A. Right. Q. How much were they deducting for insurance? A. I have no idea. Q. How long did they deduct for insurance? A. For a year. Q. This second check of eight forty-three thirty, would that have been a bonus check? A. I think so. Q. Would it have been a check for anything else? A. Unless there was a mistake on a previous check. Q. During the two years that you worked there, are you familiar with there being mistakes on your payroll check? A. I've had one or two, that I can recall. MS. NETTLES: Penny, so the record is clear, would you, please, state the Bates number on that document you showed him? MS. HAYS: I did, 121. MS. NETTLES: Okay. And that's a document that we provided to you? MS. HAYS: Correct. Q. (By Ms. Hays) So during the two years you worked there, there's been a mistake on your paycheck twice? A. Once or twice that I can recall. Q. Has the bonus rate that you described, the 2.5 percent, once you get ten times the base, been the same since you started? A. No. Q. Is that bonus rate what it is today? A. Yes. Q. When did it change? A. Don't remember. Q. Give me your best judgment. A. Don't remember. Q. Was it this year? A. I don't think so. Q. Was it last year? A. Don't recall. Yeah. I think it was last year. Q. Do you recall what the previous bonus schedule was? A. Q. A. Q. No. No? No. Has it changed more than one time?
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0103 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0104 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
A. I don't remember. MR. JONES: Is it all right if I stand up? My legs are starting to tingle. MS. NETTLES: Sure. Q. (By Ms. Hays) Let me show you Neuheisel Document 285. Have you seen that document before? A. If I signed it, yeah, I guess. I don't remember it anymore, but yeah. Q. Is that your signature on the bottom? A. Yes. Oh, I remember this. Q. And the document says: Effective December 3, 2001, your bonus rate is set forth below. A. Uh-huh. Q. And your bonus was 2.5 percent; correct? A. Whatever it says. Q. Can you read that document? A. "Neuheisel Law Firm Bonus Agreement." Q. You don't have to read it out loud. I'm just asking if you are able to read the document. A. Oh, okay. (Witness reads document.) A. Okay. Q. What was your bonus schedule as of December 3, 2001? A. That once I hit ten times my base salary, I would be paid 2.5 percent until I reached at least $45,000 in gross dollars. And at that point, I would receive 5 percent of the money collected over ten times my base salary. Q. Does Neuheisel have collectors of the month? A. No. Q. Do they have awards or separate bonuses for the collector who collects the most in a month? A. Yes. Q. Have you ever been a recipient of that award? A. Yes. Q. Does it have a name? A. No. All I know is collector with the most gross dollars. Q. And how many times have you received that award? A. Don't recall. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. of the A. More than once? Yes. More than two times? Yes. More than three times? Yes. More than ten times? Don't remember. More than five times? Don't remember. But at least three times you were collector most gross dollars? Yes.
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0105 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0106 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Q. Do you recall what months those occurred? A. No. Q. Do you remember what years? A. No. Q. Have you received that honor in the past six months? A. Yes. Q. Which month? A. Don't remember exactly. I don't remember the exact month. Q. More than one time in the last six months? A. Don't remember. Q. How about since January of this year? A. Yes. Q. At least one time? A. Uh-huh. Q. More than one time? A. Don't remember. Q. Under the FDCPA, harassment is any action that makes a person feel they've been harassed; is that true? A. Yes. Q. And under the FDCPA, debt collectors are prohibited from telling consumers an arrest warrant will be issued unless a payment is made; is that true? A. Yes. Q. Under the FDCPA, an inconvenient time to contact a consumer is any time defined as inconvenient by the consumer; is that true? A. True. Q. Once a collector is told by the consumer to stop collecting -- or, sorry -- stop calling at work, a collector must stop calling that individual at work; is that correct? A. True. Q. And in this case, [Consumer 1] asked you to stop calling her at work? A. I'd have to see the notes. Q. You don't recall that? A. No. Q. Did you review the notes yesterday when you were reviewing all these other documents? A. I didn't memorize them. Yes, I reviewed them. Q. And do you have any independent recollection of the calls made on this case? A. No. Q. Your recollection is based completely on the collector records and what you reviewed yesterday? A. Almost entirely. Q. What else would it be based on? A. Very little recollection.
21 22 23 0107 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0108 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0109 1 2 3 4 5
Q. Tell me what you recall regarding your conversations with either [Consumer 1] or [Consumer 2].
A. I recall that I thought we had at least one very good conversation -- well, I would say at least two very good conversations. Conversations went nice and smooth. We seemed to have -- appeared to have a good rapport. They updated their records. I told them to tell me since they weren't able -- in a position -- or they said they did not have the resources to raise the entire amount, the entire balance. I saw after I obtained full and complete information that they were a candidate for payments. I asked them to tell -- or her -- I'm not sure which one -- to tell me what payments they were most comfortable with. After they told me, I agreed to accept those arrangements with postdated checks, you know, provided they were secured with postdated checks. And then I recall the day that they were to call -- one of them was supposed to call me back and set up the postdated checks that they changed. Q. Do you recall the date of your first call? A. No. Q. At the time that you got the updated information that you just described for me -A. Uh-huh. Q. -- was that during the initial call? A. Yes. Well, I don't know. I don't remember. Q. And other than -- do you have any other independent recollection of conversations you had with the [Consumers]? A. Independent? No. Q. Do you have a recollection that [Consumer 1] told you she had just had surgery and been in the hospital? A. I think I reviewed that in the notes yesterday. Q. Do you recall that she told you that she was very upset during one of the calls and she was having trouble breathing? A. I don't recall the having trouble breathing. Q. Do you recall that she had to hang up because she couldn't breath? A. Don't recall. Q. Do you recall asking her where you should send the sheriff, to the church to get her husband or to the house to get her? A. I don't recall such conversation. Q. Do you recall either [Consumer 1] or her husband, [Consumer 2], ever telling you to stop calling them at work? A. I don't recall such a conversation. Q. What about them asking you to stop calling them at home?
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0111 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
A. I don't recall. Q. And that would be a cease and desist; correct? A. From home it would have to be done in writing legally for me to have to honor it. Q. And so if you don't receive in writing requesting the calls stop to a home, you'll continue to call? A. Not usually. Q. And are there state laws that prohibit a collector from continuing to call at home even if the request is not in writing? A. Off the top of my head, I don't think so, but I'm not sure. Q. What's the Neuheisel Law Firm policy on continuing to call a home number after a consumer has requested the calls stop? A. What's the policy? Q. Right. A. I'd have to look at the policy. Q. You don't recall how you're supposed to handle a cease and desist from a consumer to stop calling their home? A. If it's in writing, we take all the numbers out and we cease calling. Q. And if it's not in writing, do you stop calling them? A. At home? Q. Right. A. It depends. Q. What does it depend on? A. If it's a suit-worthy account, and if we feel the person is not interested in addressing the situation, then we'll ago ahead and make sure it meets suit requirements and recommend suit. Q. If it's suit worthy, would you stop calling them at home? A. Oh, yeah. Q. What other requirements or types of accounts would you stop calling at home just based on an oral request? A. I'm sorry? Q. Other than suit-worthy accounts, what other types of accounts would you stop calling at home just based on an oral request? A. If it's a low balance account; if I really think they're not interested in paying the debt. Those are the primary reasons. Q. What do you consider to be a low balance account? A. Two, three, four hundred bucks. Q. Something over 2,000 would not be low balance? A. No. Q. And if a consumer requests that calls to
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0112 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0113 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
their place of employment stop, do you stop calling them at work? A. Yes. Q. And if calls to their place of employment continued after the request that they cease and desist, that would violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act? A. That would be true. Q. And it would also violate the Neuheisel Law Firm policy and procedures manual? A. That would be true. Q. When someone requests that you stop calling at work, is there a code that's entered in place of the number for the employer? A. We take all the numbers out and document it. Q. What type of numbers do you put in its place: zeros, ones, sevens, nines? A. Lot of times I'll either remove it completely or I think it's ones or sevens. I forgot which one. Q. Do you put the place of employment phone number somewhere else in the account records? A. No. Q. Just gone? A. Unless it's suit worthy, it would be on a screen where the employment information is. There's an employment screen. Q. So it can stay on the employment screen even if it's deleted from the contact number section? A. Right. Q. And did you -- is it also documented in the notes section? A. Uh-huh. Q. Is that a yes? A. Yes. Q. How do the notes come up, most recent or oldest first? A. Most recent. Q. Are there any priority notes or are all the notes the same level? A. You can put -- like if a person has put us on notice, there's a screen where you can mark it, and then it'll flash in red on notice. Q. What has to be done for that to happen? A. You go into the on-notice screen and put: On notice, or you -- I think it's a box you check, actually. Q. And that's to stop calling at home or work? A. Depending on which one it is, yes. Q. Are there any other types of boxes that can pop up and flash to alert a collector? A. Uh-huh. Q. What are those? A. I don't recall them all. Credit report is one, media screen, bank screen. Those are the only ones that jump out at me.
0114 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0115 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0116 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Q. Tell me about the credit report screen, what -- if it's flashing, what does that mean? A. Well, when I say "flash," it's just highlighted in red. Q. Okay. When it's highlighted in red, what does that mean? A. It means there has been a credit report requested on it. Q. Does that mean the credit report has been requested by Neuheisel? A. I don't know who requested it. Q. As a collector, do you have the ability to request credit reports on consumers? A. Yeah. We can request one. It doesn't mean we're going to necessarily get one. Q. And if you request a credit report on a consumer, do you go in and mark the credit report box? A. I think there's a screen that says, "CBR," where you can make the request. And then whoever makes that decision can determine whether you can get one or not. Q. Have you ever seen the credit report requested -- highlighted in red if a credit report was not requested by Neuheisel? A. Again, I don't know who requests them. I just know that usually when we get them, they've been requested already, usually. I don't know who does it, though. Q. Be it someone at Neuheisel or someone else? A. I do not know who requests the credit bureau (sic). Q. Have you ever done that, requested a credit report? A. Uh-huh. Q. When do you request a credit report? A. Rarely. Usually, if it's under a thousand bucks, it'll usually run a credit report. But if it's close to a thousand bucks -- like if it's 982 or something like that, and I don't have any other information to reach the person, sometimes I'll look at the credit bureau (sic) -- I'll request one to see if I can get one. Q. Other than if it's less than $1,000, what are your other criteria for determining whether you should request a credit report? A. I don't usually have to. It's already been requested. Q. By the time the account comes to you? A. Uh-huh. Q. Tell me about the media screen. A. Be more specific, please. Q. I have no idea what it looks like, so tell me what the media screen tells you and what it looks
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0117 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0118 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
like. A. Depending on the client, it usually will tell you when the account was opened and the date that they charged it off. And then after that, it can vary by client. Q. For MBNA is it based on the original credit grantor, be it Citibank or MBNA, or is it based on who assigned the account on Collect America? A. The date that the original lender granted credit and the date that the original lender charged off. Q. If the media screen is -- does it get highlighted in red, also? A. Yes. Q. When it's highlighted in red, what does that mean? A. It just means that there's information in the media screen to look at. Q. Okay. And what about the bank screen? A. Only if you put information in there. Q. When you access an account, do these screens come up initially with the account? A. Only if you click on it. Q. You have to click on something specific for this information to appear? A. Right. Q. What normally comes up first when you pull up an account? A. The account number that's been assigned to the account -- they have a system -- name, if there was an address, Social Security number, if it came with one, day it was placed, the balance of the account, and letters that have been requested to be sent. Q. When an account is assigned to you, are you responsible for requesting the initial letters? A. No. Q. And the date the account was placed is important; right? A. To a degree, I guess. I have no idea. Q. Are you aware that accounts generally stay at Neuheisel for a set period of time? A. Huh? Q. Are you aware that when Neuheisel is assigned accounts to collect, they're given a specific period of time, for example, 60 days or 90 days, to collect on that account? A. I've never been told that. Q. You're not aware of that? A. No. Q. Are you aware of any clients that Neuheisel collects accounts for other than Collect America? A. Yes. Q. Who are they? A. Don't remember.
18 19 20 21 22 23 0119 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0120 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0121 1 2
Q. A. Q. A. Q. A.
You don't remember any of them? I remember one. Who was that? World-Wide Management. World-Wide Management? I think that's what it was called,
World-Wide, something -- Asset Management. I think it was something like that. Q. How many accounts do you generally handle at one time? A. Specify "one time." Q. On any given day, how many accounts are you trying to collect? A. All of them. Q. How many accounts are assigned to you? A. I don't remember. Q. Is it like 100, 200, 500? A. Specify what time frame. Q. Well, I understand that you might settle one account, and then you might get another batch of accounts added to your area. But on any given day, how many accounts do you normally handle? A. Right now? Q. Yes. A. That I actually handle or in my que? Q. That are in your que? A. 600 -- 6, 700. Q. And do you have a quota as to how many calls you're supposed to make a day to collect accounts? A. No. Q. So you can make as few as ten calls a day on collecting accounts? A. You asked me if I have a quota. I said no. Q. Is there a recommended guideline of how many calls you should make on accounts in a day? A. Not that I recall. Q. How many calls do you generally make on these 6 or 700 accounts a day? A. Varies. Q. What's the most? Or give me a range if that's easier. A. I'd be guessing. I don't want to guess. Q. Do you have any type of record or log where you keep track of the calls that you've made on an account? A. It's on the notes. Q. Do you have a separate log or record that you keep of all the calls that you've made on a specific date? A. No. Q. Does your supervisor keep a log of how many calls you've made on a specific date? A. I have no idea. Q. Are you aware --
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0122 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0123 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
A. The system actually tracks it. Q. The system, the computer itself -A. Uh-huh. Q. -- tracks how many calls you make per day? A. Well, that's not entirely true. It tracks how many accounts I've worked. Q. So it's not the number of calls made, but the number of calls made on specific accounts? And the actual number of accounts is what it's keeping track of? A. Restate your question, please. Q. Sure. The system is tracking how many accounts that you are working on a daily basis? A. Yes. Q. Not how many calls are made on each individual account? A. Right. Q. Is there a quota or recommended guideline for how many accounts you should work on a daily basis? A. Not that I recall. Q. Has there ever been a guideline or quota? A. Not that I recall. Q. Have you ever seen anything, any policy or procedure, about how many accounts you should work per day? A. I don't remember. Q. When you're collecting for Collect America, are there separate policies and procedures you have to follow for the Collect America accounts? A. No. Q. Have you ever been given or provided -A. That's not entirely true. Q. All right. A. That's not true, no. Q. No what? I'm sorry. A. Restate your question, please. Q. When you're collecting Collect America accounts, have you been provided specific criteria for collecting Collect America accounts? A. No. Q. Have you been told or given anything in writing about how to collect Collect America accounts? A. No. Q. Have you ever been given any kind of policy or procedure regarding Collect America accounts? A. Not that I recall. Q. Is that something that you would have in your three-ring binder? A. Maybe. Q. Or on your desk? A. Maybe. Q. Does Collect America have specific scripts or talk-offs that you're to use for their accounts? A. Not that I'm aware of, no.
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0124 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0125 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Q. You've been given -- or do you use any scripts or talk-offs in your collection activity at Neuheisel? A. No. Define "script" for me, please. Q. Give me your definition of a script. A. Well, I asked you first. Q. Yes. But I'm the lawyer so you go first. A. But I did ask you first. Q. You've used scripts in the past? A. Yes. Q. So tell me your definition of a script. A. It depends on the company. Q. Give me your definition of a script based on your work at Neuheisel. A. I'm required to give a mini Miranda. I'm required to specify that I am not an attorney, that I am a collector working on behalf of Neuheisel Law Firm. I'm required to ask if the address of record is correct. And I am required to ask if they've received the letter. Q. Is that actually in a written form where the questions are set forth for you to follow? A. I know we've had a memo put out that we're required to ask those things somewhere. Q. Have you ever been given a script, like at Corporate America or Equifax, in your employment prior to Neuheisel? A. I've never worked at Corporate America. Q. Corporate Receivables, excuse me. A. Okay. Not that I recall. Well, at what place, now? Q. At any of your prior employment. A. Yes, I have at some. Q. And define the scripts that you were using at your previous employment. A. Also identify yourself, at which we're also required to do at Neuheisel. Identify who you are, where you're calling from, the company's address, and essentially the things that I've asked before -- previous places. They've required that we ask, you know, things like where you work, what kind of work you do, what kind of money you make, things like that. Q. Are you familiar with the term "talk-off"? A. Yes. Q. Can you tell me your understanding of what a talk-off is? A. An initial demand for money -- well, not even an initial -- a conversation about money. Q. Is it normally something that's typewritten and given to collectors to use, especially new collectors? A. Uh-huh. That I'm aware of, yes. Q. And it can be like a script where it will tell them what to say?
21 22 23 0126 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0127 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0128 1 2 3 4 5
A. For a new person, yes. Q. And were you given any talk-offs at Neuheisel? A. I don't recall. Q. If you were, would that be something that you maintained in your items on your desk or in your binder? A. Usually, yes. Q. The script items that you talked about for Neuheisel: the give your identification, mini Miranda. Are those items something you're supposed to do in every call? A. Yes -- well, every initial call, anyway. Q. All right. And are there items on that script that you're to do in every call? A. Always identify yourself. Q. Okay. A. Always say that you're a -- what do you call it -- non-attorney. Q. Okay. Anything else? A. Well, we're always required to comply with FDCPA regulations. Q. Can you tell the jury what a mini Miranda is? A. Who's the jury? Q. If we read this deposition, they'll be listening. A. Oh, okay. Would a mini Miranda -- this is an attempt to collect a debt. Any information obtained can and will be used for the purposes of collection of the debt. Q. Are you required to give them a mini Miranda in every call? A. Every initial demand. Q. Only in the initial demands, though? A. That's the only time it's required. I think Kate requires it if there's been a length of time that's passed since you last talked to the person. Q. Do you know what that length of time is? A. You know, if it's probably been a couple of months or so, yeah, probably. Q. A month or a couple of months? I just don't understand. A. I think something in the vicinity of a few weeks have passed. Q. So if it's been more than a few weeks since you talked to the consumer, then company policy is to give the mini Miranda again? A. Yes. Q. But if you talked to the person a few days before, you're not required to give the mini Miranda? A. No, if they've been given the mini Miranda initially. Q. When you started at Neuheisel, were you
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0129 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0130 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
trained on the collection criteria of Collect America? A. Please be specific. Q. When you started your two-week training at Neuheisel Law Firm, were you trained on how to collect Collect America accounts? A. Yes. Q. Tell me about that training. A. To always ask for the balance of the account, to get full and complete information, always -that's all I recall off the top of my head. Q. Always ask for the balance of the account and get full and complete information? A. Uh-huh. Q. Since that's all you can recall, how do you look up what the other requirements for Collect America are? A. For Collect America? Q. Right. A. What other requirements are there for Collect America? Q. Is that -A. I go by company policy. Q. Okay. So the only requirements that you're aware of for Collect America are to always ask for the balance and always get full and complete information? A. Oh, I thought we were talking about Neuheisel. I apologize. I thought we were talking about Neuheisel's policies and procedures. Q. We're talking about Collect America. And you testified that you received some training on how to collect Collect America accounts. A. Oh, I was speaking in general, any account that we've talked to, regardless of whether it's a Collect America account or not. Q. During your initial training at Neuheisel, did you receive any specific training related to how to work or collect on Collect America accounts? A. How to work on their system. Q. Okay. And what is their system? A. STARS. Q. Were you given any other training other than how to work on the computer system? A. FDCPA rules and regulations. Q. Related to Collect America accounts? A. How to read the screen. Q. Is it your testimony that when you're collecting on a Collect America account, that you handle those collections the same way you handle any other type of account? A. Yeah. Q. And you're not aware of any specific requirements or criteria that Collect America has for handling their accounts?
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0131 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0132 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
A. Not off the top of my head. Q. Would you have that document or documents somewhere for you to refer to? A. Probably. Q. Will you, please, provide a copy of that to your counsel? A. If I have something. Q. Will you let your counsel know if you don't have it so that she can let me know? A. Okay. And what am I looking for, again? Q. The Collect America criteria for collecting those accounts. A. I don't think I've ever seen a Collect America criteria. MS. HAYS: Can you mark that? Let's take a break. (A break was taken.) MS. HAYS: Can you read the last question? (Question read back by reporter.) Q. (By Ms. Hays) Have you seen any other collection criteria used with the handling of a specific account? MR. JONES: If you don't mind, can I wait until they come back? MS. HAYS: Yeah. He said we could go ahead, but if you want to wait, that's fine. MR. JONES: Oh, okay. MR. COBB: You can go ahead. MR. JONES: Okay. Repeat your question, please. Q. (By Ms. Hays) Sure. You said you're not aware of any Collect America criteria. Are you aware of criteria for the collection of any other accounts? A. The way I understand it is we have to work them all the same. Q. Okay. And you haven't been provided any specific collection criteria to be used by you in the collection of accounts? A. Whatever is in my manual. Q. Let me show you what was provided to us in the employee manual. MR. JONES: You wouldn't happen to have any Red Bulls on you, would you? MR. COBB: I don't know what a Red Bull is. MR. JONES: You don't. Oh, it's an energy drink. Okay. What was your question? I'm sorry. Q. (By Ms. Hays) If you'll review that document, which has a piece of paper on the front that says, "Employee Manual." A. Now, when you say "review," do you want me to read every page? Q. No. Did you review this document yesterday in preparation for the deposition?
0133 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0134 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0135 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. policy A. Q. you've A. Q. policy of any that I A. Q. A.
No. Have you ever seen this document before? Yes. Okay. And do you use it on a daily basis? Yes. Okay. So you're familiar with this document? Some. And contained in this employee manual is a and procedures manual. Okay. Is that the policy and procedures manual been provided? Yes. All right. Have you been given any other and procedures, guidelines, memos, documents kind, that's not contained in this exhibit just handed you? I think so. You think so? Uh-huh. MR. COBB: He's already provided testimony regarding memos in the three-ring binder. A. I mean, to attest to what's on every single page, I couldn't tell you that. Q. (By Ms. Hays) You have documents in your binder that differ from the Neuheisel Law Firm employee manual? A. I don't know what's here. I'd have to have the two side by side to be able to compare. Q. Have you seen that before, the policy and procedures manual? A. Yeah. Q. Do you have any other policy and procedures manuals that you've been given other than this one? MR. COBB: Besides to what he's testified to earlier? A. Again, unless I have it to compare against other things, I would assume everything that is here is what I have. Q. (By Ms. Hays) And based on what you -- do you use this binder on a daily basis? A. Yes. Q. And based on your use of that information, are you familiar with any other collection criteria that you've been given? A. Again, I'd have to look at it on a -- by an account-by-account basis. Q. Let me show what you I've marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit 2 and ask you if you can identify that. (Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 2 marked for identification.) A. That's a print screen and my notes on the side as to the arrangements that the [Consumers]
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0136 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0137 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
originally told me that they wanted. Q. Is that your signature -A. Yes. Q. -- K. Jones. And that's your handwriting? A. Yes. Q. When did you make the notes? A. I don't remember the exact date. Q. Do you know who you gave these notes to? A. I think we placed them in a -- actually, I don't know if I placed them in the collection letter bin to request that a letter be typed or if I handed it to the lady that does the typing. Q. Okay. Why did you make the notes on this piece of paper? A. So she would know what account to type the letter off of. Q. And once the letter is done, where would this document, Plaintiff's Exhibit 2, be kept? A. I don't know. Somewhere in the office. I don't keep it. Q. Okay. It doesn't come back to you? A. No. Q. While working at Neuheisel Law Firm, have you had any complaints filed against you either with the law firm or with an attorney general, other than the [Consumer] account? A. Can you be a little more specific? Q. During your employment at Neuheisel, have you had any complaints filed against you? A. What do you mean "filed"? Did somebody call in or somebody just -- something documented? Q. Sure. Any complaints made against you. A. Yes. Q. Tell me the first one that you recall. A. This is it, that I recall. Q. [Consumer]? A. Yes. Q. Any other complaints made against you? A. Yes. Q. What was it? A. I don't recall the exact particulars. Q. Do you recall when it was? A. No. Q. Do you remember what account it was? A. I'd be guessing, no. Q. Were you reprimanded as a result of the [Consumer] account -- in handling of the [Consumer] account? A. Verbally, yes. Q. Verbally only? A. That's all I remember. Q. This other complaint that was made against you, did it result in any type of warning, verbally or written? A. Yes. Q. Which one?
18 19 20 21 22 23 0138 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0139 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0140 1 2
A. I think it was written. Q. Other than the [Consumer] and this other complaint, have there been any other complaints, that you're aware of, made against you or about your activities as a collector at Neuheisel? A. Whatever is in my file that I've signed. That's all I remember. Q. Okay. Do you know if complaints are normally kept in the personnel file? A. I think so. Q. Was the other complaint made against you before or after the [Consumer] account complaint? A. I believe it was after. Q. Do you know a Kenny Reeves, collector? A. Uh-huh. Q. Is he still at Neuheisel? A. I don't know. Q. Was he at work yesterday, day before, last week? A. He was at work last week. Q. Let me show you document NLF 222. Is that your handwriting? A. No. Q. Are you aware of a complaint made to the attorney general, Consumer Protection Division, by a Lewis Ross Brown? A. I'd have to see it because I don't know. (Witness reviews document.) A. No. Ask your question again, please. Q. Sure. Are you aware that this complaint was made against you? A. Uh-huh. Q. To the attorney general in Arizona? A. Since then. What year? You're jogging my memory. Now I do. Q. Okay. Let me just mark that as Plaintiff's Exhibit 3. And in that complaint, Mr. Brown alleged that you yelled at him in a very nasty tone. (Plaintiff's Exhibit No.3 marked for identification.) A. That's what the letter says. Q. Right. That's what he claimed. A. Uh-huh. Q. Did you yell at him in a nasty tone? A. No. Q. He says he asked you to stop calling his residence and sent you a certified letter and that you did not stop calling; do you recall that? A. If a certified letter came in, it was canceled or the numbers were canceled, so I wouldn't have been able to call. Q. So you dispute the complaint that you continued to call after a cease and desist? A. Oh, absolutely.
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0141 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0142 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Q. Okay. And it says by Mr. Brown, "I reminded him of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act." And he said, "Mr. Jones simply stated that he nor his company had to follow this law if he didn't choose to do so." Did you ever make that kind of statement? A. No. Q. Did you receive any kind of reprimand as a result of Mr. Brown's complaints? A. None that I'm aware of. Q. I'm going to mark this as Plaintiff's Exhibit 4 and ask you if you can identify that. (Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 4 marked for identification.) (Witness reviews document.) A. This is my handwriting. What's the purpose? Q. Okay. And is that your signature on the bottom? A. Yes. Q. Do you remember when you wrote this statement? A. No. Q. Do you know if it was -- did you mail this statement to the attorney general? A. No. Q. Did you just give it to -A. Ms. Neuheisel. Q. And you're not aware of any other -- or any disciplinary action that resulted as a result of Mr. Brown's complaint? A. No. Q. Can you tell me how many phone lines there are at Neuheisel? A. I have no idea. Q. How many phone lines do you have on your phone; do you know -- have access to dial? A. Two that I'm aware of. Q. And there was a complaint made against you by Carol Davie; do you recall that? A. I'd have to see it. Q. I'll just go ahead and mark this as Plaintiff's Exhibit 5 and ask if you've seen that letter before.
(Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 5 marked for identification.) A. Yeah. I saw it yesterday. Q. Prior to yesterday, had you ever seen it? A. I'm not sure. Q. And Ms. Davie is complaining about a call she received from you? A. Okay. Q. Is that right? (Witness reviews document.) A. That's what the letter says.
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0143 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0144 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Q. And did you receive a write-up as a result of this complaint? A. I don't recall. I think I did. Q. Let me just show you this Document 292. Is that a copy of the reprimand that you received as a result of Ms. Davie's complaint? (Witness reviews document.) A. Okay. Q. Is that right? A. Yes. Q. Is that your signature? A. Yes. Q. And there is also a complaint by a Maureen Vaughn in 2002. A. Okay. Q. Is that right? A. I don't remember the time frame. Q. I'll show you this. It's Document 298. you seen that reprimand before? A. Yes. Q. Have you seen it before yesterday? A. Yes.
Have
Q. Is that your signature on the bottom? A. Yes. Q. And you were given a final warning with respect to your handling of accounts? A. Yes. Q. There's also a complaint on an account by Mary Franco. Are you familiar with that? A. Huh-uh. Q. And you were written up for failing to follow company policy in reference to telephone contact; do you recall that? MS. NETTLES: What's the Bates number on that, Penny? MS. HAYS: 303. A. I don't remember -- I can't believe I actually signed it because it doesn't specify what it was in regard to, so I don't know. Q. Do you have any recollection of what this complaint involved? A. Huh-uh. Q. I'm sorry. Is that a no? A. No. Q. Do you have any documents that you were given or letters from Ms. Franco regarding her complaint? A. Not that I recall. Q. I found 292. So let me just go ahead and mark that one. Let me show you Plaintiff's Exhibit 6 and ask you is that your signature on the bottom? (Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 6 marked for identification.) MS. NETTLES: I'm sorry, the Bates number on
19 20 21 22 23 0145 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0146 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0147 1 2 3
that? MS. HAYS: 292. A. Isn't this the same one you just -Q. (By Ms. Hays) Right. I didn't have a copy to mark, so -A. Oh. Q. -- I've marked it now as Plaintiff's Exhibit 6. A. Okay. Q. And is that your signature on the bottom? A. Yes. Q. And that complaint involved an allegation that you had made an improper disclosure to a third party? A. Is that a question? Q. Yes. Is that correct? A. That's what it says. Q. Have you received any verbal reprimands or warnings, other than the [Consumer] account, since you began employment at Neuheisel Law Firm? A. Other than what you have here, not that I recall. Q. All right. These are written warnings. And you told me earlier that you had been verbally warned as a result of the handling of the [Consumer] account. A. Yes. Q. Other than the [Consumer] account, have you received any other verbal warnings? A. None that I recall. Q. When you are given these written warnings, are you provided a copy for you to keep in your own records? A. No. Q. I think that we may have gone over this, but I can't recall. It's been too long. Tell me, would it be a violation of Neuheisel Law Firm's policy for a collector to threaten that a lawsuit was going to be filed if they did not intend to file a lawsuit? A. Yes. Q. And that would also violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act? A. Yes. Q. And if a lawsuit had not been filed, would it also be a violation of company policy to threaten to garnish someone's wages? A. Yes. Q. And threatening to garnish wages, if a lawsuit had not been filed, would also violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act? A. Yes. Q. When speaking with a third party, what information are you allowed to disclose? A. Nothing. Only my name and number and the
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0148 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0149 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
name of the company if they ask for it. Q. If a collector told a third party that he was going to send the sheriff with a summons and complaint to collect a debt that one of their employees owed, that would violate company policy? A. Yes. Q. And the FDCPA? A. Yes. Q. How many times can a collector call an individual on an account before it becomes harassment, in your opinion? A. My opinion is not subject to privy. I follow the laws. It has nothing to do with my opinion. Q. Okay. And you're very familiar with the FDCPA? A. Pretty familiar. Q. You've been doing collection work since -for about 20 years? A. Off and on, yeah. Q. And based on that history and your experience, how many times can a collector call on an account in a week? A. It depends on the state law. Q. I'm sorry? A. It depends on the state law. Q. Excluding state laws. Just based on Neuheisel Law Firm's policies and procedures, how many times can you, as a collector, call on an account in any given day? A. I can't exclude state law. That's what we follow. Q. With an understanding that you would not violate state law in those states that have a specific requirement -- so we're going to exclude those, okay? Just based on Neuheisel's policies and procedures, how many times can you call on an account in a given -- in a week? MS. NETTLES: Object to the form of the question. A. Whatever the law provides. Q. (By Ms. Hays) And if you called more than three times in one day, would that violate the law? A. Yes. Q. If you called more than two times in one day, would that violate the law? A. Yes. Q. If a consumer/debtor hung up the telephone and you immediately called right back, would that violate the law? A. Yes. I will qualify one thing, one of the questions you just asked. You can call more than once if the person asks you to call them back. Q. And if the consumer/debtor had not requested that you call them back and you called more than one time a day, that would violate the law?
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0150 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0151 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
A. Yes. Q. If you refuse to give the name of your employer, that would violate the law? A. Yes. Q. What is the policy for handling a consumer when they request that calls to their home stop? What are you supposed to do? A. To their home? Q. Right. A. Note whatever they said, but they have to -to inform them that they need to provide us that request in writing. Q. And are you trained and instructed to inform the consumer that they need to put that request in writing? A. Yes. Q. Until the request is received, will you continue to call a person at their home? A. It just depends. Q. What does it depend on? A. Same criteria as I stated earlier. Q. The balance of the account? A. It depends on -- the balance actually probably has very little to do with it. If the person shows some sincerity in terms of wanting to pay it and maybe you're just catching them at a bad time, you'll call them another time. If they show absolutely no inclination to wanting to address the situation, by payments or otherwise, then it would stop. There's really no point to call anymore -any point, excuse me. Q. Are you required to work an account at least every 30 days? A. More often than that. Q. Okay. Can you tell me how often you're required to work an account? A. As often as the law allows. Q. What is that, generally? A. It depends on the state. Q. Do you recall what it was in Alabama? A. No. I don't recall at the time. Q. Do you recall what it is in Arizona? A. I'd have to look at my rates. Q. Do you follow -- you don't follow the strictest state requirements across the board, do you? A. Generally, yeah. Q. So if one state says not to call someone more than once every seven days, do you follow that across the board whether the consumer you're calling lives in that state or not? A. Yes. Q. So is it Neuheisel's policy that collectors should follow the strictest state's standards when collecting accounts?
22 23 0152 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0153 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0154 1 2 3 4 5 6
A. Yes. Q. Regardless of whether the individual lives in that strictest state? A. Oh, they have to live in that state. It's whatever that particular state law provides. Q. So the strictest state laws are not followed for consumers that don't live in the state? A. Right. Q. Do you consider someone telling you: This is not my account, as notice that they dispute the account? A. Yes. Q. And what is done when a consumer that you call says: This isn't my account? A. There's a screen we go into to mark it as a dispute, to mark the bureau (sic) as a dispute. Q. All right. What else do you do? A. Note it. Q. In the collection logs? A. In the collection notes. Q. Anything else? A. Then at that point, I try to ascertain exactly what they're disputing. Is it the entire account, a portion of the account. I'll ask what their address is, you know, in correlation to what we have, to kind of figure out if they were getting letters there all -- you know, statements there all the time and maybe somebody else in the home possibly has been using the card. There's a multitude of things. Q. Do you instruct them that they need to put their dispute in writing? A. Yes. Q. There's a code for a seven in the phone number. Is that the same as a request for no calls? A. Correct. Sevens all the way across. Q. And you're aware, as a collector, when you call an individual, it can be uncomfortable for that individual to receive collection calls on an account? A. Am I aware that it can be? Q. Right. A. Yes. Q. And it can be upsetting to someone when they receive a collection call? A. Yes. Q. And if you're told when you call the consumer that they have a serious illness, do you handle that call the same way as you would with someone who had not indicated they were sick? A. Yes. Q. Do you have a classification that you set up for debtors when you're calling them? A. Classification?
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0155 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0156 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Q. Right. That you use just for your own personal basis on how you're classifying the individuals you're contacting. A. Specify, please. Q. Like they're old or sick or unemployed or a loser. Any kind of classification that you use when referring to the consumers or debtors that you're calling? A. Human beings. Q. Are the initial letters given generated from the Arizona office; do you know? A. I have no idea. I don't think so. Q. In this instance, you were told by the [Consumers] that they had not received an initial letter; do you recall that? A. That I told them they hadn't? Q. No. That they told you they had not received an initial letter. A. I'd have to see the transcripts. I don't remember. Q. You don't recall that from something you reviewed yesterday? A. I don't remember. Q. Let me show you what I'll mark as Plaintiff's Exhibit 7. Can you identify that? (Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 7 marked for identification.) A. It's a print screen of the account. Q. Does it contain all the screens for the account? A. No. Q. No? A. This front page? Q. No. The document in total. (Witness reviews document.) A. To my knowledge. Q. Okay. And you recognize Plaintiff's Exhibit 7 as the account screens for the [Consumer 1] account? A. Uh-huh. Q. Is that correct? A. Uh-huh. Q. I'm sorry. You have to answer yes or no. A. Yes. I'm sorry. Q. And it says that the forwarder is CACV. Is that Collect America; do you know? A. I'm not sure. Q. And it has ones across the work telephone and the home telephone. A. Yes. Q. What does the one stand for? A. That the consumer requested, I believe, that -- no further phone calls. Q. Okay. Is a one a different code than a seven?
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0157 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0158 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
A. I think one is if it's -- one of them is -- I can't remember which one off the top of my head. One is a seven or -- one is if it's an attorney request and then the other is if it's requested by the -- but I can't remember which one goes with which. Q. In the first page of Plaintiff's Exhibit 7, which is Neuheisel Document No. 5, is this bank and asset information something that would come up in the highlighted red if you had bank information? A. If you clicked on it, yes. Q. Okay. Does this first page have a screen name? A. Front screen. That's all I can really think of. Q. Okay. Front screen? A. Again, I'm not thinking in terms of names of screens, just the front screen. That's all I can think of. Q. Does it appear like it is printed in Plaintiff's Exhibit 7 for page 1? A. There are some variations because to the left you have a list of the credit report that can be in red, you know. So that's pretty much it. Yeah. Everything else is pretty close the same. Q. Can you tell me what's on the left besides the credit report and -A. All the ones I told you before are the only ones I can remember. Q. So there's four or five, like bank screen, credit report screen. I forgot the other one. What's the one that starts with an "m"? A. Media. Q. Media screen. And then on page 2 of Plaintiff's Exhibit 7 -- flip to the next page, please. Does this screen have a name or does it come up or is it something that you have to click on to access? A. You have to punch in a code, I think, or a couple of initials. It's part of a code. Q. For the second page to appear? A. Uh-huh. Q. I'm sorry. Is that a yes? A. Yes. I'm sorry. Q. And then on page 3 under -- it has an address of 1999 Broadway, Denver, Colorado. Do you know whose address that is? A. I'm not 100 percent sure, no. Q. It has some instructions under that. And it says, "VOD available upon request." Do you know what VOD stands for? A. Verification of the Debt. Q. And then on page 4 of Plaintiff's Exhibit 7, the collection notes begin; correct?
0159 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0160 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0161 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
A. I'm sorry? Q. The collection notes begin. A. Okay. Q. And they're in reverse chronological order; is that right? A. Reverse in what manner? Q. With the most recent first. A. Yes. Q. So, if you will, turn to the last page so we can sort of go in order. You've seen these collection notes and records in Plaintiff's Exhibit 7 before; correct? A. Yes. Q. Did you review them yesterday? A. No. Q. Tell me the first entry on the call log. A. The first section? Q. We're on the collection notes. A. All the way at the bottom? Q. Yes. A. What about it? Q. Well, when did it occur? A. 12/12/2001. Q. And is that when the account was actually entered in the system? A. I think so. Q. Can you review this last page and tell me where it indicates that the initial letter was sent? A. 12/13/2001. Q. And where does it show that? A. Where it shows in letters a different screen. Q. Okay. A. I don't see it in the notes here. It's on a different screen that we click on. Q. Do you see that screen contained anywhere within Plaintiff's Exhibit 7? A. I'm not 100 percent sure, but on the last page, 12/13, I think it does say that this was a system letter that was sent, where it says this "LP2." Q. Okay. So on 12/13/2001, time 14:51, there's a system entry? And across at the very end it says, "LP2"? A. I think that's a letter. Q. And do you know what the columns stand for across the -A. Some I do; some I don't. Q. Can you tell me which ones that you know and what they are? A. SYS is system; MGR is manager. Q. AUD? A. I'm not 100 percent sure about that. Q. Okay. A. NI is not in -- or new information, excuse
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0162 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0163 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
me. Q. What about the NB or the H? A. NB, where is that? Oh, new business. DM is also, I think, where the demand letter goes out. Q. H. Do you know what H is? A. House, I believe. Q. What does house mean? A. I don't really know to be quite candid. It's just a different que that it's in. Q. NCOA. Do you know what que that is? A. I think that's when they first place it, but I don't remember what it's called -- what it stands for. Q. What about RA? A. RA? Oh, I have no idea. Q. Is COL collector? A. Yes. Q. And you first made a call on December 13th of 2001? A. That's what it says. Q. And you called the home and there was no answer? A. Yes. Q. And then right after that, it has CBR#. What does CBR mean? A. Credit bureau report. Q. Okay. And is that a credit bureau number or is that a number provided to you by a credit bureau? A. A number provided by the credit bureau. Q. Okay. And then you left a message? A. Yes. Q. When is the next time that you have a note of a telephone call? A. 12/17. Q. Prior to 12/17, it looks like the system added a new work phone number for [Consumer 2], as well as a new work number for [Consumer 1]. Do you know how those numbers were obtained? A. I think she gave them to me. Q. During your telephone call on the 17th? A. Yes. Q. So the fact that they occur prior to the notes that you made of the telephone call, it could be that you obtained that information during the telephone call? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Can you access an account to look at information on the account without entering a collection note? A. No. Q. So if you just pull it up for anything at all, you have to enter a collection note? A. No. Q. Okay. Now I'm confused. You can pull up an account to look at something or see if some piece of
18 19 20 21 22 23 0164 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0165 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0166 1 2
information was obtained without entering the collection notes? A. It's possible. Q. And tell me on 12/17 -- these records are military time; correct? A. Yes. Q. So that call was actually approximately 5:56 in the evening? A. Which one is this? Q. The December 17th. A. Oh, yes. Q. And across the top it has the AC. Do you know what that stands for? A. Active. Q. And then we're back to RA, which we don't know. And PR; do you know what PR is? A. No. Q. Okay. And will you just read your collection note as entered for the 17th? A. "Home. Made call home. Debtor, being the individual listed on the account as the primary, said had two ruptured disks in her neck. Just had surgery. Spouse had two surgeries in the last two and a half months. Said they were buying their home at $710 a month. Owner-financed, meaning that they bought it from a private source and that they were financing it or in the process of purchasing it. Car payment, $536 a month. Three kids. Out of work, meaning she was out of work, for two weeks." I usually put that as a -- you know, if they're giving me a reason why they went into default. "Should be back to work after first of year." Behavior specialist was her position or title. She had been there approximately one and a half years. Name of the employer is Excel Institute. She's paid every other week on contract. The first year, $25,200. Children's -- husband. I didn't put spouse POE, but it's husband. Spouse is a children's minister at First Baptist Church of Gadsden, full-time. Been there approximately one year. Bank -- they bank at Alabama Teachers Credit Union, savings and checking accounts. References, [Friend], who's a friend, her number. [Redacted], her sister-in-law, and her number." Q. So during the first conversation that you had with [Consumer 1], she was very helpful? A. Yes. Q. And she provided all the information that you needed -A. Yes. Q. -- including their places of employment and phone numbers? A. For most of the information I needed. Q. What information did you need that she did
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0167 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0168 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
not provide? A. The real reason why they got behind. Q. And does it have any note here that you asked that information? A. Well, that's where I put, "Out of work." That's what she says the reason why they -- and the surgeries -- but it didn't cover all the time that they were behind. It only covered part of the time. Q. And did you ask her about the previous time? A. Yes. Q. And did you get any kind of response? A. No. Q. And that's not noted in this log? A. No. Q. And the next time that you called her was at 6:26 the same day? A. Okay. Q. Is that right? A. Yes. Q. And you called the home number again? A. Yes -- no, no, no. That would have been the same time. It's just that I entered a note at a different time. In other words, whenever I hit save, that's when it's going to give you the time. I can be talking that entire time. So it wasn't necessarily a separate phone call. It wasn't like I hung up and then called back. It's just we're talking; I type some notes; hit save. It will document that time when I actually hit notes. We could have been talking for an hour. But at the moment I actually hit save was when I actually document the time -- that moment that the note was saved. Then I go into some more notes as we continue to talk, save. It'll give a different time each time I hit save. Q. Do you have a recollection of whether or not this was a separate call? A. I'm sure it would have been the same call because for me to put the note, "Debtor said spouse handling finances," would have been just an addition at the end, since we couldn't complete the agreement. She said her husband was handling the finances. So it was just an additional note, you know, where I may have thought we were done. She may have said, "Hey, the reason why I can't complete an agreement is because my husband handles it." So I'll put the additional note that, okay, husband handles. Q. And can you tell me what the PR means? A. Where's PR? I'm sorry. Q. On the first collection notes. Right here (indicating). A. I'm trying to think. Oh, gosh, I can't remember. My brain's not working. I don't remember off the top of my head. It may be when I was
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0169 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0170 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
entering something in the notes that needs to go on a different screen. But I can't remember exactly what it stands for off the top of my head. Q. Okay. So it's your testimony that the second entry on December 17th wasn't a separate call -A. Right. Q. -- but just a continuation of the second call? A. Right. Q. And then on December 18th at eleven in the morning, there was another call? A. Right. Q. Okay. And tell me what those notes are. You can stand if you need to. A. I'm about to. "Spouse called in. Offered $900 down. $500 good January the 31st. $500 good February 28th. And the balance, which was $1,395.75, to be set with postdated checks through check-by-phone or what we call automatic payment." Q. What is AP? A. Automatic payment. Q. Oh, thank you. A. You're welcome. Q. And BIF is balance in full? A. Yes. Q. And then -A. And we'll call back before 4 p.m. Central Standard Time. Q. And what's the next call noted on the log? A. Paul Todd -- well, I misspelled his name -with Equipartners, Incorporated, in Birmingham, Alabama and his number. "Called on behalf of debtor. Told him we couldn't talk to him without debtor's permission." Q. And that also happened on December 18th? A. Yes. Q. All right. And then there was a second call on -- or another entry on December 18th at 3:56 p.m.? A. Okay. Q. Correct? A. Yes. Q. And tell me what that entry is. A. "Home, no answer. Spouse, POE, gone for the day." Q. So that was two calls. One to the home? A. Yes. Q. And one to [Consumer 2]'s place of employment? A. Right. Q. Okay. What's the next entry? A. The 18th. Oh, those are just some notes I put in a different screen for where they would pop on the front screen for me to be able to see them. Q. Okay. So you'd have the numbers -A. Without having to click on something each
21 22 23 0171 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0172 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0173 1 2 3 4 5
time to pull up the number. Q. Okay. And what's the next call entry? A. The 19th. Q. At 10:05 a.m.? A. Yes. Q. All right. And tell me what the call log says. A. "Home. Talked to debtor. Said she was giving Paul Todd the okay to discuss the account with our firm. Spouse, POE. Apologized for not calling back yesterday but still wants to pay debt. But wants to hear what Paul Todd has to say." Q. That was also two calls, one to the home and then one to [Consumer 2] at his place of employment? A. Yeah. You can make more than one phone call, just not to the same location -Q. Right. A. -- unless they request it. Q. But it's entered as the same note. So I was just clarifying that. A. Yes. Q. And then on the 19th there's another entry by you? A. "Debtor called in. Said she wanted a letter that outlined the arrangements." Q. On December 20th, there's an entry by Jason Davidson. That's when you asked him to make a call? A. Yeah. I would assume so. Q. Because the account was actually in your que for collection? A. Right. Q. And he -- unless you had asked him to make a call, he would not normally make a call -A. No. Q. -- on an account not assigned to him? A. Unless a person called in. Q. Right. But he wouldn't make a cold call to the debtor? A. No. Q. Okay. And can you read his collection note? A. "Phoned spouse, POE. Talked to him about bill. He was being rude. Said he wants letter in regular mail. Round and round. He's being evasive about money -- or paying money. Playing word games. Round and round. I gave a firm demand for the balance in full." Q. GFD equals gave firm demand? A. Yes. Q. Do you recall having any conversation with Jason after this telephone conversation? A. No. Well, yes, I do. He said that he didn't think they were going to pay. That they were just playing games. Q. When is the next entry?
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0174 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0175 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
A. "Left a message for Paul Todd at Equipartners." That's it. Q. And that occurred on the 20th of December? A. Uh-huh. Q. I'm sorry. Is that a yes? A. Yes. I'm sorry. Q. It's hard to remember. A. No, I'm just tired. Sorry. MS. HAYS: Do you need a break? I mean, I'll be happy to let you have a break whenever you want. MS. NETTLES: Well, I was going to ask this question when we got to one o'clock. I mean, he's obviously hungry and getting kind of tired. If you have any idea how much longer you're going to be after that, if you're going to be a while, I suggest we take a 45-minute break and let him get something to eat. MS. HAYS: Well, I want to finish going through the call records, and there are several of those. I'm probably about 45 minutes to being finished. So do you want to go ahead and take a break and let him get some lunch? We can just make it a short break. MS. NETTLES: Do you want to finish the call records, you mean, before we break or do you want to -MS. HAYS: No. I mean, I'd be happy for him to take a break. MS. NETTLES: It's up to him. It's up to you. But I feel like you're getting kind of groggy and slaphappy. And I think the court reporter might -MR. JONES: I don't think it's going to matter. I didn't get much sleep. That's my problem. I didn't sleep well at all last night. I told Kate that this morning. MS. NETTLES: Well, you can tell me what you want to do. MR. JONES: I'd like to go take a shower and get on the plane. MS. NETTLES: Before that. Do you want to get going -MS. HAYS: Or take a break and have a soda? MS. NETTLES: -- or do you want to take like a 30-minute break and go have a sandwich or something? MR. JONES: I just want to get this over with. I mean, if I could get maybe a coke or something, just something to refresh me or something. It's pretty warm in here, too. MS. NETTLES: Why don't we take a five-minute break. MS. HAYS: Okay. (A break was taken.) Q. (By Ms. Hays) All right. We're back on the
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0176 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0177 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
call logs. I think we left off on 12/20/01 where you had called Paul Todd at Equipartners; is that right? A. Uh-huh. Well, actually, somehow I must have accidentally hit cancel as opposed to save. But the reason why I had Jason call also was we originally had discussed her sending -- having me send -- fax a letter to her. And she was going to have me to send it to Windfax, some kind of internal fax through the internet or something. I'm not real familiar with what Windfax is, but it wasn't working. And then she asked me to -- she was going to get the number from her husband -- and that's why I think I actually hit cancel as opposed to save because I don't see it in here anywhere. But then she was going to check with her husband to see if he -- if I could fax it down there. And then, for whatever reason, I couldn't do it, either they didn't want it to or it was broken or something. And after that then it was: Well, we'll just send it in the mail. And at that point I felt like they were trying to stall. So that's why I asked Jason to get involved. Q. Okay. And what you just talked about is not in the call records -A. Right. Q. -- that we have as Plaintiff's Exhibit 7? And then you called Paul Todd on the 20th? A. Right. And left him a message. Q. What were you calling Paul Todd about; do you recall? A. To explain to him because my initial -- they said that they were using him as someone as a, you know, an advisor, or that he was helping them with other bills or something. And I was trying to explain to him that, you know, where did we go south on the arrangement, you know. I thought everything was settled. And then all of a sudden we were talking about -- we weren't talking paying the bill anymore. It was frustration over how they were going to get a letter. Q. Did you ever get to speak with Paul Todd? A. Yes. Q. Do you recall that conversation? A. I pretty much explained everything that we had discussed and with -- that I had discussed with the [Consumers] and the reason why we couldn't work through a debt management program or that we don't work through debt management programs. And that we had an arrangement in place. All they had to do was secure the agreement with postdated checks to show their physical commitment to the agreement. Q. Okay. And is it a policy of Neuheisel Law Firm not to work through debt management companies? A. Generally, we prefer not to, but there have
0178 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0179 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0180 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
been some situations that we have. Q. Is there some criteria that you look for in determining whether you're going to be willing to work with a debt management company? A. Our general feeling is not to do it at all. But if it's something that they're prepared to -like pay the account right now. If they're ready to settle, as an example. You know, hey, there's enough fund in their account or whatever that they can make a reasonable settlement, we can get it approved, we'll go ahead and do it then. If it's something -- but if it's going to be a month to month to month thing, no. Q. So if they can make a full payment -A. Or a settlement. Q. -- not a full payment, but a settlement of the account in full -A. Well, balance in full is always nice. Q. -- then you can work with them? But if it's going to be a monthly payment -A. Right. Q. -- the policy is not to? A. Right. Q. Let's see here. The next call was on December 21st at 3:21 in the afternoon. A. Okay. Q. And will you read your notes from that call? A. "Home. Talked to husband. Said they want a letter sent to home. Possibly playing games because they started saying letter should come certified mail. Will not give a fax letter -- or, actually, it should have been a fax number, excuse me. Strong possibility that this will be a suit or bankruptcy. Each time deadline has been reached to honor the agreement, they come up with a reason to stall." Q. Anything else that you recall from that conversation with [Consumer 2] that's not contained in the call logs? A. No. That's essentially it. That I just wanted to get the agreement completed so I can put the account, you know, put the account behind me and move on to something else. Whenever we have promises open like this, we have to keep following up with them. And I just wanted to bring the agreement to completion. I thought everything we had done up to that point said it was going to be quick and smooth for all parties concerned. And then, like I said, all of a sudden it was as if they had talked to someone or, you know, it was just a complete about-face. Q. Okay. And when is the next -- well, after that there's an entry by B. Reeves. Do you know who that is? A. Barbara.
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0181 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0182 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Q. Barbara Reeves? A. Uh-huh. Q. And is she a secretary or a collector? A. She's not a collector. I don't know what you call her -- administrative assistant. I don't know what they call her, per se. She answers the phones and does the letters. Q. Okay. And did you ask her to mail a letter with the payment arrangement? A. Yes. At that point, I had made the decision that if that was, indeed, all that was holding up the agreement, okay, fine, let's go ahead and mail it and see what happens. Q. Okay. And so that letter was sent out? A. Yes. Q. Do you know when that letter was sent out? A. She doesn't usually note it until she sends it. Q. Okay. So based on that, it would have been sent out on the 21st? A. It would have already gone, sure. Q. Then it looks like nothing happened between December 21st and January 14th; is that right? A. Right. Q. Do you know what the change from AC to G means? A. Good numbers. Q. Good numbers? A. Uh-huh. Q. And AC was active? A. AC essentially is active meaning that it's 30 days or less, the account is 30 days or less in the terms of age. Q. Okay. And then G is more than 30 days? A. More than 30 days, yes. Q. With good numbers? A. Say that again. Q. It's more than 30 days with good numbers? A. With a good number on the file, yes. Q. Do you know what the Q would be if it was more than 30 days without good numbers? A. If it was more than 30, it would be a skip. Q. And how is a -A. Or skip trace. Q. -- skip noted? A. It'll have it on top of the -- it'll have it at the top. It'll be the exact same place. It would be SKP, I believe. Q. SKP? A. Uh-huh. Q. And you pulled up the system or the account on January 14th? A. That was me just changing the status from active, since it had gone past 30 days. Q. Did you make any call at that time?
18 19 20 21 22 23 0183 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0184 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0185 1 2
A. No, none that I recall. Q. Okay. And on the 18th it says that [Consumer 1] is sent to First Data for processing. What is that? What is First Data? A. I'm not entirely sure to be quite candid with you. I'm looking -- oh, okay, I see. No. I'm not familiar with that at all. I mean, I've heard the name before, but I can't tell you exactly what it is. Q. Do you know what that means? A. No. Q. And then it looks like your next entry is on February 1, 2002? A. Uh-huh. Q. And will you read those notes? A. "Home. Left message to call on recorder. Place of employment. Left message to call. Said debtor out of office temporarily." Q. And that was the place of employment for [Consumer 1]? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And when was the next entry? Well, actually on that same date, there's a note above that says, "Personnel AKA." Do you know what that means? A. There's a personal field if you want to put additional notes. Like, usually, if the person -AK -- also known as. But all I put was F and C in notes. So that way people would know there was F and C on the note -- on the file if they needed to look. Q. Which is full and complete information? A. Information; right. Q. There's also an entry that looks like it's a SR, dash, zero or "o"? A. I think I requested -- I'm not sure what that is -- oh, I think that's when I requested it for suit. I made the recommendation for suit. Q. On February 1st? A. That's what it looks like, yes. Q. And a miscellaneous comment was added, "Debtor refused to pay"? A. Yes. Q. Why did you add that comment? A. Well, it had been more than enough time for them to respond to the letter. They never called back to set up the payment arrangements or any type of payment arrangement if they needed to make some adjustment, which, usually, I'm very agreeable to. If they found that they've offered a very aggressive arrangement that they realize later may be a little too aggressive for them, I'll -- usually, if they call and say, Look, hey, we thought we could do it, but we're not going to be able to do that. Can we
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0186 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0187 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
make some adjustments to be a little more flexible. And, usually, I work around whatever the pay days and things like that. Since they never did that, then I went on and made my recommendation. I see no point that since they weren't initiating any contact with us that they had already decided they weren't going to pay it. Q. Okay. Other than the fact that they had not responded to your letter, there was no phone call or conversation with the [Consumers] that you're aware of -A. No. Q. -- prior to the entry of this comment that they had refused to pay? A. No, not that I'm aware of. Q. Did you also add these other notes on the employment information and bank account information? A. Yes. Q. So you typed in that information on the specific screen? A. Yes -- well, on that -- yeah, on that particular screen, yes. Q. Okay. And then on the 7th you made some telephone calls? A. Uh-huh. Q. Tell me what the notes say. A. "Called the home. Left message to call on the recorder or voice mail." I usually say whether it's a voice mail or a recorder. Q. Okay. A. "And then place of employment. Debtor is on field trip today. Verified employment with the principal, Bob Deramus." Q. And can you tell me what you recall about the conversation you had with Mr. Deramus? A. Well, whatever I asked in verifying employment. Does the person actually work for you? I'll ask if -- you know, what the position is, if they're willing to tell me and how long they've been there. And I don't usually ask it anymore, but if they will verify what they make. That's about it. Q. Okay. And is it your testimony that those are the items that you requested from Mr. Deramus? A. Yes. Q. And do you dispute that you asked him where to send the sheriff to pick up [Consumer 1]? A. Yes, I do dispute it. Q. And do you dispute that you told him [Consumer 1] owed money? A. I dispute that, too. Q. And what's the next entry? A. "Debtor refuses to pay." I recoded it. I think it may have -- I would say somebody named D. Myers sent it back to me. "Doesn't meet arbitration requirements. Please continue to collect or request" -- I'm not sure if that means
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0188 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0189 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
cancel or counsel because counsel doesn't make any since in that particular reference. So it was probably misspelled. So I'm going to assume request cancel. Q. And what does RET mean? A. Returned, returned to collector. Q. So on 2/13, your request for suit was denied? A. It wasn't denied. It just said that it doesn't meet the arbitration requirements, meaning I had more work I needed to put into it or something, in terms of the requirements that they needed. Certain things had to be met that obviously weren't showing on the account at that point. Q. Are you familiar with what the arbitration requirements are? A. Usually, at least at that time, the account had to be at least $2500. Preferred a place of employment, and/or property, personal property. Q. And at the time the balance was greater than 2500? A. Yes. Q. And you had a place of employment? A. Yes. Q. And you actually verified her employment? A. Yes. Q. So based on your understanding of the arbitration requirements, this account met those requirements? A. Right. Q. Do you know D. Myers? A. No. Q. You don't have any idea who that is? A. No. Q. All right. Then on the 14th, you contact the place of employment? A. Yes. Q. And there was no answer? A. Well, I didn't contact it. I called it. Contact means you actually made contact. Q. Okay. You called the place of employment? A. Yes. Q. And there was no answer? A. Right. Q. And then you also called [Consumer 2]'s place of employment? A. Yes. Q. And he said not to call him at work or at home? A. Yes. Q. And hung up? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And did you note that you were not supposed to call him at work anymore? A. Yeah. That's what I said. Q. Did you enter any kind of code at this time
21 22 23 0190 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0191 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0192 1 2 3 4 5
on the 14th? A. I don't have to. He wasn't listed on the account. I just took his numbers out. Q. And based on his request that you stop calling him at work, he should not have been called any further at work? A. Right. Q. And then on the 15th Jason Davidson made a call on the account again? A. What date? I'm sorry. Q. February 15th. A. Yes. Q. Did you ask him to make a call for you? A. Yes. Q. What was the purpose of asking him, on this occasion, to make the call? A. If I recall, he had never talked to [Consumer 1] before. So I thought, well, maybe he can talk to [Consumer 1]. Q. And what did you want him to do when he spoke to [Consumer 1]? A. Just to find out if they were still interested in paying or not. You know, that since it had gotten kicked back to us. And before I rerecommended it for arbitration, to try one last time since it had been kicked back and time had gone by. I thought: Well, maybe they're in a little bit better shape. She's probably been back to work now for at least a month, month and a half. Maybe they're in a better position to, you know, make an agreement. So I thought we'd try one last time before we sent it back out again. Q. And he made two calls but didn't speak to anyone on the 15th during the first entry; is that right? A. Based on what I could tell. Q. All right. And then there's an entry on the same date, February 15, 2002, at 9:24 in the morning that's also by Jason Davidson; is that right? A. Yeah. That's what it says. Q. And can you read the notes entered? A. "Phone spouse POE, place of employment. Talked to him about bill. Said a lot of financial problems. Said a lot -- I assume supposed to be 'of stress', but he put 'fo' -- stress. Said nothing he can do right now. Said do what you got to do. Round and round. No resolution." Q. And that call was made after a cease and desist request by [Consumer 2] to his place of employment? A. Yes. Q. That violated Neuheisel Law Firm's policies? A. Yes. Q. And the FDCPA?
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0193 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0194 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
A. Yes. Q. What's the next call log entry? A. It looks like, "Received a call to the office from [Consumer 1], the debtor. She said needs to talk to Mr. Davidson. He transferred the call and no Caller ID number." Q. When a consumer or debtor calls in, do you have a way -- do y'all have Caller ID at your desk? A. Yes, supposed to. Q. Okay. So you can obtain the number they're calling from? A. If it's working. Q. If Caller ID is working? A. Yeah. Q. Is that a problem at the office? A. Well, we've had days where it didn't work. Q. Okay. The majority of the time, does Caller ID work? A. Yeah. I think so. Q. Does it tell you anything other than the number that they're calling from? A. No. Not usually, not that I can recall. Q. It doesn't like -- some Caller IDs on -- like my phone -- my cell phone, it'll give just the number. But on home phones, it'll give a name of who the line belongs to. Does your Caller ID give a name? A. Only time I can recall getting a name is if it's local. Q. Okay. And do you use Caller ID to check the numbers that you have in the system for contacting the individuals when they're calling in? A. No, not usually. I'll just note it that they called, you know, see ID number, where they called in from, and it's just, again, part of the notes. It's something you note. If you have difficulty reaching them later, you might try the number if you're not quite sure where it goes to. Q. And is that Henry Aldrete. A. Yes. Q. And he's a collector? A. Yes. Q. Does he still work there? Or as of last week, did he still work there? A. Yes. Q. And then same day on February 15th at 10:57, there's an entry by Jason Davidson? A. Yes. Q. And can you read that entry? A. This looks like just a transfer of the same call from earlier -- from Henry. "Debtor called to the office. Said was out of work due to major surgery. And said -- I don't know what PON means -and said, I don't know, POE verbally. Round and round. No resolution. Do what you've got to do."
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0195 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0196 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
I'm not sure what the PON is or if he was in a hurry and misspelled something. Q. Okay. And then what's the next entry? A. Again, back to -- "sent to First Data for processing." Q. After February 15, 2002, did you have any conversations with either [Consumer 1] or [Consumer 2]? A. Not to my knowledge. Q. When Mr. Davidson spoke to the [Consumers] on February 15th, did you have any conversations with him after those calls? A. None that I recall. Q. Do you keep any kind of notes or log of accounts that you've asked someone else to make a call on so that you can sort of have an idea of the status? A. No. Because actually they're supposed to note whatever they do. So I can always refer back to the account to see what they did. So, no, I don't keep a separate log of it. MS. HAYS: We offer one through seven. MR. JONES: What is offer? What does that mean? MS. HAYS: I'm just letting your counsel know that we're offering those exhibits to your deposition. Q. (By Ms. Hays) Do you know, as an employee of Neuheisel Law Firm, how many written reprimands you can get before your employment is terminated? A. My understanding is it's dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Q. So there's no set limit? A. Not that I'm aware of. Q. During the two years that you've worked at Neuheisel, have you had any responsibility for supervising any other collectors? A. No. Q. Training any other collectors? A. No. Q. Disciplining any other collectors? A. No. Q. Are you aware of whether Neuheisel Law Firm suspends collectors after receiving written reprimands on a case-by-case basis? A. Employment issues aren't discussed with other employees. I don't know. Q. Do you know -A. The only time I know if somebody's gone is if they just aren't there. I don't know if they left on their own or they quit or they were fired or -you know, I don't know of any other disciplinary action. I don't know how people are disciplined, in other words. I don't go out and discuss with people how I'm being disciplined. And I've never known
0197 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0198 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0199 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
anybody to discuss it with them. So it's considered confidential between the employer and the employee. Q. Other that a verbal warning or a written reprimand, are you aware of any other forms of discipline that can be used against you as an employee? A. Yes. Q. What are those? A. Suspension, loss of -- I think you can lose your bonus in some ways or your commission. You can be fired, terminated. You can have accounts taken away. Those are the only ones I remember. Q. Fired. That's pretty easy. We know what that one is. A. You can be smacked. No. I'm just teasing. Q. Suspension. Is there any set time that you can be suspended? A. I think it's a case-by-case situation. Q. Have you ever seen any kind of written policy on suspension? A. When you say "written policy," what do you mean? Q. Like in your employee handbook? A. As to -- go back. Q. As to when they will suspend you or how long they can suspend you. A. I don't recall anything determining length. But certain things can be -Q. Result in suspension? A. Suspension; right. Q. And loss of bonus. Have you ever lost a bonus or part of a bonus or commission as a result of your collection tactics? A. I really don't remember. Honestly, I don't remember. Q. Okay. What about accounts being taken away? Is that groups of accounts -A. Oh, yeah. Q. -- that are taken away? A. Yes. Q. It's not just generally just one account or two accounts? A. Not usually. Q. And there are accounts that are more profitable to collect; is that true? A. That's what I'm told. Q. Based on your experience as a collector, do you find that the newer the account is, the easier it can be to collect? A. No. Q. Do you have an opinion as to what -generally speaking, what can make an account easier to collect? A. I'm sorry?
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0200 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0201 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Q. Generally speaking, based on your off and on twenty years of experience as a collector, what makes an account easier to collect? A. If the person is prepared to pay. They're willing to pay. And you provide an environment in which to meet them, wherever they happen to be. Q. To get payments? A. Right. Q. And it hasn't been your experience that accounts that are newer are generally easier to collect? A. If you're basing this on my experience, no. Q. Okay. Or that are lower balances? A. No, not necessarily. Q. So when a group of accounts are taken away from a collector, how is that a form of discipline? A. Let me go back. Because one thing I -- I didn't purposely lie, but it's not true, now that I think about it. Generally speaking, the newer it is, at least in the first 30 days or so, yes, the opportunity for the person to pay, if for no other reason than they're dealing with a third-party impact, there's somebody different handling it. So it creates sometimes a little more sense versus -it doesn't matter if it's from Neuheisel Law Firm or it's from Joe Blow's collection agency. It's just the fact that they're dealing with someone different than the original lender. Q. Okay. So they can be easier to collect? A. They can be. Q. And, certainly, being at a law firm gives some sense of urgency when you call a consumer? MR. COBB: Object to the form. A. Not necessarily. Q. (By Ms. Hays) You don't find that you get a better response working for a law firm? A. No. Q. So when accounts are taken away, the accounts that are taken away are the newer accounts? A. Generally. Q. And is that a permanent thing? Are you aware? A. Well, again, I don't know that I have a specific, you know, example, but I think at some point they give the person the opportunity -- again, I don't know how long that is. So, again, I think it's on a case-by-case basis. But I think at some point the person has the ability to earn the opportunity, if not slowly to earn their way back into getting some business again. Q. Have you ever been suspended at Neuheisel Law Firm? A. Not that I recall. Q. And in reviewing your personnel file, did you see any records of suspension?
18 19 20 21 22 23 0202 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0203 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0204 1 2
A. No. Q. Have you ever had accounts taken away? A. Indirectly. Q. And what accounts were taken away? A. Well, when I say "indirectly," meaning that I just didn't get new business or as much new business. Q. Do you remember when that was? A. Don't remember. Q. Was that as a form of discipline? A. Yes. Q. Do you know how long it lasted that you were denied new business? A. Or as much new business as I would normally get. I think it was a month, maybe. Q. A month? A. I think so. Q. Was that this year? A. I don't remember. I don't think so. Q. Did you see anything in your personnel file that showed that the accounts had been -- or that you weren't getting as much new business as you normally would? A. It's just something you know. If you see a certain number and all of a sudden there's a drop, you know there's a reason why you didn't get any. Q. And did someone talk to you about that? A. Yes. Q. And who was that? A. Matt Gascon. Q. Matt Gascon? Tell me about that conversation. A. As much as I remember just, you know, we're going to take some accounts away. Or you're not going to get as much new business. Q. And what reason was the reason that he gave you for that? A. Lack of performance. Q. You didn't get anything in writing from Matt Gascon when they took those accounts away? A. Not that I recall. Q. And nothing in writing when they gave them back to you? A. You mean when the time frame had been lifted in terms of receiving additional, new business? Q. Right. A. Not that I recall. Q. In the materials we discussed earlier that are -- you keep for your personal use, as a collector at Neuheisel -- can you tell me -- I know you said you can't tell me everything that's in there, but can you tell me the subject matter of some of the items that you have? A. Well, almost all of it pertains to
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0205 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0206 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
collections. You know, making sure you follow certain rules and regulations, adhering to state laws, how you conduct yourself on the telephone, you know, things of that nature. Q. Are there any materials from the ACA? A. We've taken some tests. I don't know where they come from. You know, I don't know if they're office designed or whatever, but we've taken tests on FDCPA rules and regulations. Q. Okay. And do you keep a copy of the tests that you took? A. No. They provided us with, you know, the ability to look at them, but I don't think -- I think we could have asked for a copy. I can't remember. I think we could have gotten a copy if we had asked for it. Q. So a copy of a test is not in your materials in this binder? A. I don't think so. Q. Do you remember the titles of any of the materials, other than the guidelines on the state laws that we talked about? A. I don't remember the titles, no. Q. Earlier I showed you the document that we've been provided that has the state law -- their state laws summarized in those boxes. A. Yes. Q. Do you have -- other than where they're summarized, which is pretty easy to identify because it looks like a big graph, do you have any other state law materials that you've been provided? A. Yes. Q. What do they look like? A. It's on a yellow, almost the color of that or this (indicating). Q. Exhibit tab? A. And it's laminated. And we're to keep it on our desk at all times. Q. Does it provide additional information? A. I believe so. I'm not sure. Q. Does this yellow, laminated sheet also have policies of Neuheisel with respect to each state? A. Yes. Q. Did you tell me that you had some handwritten notes on states laws, as well? A. I don't think so. I mean, you know, if I'm in a training session or something, something I may have jotted an extra note to remind myself of something. Q. Other than the two weeks of training, or approximate two weeks of training, that you received when you first started, have you received any new training since then? A. Oh, yeah. Q. When was the last time you had some training?
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0207 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0208 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
A. It's been in the last month or two. Q. Okay. Tell me about that training. A. We had to study or brush up on FDCPA and then take a test. Q. So you took a new test in the last month or two? A. Yes. Q. All right. And prior to that test, what was the next most recent training? A. I'm going to remember that. I'm getting old. I don't remember. I really don't remember. Q. Okay. Was it just the same thing where you were brushing up on FDCPA and taking a test? A. Pretty much, yeah. Q. Do you have a judgment as to how many tests you've taken at Neuheisel? A. No, I really don't. I mean, we have office meetings from time to time where she'll bring us up to speed on new things happening with laws or new cases or something along that. That actually -- I don't know -- that almost appears to be almost once a month now, I think. Q. Are there handouts at these office meetings? A. Most of the time. Q. And do you have those that you've maintained? A. Anything that I would have received in an office memo, I have. Q. You keep notes of these office meetings? A. Sometimes. It depends on how in-depth the meeting is and how new the material is. Q. Now, you're saying you're having these meetings once a month? A. Recently, they appear to be. I could be a little off on that. I'll say every couple of months. Q. Okay. In the last year, during 2002, how often were you having these office meetings, in your best judgment? A. We have an office meeting every month. Q. Okay. And does Ms. Neuheisel conduct those meetings? A. Sometimes. But more oftentimes, Matt Gascon conducts them and she may interject. But she usually sits in on the meetings. Q. Do you have any, like, daily meetings with your supervisor or weekly meetings with your supervisor? A. No, not usually. Q. No? A. No. Q. In these monthly meetings that you have, do they go over what the collection goals are for that month? A. Yes.
20 21 22 23 0209 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0210 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0211 1 2 3
Q. What was last month's collection goal, if you remember? A. I don't remember. I'd be guessing, so I really don't remember. Q. Can you give me a ballpark? A. It was over 700,000. Q. Has that goal gone up substantially since you started in 2001? A. In proportion to the number of people, no, because it -Q. I'm sorry? A. I say in proportion to the number of people, no. Q. Has the number of collectors increased since you started? A. Yes. Q. By how much? A. Since I started? Q. Uh-huh? A. You would ask me that. I think there were maybe six or seven people there, collectors-wise, when I started. Q. And I think you told me there were 12 to 15 now? A. Something like that. Q. What other topics are covered, other than the collection goal? Do you go over the collector with the most receivables during the past month? A. Sure. Q. So awards are given out? A. Yes. Q. Other than the collector who recovered the most money, is there any other awards? A. It varies. Q. Can you tell me some of them? A. Most improved. Q. Any others? A. Most postdates. Those are the only ones I can remember for sure. Q. Is most improved given out every month? A. I think so. Q. And most postdates are every month? A. No. Q. How often is it given out? A. Varies. Q. Is it every other month? A. Again, it varies. I think they use the criteria of what they want to reward. The only one that has remained constant is the one with the most gross dollars, something like that. Q. During these monthly meetings, do you also have -- do they tell you about any kind of incentive plan that they might have in the next month, like
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0212 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0213 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
the person who gets the most partial payments in or the most settlements on an account. Do y'all have contests during the month? A. Yes. Q. And during these meetings, do they tell you about the contests that they might be having for the next month? A. No. Q. They don't tell you about that? A. Not usually. Q. How do you learn about the contests? A. That morning. Q. The morning of the contest? A. Usually. Q. Is it generally like a monthly -- based on a monthly -A. No. Q. -- performance, or is it daily? A. Daily. Q. Do you have a contest every day? A. Almost, not every. Q. Can you tell me what some of them are based on? A. Most largest payment, most dollars collected for the day, the next payment of a certain amount. Those are the most common. Q. Okay. Have you won some of those contests? A. Occasionally. Q. Do you get a prize or a bonus? A. Yes. Q. Which is it, generally? A. Both. Q. Both? A. Well, I guess depending -- define bonus. Q. Where you are paid extra. A. Yes. Q. Okay. What are the bonuses generally for these daily contests? A. It varies. You pull out of a box. Q. You pull out of a box? What can they vary from? A. Five to 100. Q. $5 to $100? A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. Uh-huh. And what are some of the prizes? Gift certificates to some place. Any others that you can think of? Sporting tickets. Is it the Phoenix Suns? Uh-huh. Weren't they in the NBA finals? Playoffs. Playoffs? Uh-huh. So did y'all have a contest to win tickets to
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0214 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0215 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
a game for the Phoenix Suns? A. No. She didn't give up any playoff tickets. At least I don't recall, anyway. Q. But it could be like if it was during the regular basketball season, it might be to a basketball game? A. Sure. Q. Can you think of any other prizes? A. No. Other than what I've already mentioned, I don't think so. Q. Okay. Gift certificates, sporting events. Did I miss any? A. Well, one month they, I guess, went to something like a Cosco or Sam's Club and had a bunch of gifts -- you know, bought a bunch of things that you could win through an auction or something. I forgot how it worked because I was actually gone when they did it. Q. Okay. But where you might be awarded play money -A. Right. Q. -- that you could purchase items they had gotten? A. Right. Q. Okay. So you have daily contests? Do you have weekly contests? A. Not that I remember. Q. Daily and monthly, then? A. Yes. Q. All right. Do you win prizes for the monthly contests, as well as the bonuses? A. If you count the gift certificates for cash, yes. Q. Back to these monthly meetings. You talk about the monthly awards, changes in the FDCPA? A. Right. Q. Changes in state law? A. Yes. Q. Anything else that y'all talk about? A. Trends that they say in the industry, you know. Q. Trends? A. Uh-huh. Q. Do you recall some of the trends that they discussed in these meetings? A. The only one that jumps out at me is the most recent one, that we're going to stop sending certain system letters or something. Q. If you're talking about a new trend or -- is that something that you would generally be provided some materials on? A. Usually. Q. And those you would maintain? A. Yes. Q. Do you keep all of those items in that
22 23 0216 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0217 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0218 1 2 3 4 5 6
binder? A. Not necessarily in the binder, but somewhere. Q. Somewhere on your desk? A. Yeah. Q. And you can find those? A. Usually. Q. I'm going to ask if you'll get those. I'll get a formal request out, but if you'll look for those, please. Is there any other topic that is covered in these monthly meetings that I haven't asked about? A. Training, if there was updates to, like, legal requests, how the form is filled out or something or what requirements have been updated, attendance, tardiness. I mean, general things. Q. Make sure you show up, make sure you show up on time? A. Yes. Q. Anything else that you can think of? A. Nothing I can think of. Q. Other than the monthly meetings and taking the tests that we talked about earlier -A. Uh-huh. Q. -- have you had any other formal training at Neuheisel after your initial training period in the beginning? A. Define formal, please. Q. Where you're attending a class or a seminar or doing something other than just taking a test. A. We went through some training when we had to sit in a conference room, but I don't remember what it was -- I don't remember what we did specifically. I just knew it was about laws and accounts, how to document accounts or something. I can't remember exactly. I'd have to really think about that one for a while. Q. Do you know who led that meeting? A. I think Matt and Kate sat in on that one. Q. Did they sit in or did they actually lead? A. They conducted the meeting. Q. Okay. And that's Matt Gascon? A. Yes. Q. Because there are two Matts; right? A. Yes. Q. Do either of the supervisors walk the floor and listen to calls? A. Yes. Q. How often do they do that? A. I'm usually working. I don't have time to monitor what they're doing, so I have no idea. Q. Okay. Have you ever heard the term "A suit-friendly state"? A. Yes. Q. What states are considered suit friendly?
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0219 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0220 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
A. Quite a few, but I would say California, Arizona. Those are the ones our office handles. Q. And what is meant by suit friendly? A. Well, the state laws provide you the ability to sue. That, generally speaking, that if a judgment is awarded, you might be able to execute a garnishment or a lien of property. Q. And California and Arizona are suit friendly because that's where Neuheisel Law Firm has offices? A. Yes. Q. And they don't file lawsuits other than in those two states? A. Not that I'm aware of. Q. Do you, as a collector, work Monday through Friday? A. And one Saturday a month. Q. One Saturday a month? A. One Saturday morning. Q. Per month? A. Yes. Q. When you work that Saturday, do you get off earlier? A. At noon on Friday. Q. And, otherwise, is it eight to five, Monday through Friday? A. Monday and Tuesday, ten to seven. Q. Wednesday? A. Eight to five the rest of the week. Q. And Saturday, is that eight to noon that you work? A. Yes. Q. Are those hours the same for all collectors? A. Yes. Q. No work on Sunday? A. No. Q. And your goal is to work 40 hours a week? A. Yes. Q. Is your salary based -- is the $3,000 a salary or is that based on hourly work? A. It's based on hours because if you're short, you end up short. Q. Earlier we talked about notation in the call records where you talked to Mr. Deramus; do you recall that? A. Deramus? Q. At the Excel Institute. A. Oh, okay. Sure. Q. Do you recall that? A. Yes. Q. And Mr. Deramus would be classified as a third party? A. Right. Q. Did any of the complaints that we talked about earlier that were made against you ever result -- and I'm not including the [Consumers] -- the ones that
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0221 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0222 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0223
we talked about that were in the files. A. Right. Q. Did any of those complaints result in a lawsuit? A. No, not that I'm aware of. Q. Have you ever been a party to a lawsuit other than this lawsuit? A. A party, what do you mean? Q. Have you ever been sued before? A. No. Q. Have you ever sued anyone before? A. No. Q. Have you ever been a witness in court before? A. No, not that I can recall. Q. Have you ever been arrested before? A. Yes. Q. For what? A. Traffic ticket. Q. Was it because it was unpaid or something, got behind? A. Uh-huh, yeah, failure to appear. Q. Where was that? A. Phoenix. Q. Any other arrests? A. No. MS. HAYS: Well, I might have forgotten something, but that's all I can think of, so I'll stop. Do you have any questions? MR. COBB: I don't have any questions. MS. HAYS: You're done. MR. JONES: Thank you. ~~ooOoo~~ The deposition of KENNETH JONES concluded at 2:05 p.m. on June 17, 2003 ~~ooOoo~~
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
C E R T I F I C A T E STATE OF ALABAMA ) COUNTY OF JEFFERSON ) I, Dionne M. Motley, Court Reporter of the State of Alabama, do hereby certify there came before me the aforenamed deponent, who was by me duly sworn to testify to the truth concerning the matters in this cause. I further certify that I am neither attorney or counsel for, nor related to or employed by any of the parties to the action in which this deposition is taken; and furthermore, that I am not a relative or employee of any attorney or counsel employed by the parties hereto, or financially interested in the action. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have set my hand this the 17th day of June, 2003. Dionne M. Motley Court Reporter Notary Public My Commission Expires: July 27, 2005.
5.12 Deposition of Collection Agency Owner
26
0001 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION [CONSUMER 1] AND ) [CONSUMER 2], ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) CIVIL ACTION NUMBER ) NEUHEISEL LAW FIRM, ) ET AL., ) Defendants. )
DEPOSITION OF KATHRYN NEUHEISEL 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0002 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 June 17, 2003 3:23 p.m. (and) June 19, 2003 8:15 a.m.
STIPULATIONS IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the parties through their respective counsel that the deposition of KATHRYN NEUHEISEL, a witness in the above-entitled cause, may be taken before Dionne M. Motley, a Court Reporter and Notary Public for the State of Alabama, at the law offices of Lloyd, Gray & Whitehead, P.C., 2501 20th Place South, Suite 300, Birmingham, Alabama 35223, on the 17th day of June, 2003, commencing at 3:23 p.m. and on the 19th day of June, 2003, commencing at 8:15 a.m. pursuant to the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure.
IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the signature to and the reading of the deposition by the witness is waived, the deposition to have the same force and effect as if full compliance had been had with all laws and rules of court relating to the taking of the depositions.
23 0003 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0004 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0005 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
STIPULATIONS (continued) IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that it shall not be necessary for any objections to be made by counsel to any questions except as to form or leading questions, and that counsel for the parties may make objections and assign grounds at the time of trial or at the time said deposition is offered in evidence or prior thereto.
A P P E A R A N C E S For The Plaintiffs: Ms. Penny D. Hays Attorney at Law Lorant & Associates, P.C. 401 Office Park Drive Mountain Brook, Alabama 35223 For The Defendants: Ms. Laura C. Nettles and Mr. Chris D. Cobb Attorneys at Law Lloyd, Gray & Whitehead, P.C. 2501 20th Place South, Suite 300 Birmingham, Alabama 35223 Also Present: Mr. Charles J. Lorant Reported by: Dionne M. Motley EDMONDSON REPORTING & VIDEO 2119 3rd Avenue North, Suite 205 Birmingham, Alabama 35203 I N D E X Page(s) Examination by Ms. Hays....................... 7-247 Reporter Certification.......................... 249 E X H I B I T S Page/Line:
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0006 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0007 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Plaintiff's Plaintiff's Plaintiff's Plaintiff's Plaintiff's Plaintiff's Plaintiff's Plaintiff's Plaintiff's Plaintiff's Plaintiff's Plaintiff's Plaintiff's Plaintiff's Plaintiff's Plaintiff's Plaintiff's Plaintiff's Plaintiff's Plaintiff's Plaintiff's Plaintiff's Plaintiff's Plaintiff's Plaintiff's Plaintiff's
Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit
No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No.
1.................... 17:10 2.................... 18:11 3.................... 83:22 4.............. ..... 86:17 5.................... 121:3 6................... 122:11 7.................... 132:4 8................... 135:22 9.................... 147:1 10.................. 148:12 11................... 149:8 12.................. 151:20 13................... 152:4 14.................. 153:14 15.................. 154:13 16.................. 155:20 17................... 160:1 18.................. 169:14 19.................. 170:19 20.................. 171:17 21.................. 172:17 22................... 174:6 23.................. 175:16 24................... 176:2 25................... 177:6 26.................. 179:10
I, Dionne M. Motley, a Court Reporter and Notary Public for the State of Alabama, acting as commissioner, certify that there came before me at the law offices of Lloyd, Gray & Whitehead, P.C., 2501 20th Place South, Suite 300, Birmingham, Alabama 35223, on the 17th day of June, 2003, commencing at 3:23 p.m. and on the 19th day of June, 2003, beginning at 8:15 a.m. KATHRYN NEUHEISEL, witness in the above cause, for oral examination, whereupon the following proceedings were had: KATHRYN NEUHEISEL, having been first duly sworn, testified as follows: THE REPORTER: Usual stipulations? (Affirmed by counsel.) June 17, 2003 EXAMINATION BY MS. HAYS: 3:23 p.m. Q. Will you state your name for the record. A. Kathryn Neuheisel. Q. And your home address? A. [Redacted.] Q. And your business address?
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0008 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0009 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0010 1
A. 64 East Broadway Road, Suite 245, Tempe, Arizona 85282. Q. You're one of the owners in the Neuheisel Law Firm? A. Yes. Q. Are you the only owner? A. No. Q. Who are the other owners? A. Richard Neuheisel and Debra Harvego. Q. Will you spell Debra's last name? A. H-A-R-V-E-G-O. Q. How are you related to Richard? A. He's my father. Q. Have you ever given a deposition before? A. No. Q. You're familiar with the procedure. But if you need a break, just let us know and -- or let me know, and we'll take whatever you need. Will you tell me where you went to college? A. UCLA. Q. What did you study there? A. History. Q. When did you graduate? A. 1987. Q. And where did you go to law school? A. USC. Q. Is that University of Southern California. A. Yes. Q. I had abbreviated the University of South Carolina as USC. I knew it was probably not the same, so -A. Right. Q. When did you graduate from USC? A. 1990. Q. Did you have any specialties at UCLA when you were studying history? A. No. I had a business administration minor. Q. And at USC, did they have any kind of specialty degree for your law degree? A. No. Q. You're licensed in Arizona? A. Yes. Q. Are you licensed in any other state? A. Yes. Q. What state? A. California and the District of Columbia. Q. When were you licensed in Arizona? A. May of 1991. Q. And how about California? A. December of 1990. Q. District of Columbia? A. March of 1993. Q. Did you have to take three bar exams? A. No.
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0011 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0012 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Q. Will you tell me what you reviewed in preparation for the deposition today? A. I did a cursory review of the case file. Q. Including the documents that have been produced to us? A. Yes. Q. Personnel files -A. Yes. Q. -- of the collectors? A. Yes. Q. Call logs? A. You mean the phone records? Q. The account records. A. The note lines. Q. Plaintiff's Exhibit 7 to Ken Jones' -A. Yes. Q. How do you refer to this document? A. Note lines. Q. Note lines? A. Yes. Q. I usually call it a call record, but I'll try and use note lines. If I say call record and you're confused, let me know because note lines is a new one for me. A. Okay. Q. Did you listen to the CD of the tape recordings? A. Not all of it. Q. But part of it? A. Part of it. Q. Are there any other documents that you reviewed that you can describe or identify that I haven't already listed? A. Not that I can think of. Q. Did you work anywhere prior to Neuheisel Law Firm? A. No. Q. And when did you start at Neuheisel? A. October 1990. Q. Did you start as an associate or partner or -A. Associate. Q. And what were your duties when you started in 1990 as a lawyer but -A. Well, at the time I started, which was October 15, 1990, I was studying for the Bar, primarily getting ready for the Arizona Bar, which was scheduled for February of 1991. And I worked just on research matters for Neuheisel Law Firm. Q. Okay. Does Neuheisel -- well, currently, does Neuheisel Law Firm handle other types of cases besides collections? A. Yes. Q. Tell me about the other types of cases they handle.
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0013 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0014 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
A. I handle bankruptcy matters. In the past, I've handled general civil litigation, as well as personal injury litigation. Richard, my father, he has been practicing for 40 plus years, I believe. And he's done just a little bit of everything. Q. Is Richard Neuheisel involved in the collection aspect of the firm? A. No. He'll cover a garnishment hearing or, you know, a judgment debtor examination if I have a conflict, but beyond that, no. Q. And the bankruptcy that you handle, do you handle that on behalf of the creditor or are you representing debtors? A. Not currently. Creditors only today. Q. When did you go to just handling creditors and bankruptcy? A. Four or five years ago. Q. So '98, '99, maybe? A. Yeah. Q. When you did -- do you still handle civil litigation? A. Personally, no. Q. When you handled just general civil litigation, did you generally represent plaintiffs or defendants? A. Yes, plaintiffs. Q. What about the personal injury? Were you normally representing plaintiffs? A. Yes. Q. And do you handle personal injury litigation anymore? A. No. Q. When did you stop handling general litigation and PI litigation? A. Over the past four to five years. Q. Okay. Would that be about the time frame when you started focusing on handling collection accounts? A. Yes. Q. How did you get involved in collections? A. I met a gentleman by the name of Scott Lowery in October of 1990, and he hired Neuheisel Law Firm to assist with one of his clients in Colorado with their local -- or Arizona bankruptcies -- and that client also had collection needs. So when I became licensed in Arizona, I assisted that firm with their collection needs. Q. And was that firm a law firm? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Do you still represent that firm -A. No. Q. -- in Arizona? A. No. Q. You're a licensee of Collect America? A. No.
20 21 22 23 0015 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0016 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0017 1 2 3 4
Q. Tell me about the relationship Neuheisel Law Firm has with Collect America. A. We are the law firm that represents -- we're one of 23 law firms that gets placed accounts Collect America manages for various -Q. Do you file lawsuits on behalf of Collect America? A. No. Q. Do you know who is responsible for determining whether a lawsuit is filed on behalf of Collect America? A. Nobody files lawsuits on behalf of Collect America. They may tell you to file a lawsuit, but the plaintiff is not Collect America. Q. Okay. If a lawsuit is filed on a Collect America account, who's the plaintiff? A. It depends, but CACV primarily. Q. And I have no understanding at all as to what CACV is versus Collect America. So can you tell me what CACV is? A. It's, I believe, an LLC. It is an LLC in Colorado, purchases portfolios of credit card debt. Q. Is CACV -- does it stand for something? A. I believe it's Collect America Collection Vehicle. Q. And it's an LLC in Colorado? A. Yes. Q. CACV actually purchases the paper? A. Correct. Q. Okay. From an original creditor like MBNA or Citibank? A. Correct. Q. Okay. Tell me the difference between CAVC and Collect America. A. They're separate entities, separate tax ID numbers. Q. And what does Collect America do? A. They manage the portfolios on behalf of CACV, among other creditors. Q. Do you know who the other creditors are that Collect America manages the portfolios for? A. World Wide Asset. I believe they used to handle AIMCO. I don't know if they do anymore. Q. ENCO? A. AIMCO, A-I-M-C-O, Atlantic Credit Finance. Those are the only ones that come to mind. There may have been more in my ten years with them, but I can't think of them right now. Q. Is there an agreement between Neuheisel Law Firm or yourself and CACV? A. No. Q. Is there an agreement between Neuheisel Law Firm or yourself and Collect America? A. A placement agreement?
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0018 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0019 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Q. Yes. A. I'm not sure. Q. Let me show you what I'm going to mark as Plaintiff's Exhibit 1 and ask you if you can identify that. (Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 1 marked for identification.) (Witness reviews document.) A. I believe it's a placement agreement for a portfolio with a Forwarder Number 1890 from CACV. Q. Where do you see the 1890? A. "Original Creditor: Bank One IRU FWD#1890." MR. COBB: You're on a different page, Penny. MS. HAYS: I sure am. MR. COBB: I think it's a two-page document, too. MS. HAYS: 147. Well, it might be, but -- am I missing a page? MS. NEUHEISEL: This is a one-page document. Q. (By Ms. Hays) Okay. Is there something that goes with that? A. This was to show you the work standards printed out. I think that's why this was produced. The one before it, which I believe you showed me is 146, is a placement agreement in relation to why we're here today. Q. I'll mark it as 2. And this may be out of order. So back on Plaintiff's Exhibit 1, that's a placement agreement? (Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 2 marked for identification.) A. Yes. Q. And does that go with Plaintiff's Exhibit 2? A. No. Q. So can you describe for me what's contained within Plaintiff's Exhibit 1? A. There's a date. It's from Collect America -or it says, "To: Collect America Licensee; Neuheisel Law Firm. From: Janine Vaughns - Collect America, Ltd., Corporate Office." It's a description of the accounts they're placing. It sets forth some work standards. It talks about representations, warranties, fees, and confidentiality of the agreement, has my signature and a date. And it's signed by the Vice President of Operations for Collect America. Q. Who is Bill Barnett? A. Yes. Q. This was to place cards -- it looks like a group of accounts that were actually Bank One accounts? A. Correct. Q. And it tells you how many accounts they're placing and the value of those accounts? A. Correct.
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0020 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
Q. And the number of days that your firm has to collect on the account? A. Correct. Q. If there -- if the accounts are not collected within that 120 days, do they generally go back to Collect America? A. No. Q. What happens if they're not collected with the 120 days? A. It varies. Q. What are the options? A. It depends where they are in our que system. Collect America has the right to go in after 120 days and sweep accounts. They may sell them again to, you know, another third party. They may place them with a different law firm or someone. I don't really know what they do. Q. Okay. Has that happened in the past where Collect America came back in and took a group of accounts out? A. On our older accounts, yeah. Q. Are you generally allowed more than 120 days to collect the accounts, so long as activity is taking place? A. Yes. Q. So that's just sort of a starting point -A. Correct. Q. -- for: We want something to be happening within 120 days? A. Correct. Q. Okay. And you're paid a contingency fee based on the amount of money actually collected on the actual accounts? A. Correct. Q. Do you get any type of payment if no collection is made? A. No. Q. Is there an agreement? I understand this is a placement agreement, and I believe Plaintiff's Exhibit 2 is also a placement agreement? A. Yes. Q. Dealing with the MBNA accounts? A. One portfolio of MBNA accounts, yes. Q. And was the [Consumer] account in this group of accounts, this portfolio? A. Yes. Q. Is there a licensee agreement or any other agreement or contract entered into between Neuheisel Law Firm and Collect America that allows Neuheisel to receive the portfolios of accounts? MS. NETTLES: Object to the form of the question. You can answer it, if you can. A. Can you ask it again, please? Q. (By Ms. Hays) Sure. Maybe a little background. These placement agreements are to the
23 0022 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0023 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0024 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Collect America licensee, Neuheisel Law Firm.
Is
there some type of licensing agreement between Neuheisel and Collect America? A. No. And I can clarify it. Q. Okay. A. The first agreement, I think, was an error. Q. Okay. A. The actual licensee is Cube Recovery, which is set forth on Exhibit 2. Q. Okay. And what is Cube Recovery, Inc.? A. It's an LLC -- it's printed wrong here -- in Arizona. Q. Who owns Cube Recovery LLC? A. I do. Q. Okay. A. Debra Harvego and Richard Neuheisel. Q. Same three individuals that own Neuheisel Law Firm? A. Correct. Q. And do you actually collect any accounts under the name of Cube Recovery? A. No. Q. Does Cube stand for anything? A. It's just -- Cube, I think, is triple, so -there's three of us. Q. Do you have any documents between Collect America and Cube Recovery? A. Yes. Q. What are those documents? A. A licensing agreement. Q. Has that been produced? A. I don't know. MS. HAYS: Laura, do you know if we have that? MS. NETTLES: No, not off the top of my head, I really don't. Chris, do you? MR. COBB: I don't think we produced it. MS. NETTLES: I don't think so either. MR. COBB: I haven't seen it. MS. HAYS: We need to get that. But we can take -- we'll just come back to that. We'll try and get that between today and tomorrow and Thursday. And then we'll just come back to it. MS. NETTLES: Now, what is it you're looking for? MS. HAYS: The licensing agreement between Cube Recovery and Collect America. Q. (By Ms. Hays) When did Cube Recovery come into existence? A. Sometime in 1999. Q. Was it always an LLC? A. Yes. Q. Is it incorporated in Arizona? A. Yes.
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0025 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0026 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Q. Why was Cube Recovery formed? A. To purchase a franchise from Collect America. Q. Can you not purchase a franchise -- can a law firm not purchase a franchise from Collect America? A. No. I think they can. Q. Do you recall how much it was to purchase the franchise agreement from Collect America? A. Our price was $25,000. Q. In return for purchasing the franchise agreement, does Collect America guarantee to place a certain number of accounts or a value of accounts with your firm? A. There's no guarantee. Q. None at all? A. None at all. Q. Plaintiff's Exhibit 2, then, which makes much more since to me now that we know what Cube Recovery is, is the agreement that placed a group of MBNA accounts, including the [Consumer] account? A. Can you rephrase that? Q. Yeah. Plaintiff's Exhibit 2 is the placement agreement between Collect America and Cube Recovery for the placement of a group of accounts, which included the account involving the [Consumers]? A. Yes. Q. Okay. It says on this Plaintiff's Exhibit 2 that there is an attached Exhibit A, which includes the work standards. Do you have Exhibit A? A. No. Q. It also states that there was an Exhibit B, which was the performance standards. Do you have a copy of Exhibit B? A. No. That was the purpose of producing Exhibit 1. Q. The work standards set out in a separate placement agreement, which is in Plaintiff's Exhibit 1. A. Is that a question? Q. No. The work standards set out in Plaintiff's Exhibit 1, are those the same work standards that would have been attached as Exhibit A -A. Yes. Q. -- to Plaintiff's Exhibit 2? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Have the work standards required by Collect America changed at all since 1999? A. No. Q. And the performance standards that are set out in Plaintiff's Exhibit 1 are the same as the performance standards that would have been attached as Exhibit B to Plaintiff's Exhibit 2? A. Not that I'm aware of. Q. They're not the same? A. I'm sorry. Can you rephrase the question?
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0027 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0028 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0029 1
Q. Are the performance standards set out in Plaintiff's Exhibit 1, are those the same performance standards that would have been attached as Exhibit B to Plaintiff's Exhibit 2? A. Yes. Q. So the purpose of providing or producing Plaintiff's Exhibit 1 was to provide the actual work standards and performance standards that Neuheisel Law Firm has to operate under? A. Correct. Q. And Plaintiff's Exhibit 2 sets forth a different contingency fee that Cube Recovery or Neuheisel is entitled to if they collect on these accounts, on the MBNA accounts? A. Different from? Q. Plaintiff's Exhibit 1. I just wasn't going to -A. Yes. Q. I'm not going to put your percentages in the record because I don't really think there's a need for that. And so I was trying to not put something in a public record that might be -A. Okay. Different in 1, yeah. That's fine. Q. So my question is: Based on the placement agreement, the contingency fee that you're paid to collect on the accounts can change? A. Yes. Q. And Plaintiff's Exhibit 2 sets forth the contingency fee agreement for the accounts that were forwarded in reference to an original creditor of MBNA? A. Yes. Q. It has the same limitation that the placement is made for 120 days? Is that generally the practice as a Collect America franchisee that you have generally 120 days to collect the accounts? A. Yes. Q. It also states that there is a master agreement. Is that the licensee or franchise agreement? A. Yes. Q. So that's what we need. Is there one master agreement or are there two agreements, one being the master agreement and one being the Collect America license agreement? A. I believe they're one. Q. When did you become a partner at Neuheisel? A. I want to say '94, '95. Q. Is Cube Recovery any type of subsidiary of Neuheisel Law Firm? A. No. Q. Completely separate? A. Completely separate. Q. Do you own any other businesses other than
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0030 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0031 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Neuheisel and Cube Recovery? A. No. Q. Does Cube Recovery have an office separate from the law firm offices? A. No. Q. And there are two offices; correct -- two Neuheisel Law Firm offices? A. Yes. Q. One in Arizona and one in California? A. Correct. Q. And does Debra Harvego manage the office in California? A. Yes. Q. How many employees, total, work for -- let me ask this: Are the employees that actually handle the collections employees of Cube Recovery or Neuheisel Law Firm? A. They're employees of Neuheisel Law Firm. Q. Are any of the collections made under the name of Cube Recovery or is all the work done under Neuheisel Law Firm? A. All the work is done under Neuheisel Law Firm. Q. Other than the franchisee agreement and the master agreements being between Collect America and Cube, everything else is done by Neuheisel Law Firm? A. Correct. Q. How many employees work for Neuheisel Law Firm, best judgment? A. Well, I can figure it out. You've just got to give me a minute. It changes sometimes, daily. MS. NETTLES: And you're asking currently? MS. HAYS: Right, at the moment. A. I want to say between 30 and 32 in both offices. Q. (By Ms. Hays) Can you tell me how many of those individuals are collectors? A. 20, I think. Q. Are all the collectors in the Arizona office? A. Yes. Q. No collectors at all in California? A. No. Q. Do you have a common computer system that's linked so that the California office can look at accounts that the collectors are handling in Arizona? A. Yes, on Collect America accounts. Q. Okay. And I think you told me earlier that you do handle accounts for companies other than Collect America? A. Well, Collect America forwards all those, the variety of forwarders. Q. Right, that we talked about. A. Other than -- yes, there are others. Q. Who else do you do collection work for?
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0032 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0033 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
A. Household Bank, Profession Recovery Systems, and then a hand -- you know, sporadic, you know, one-time collections for local businesses or friends. I've got a couple of referrals from other franchises, but on a one-time basis. Q. Where they needed the lawsuit to be filed in Arizona? A. Right. Q. Do you have a judgment -- and if it's impossible to tell, that's fine -- but do you have a judgment as to how many accounts Neuheisel is generally handling at one time? A. I would say in our system there's probably on average 10,000. That doesn't mean they're actively being worked, but there's 10,000 accounts. Q. What's the average length of time that you hold the account before it's forwarded on to someone else? A. It's case-by-case. Q. Do you ever hold an account longer than nine months? A. Yes. Q. Do you ever hold an account longer than nine months if you're not filing a lawsuit on it? A. Yes. Q. When you became a franchisee of Collect America, did they provide you a computer system to handle the collections? A. Computer software. Q. Software? And is that the STARS program? A. Yes. Q. Does STARS -- is that an acronym for something? A. Yes, and I don't know it. I can't remember. Q. Is that the only software you use, or do you have a separate software that you use for non-Collect America? A. I have separate software for non-Collect America accounts. Q. What program do you use for your non-Collect America -A. It's called Collect Law. Q. Collect Law? A. Yeah. Q. Are any of your collectors attorneys? A. No. Q. And Ken Jones, he already testified he's not a lawyer? A. No. Q. And Jason Davidson is not a lawyer? A. No. Q. It's just the three lawyers, yourself, your dad, and Debra? A. Correct. Q. Does Debra handle collections, as well, or
20 21 22 23 0034 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0035 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0036 1 2 3 4
does she practice some other type of law? A. Currently, just collections. Q. Is Neuheisel Law Firm or Cube Recovery a member of ACA? A. No. Q. You're familiar with ACA? A. Yes. Q. And I used to call it Aca, but apparently -nobody else calls it Aca? A. I've never heard of it referred to that way. Q. So ACA it is. Are any of your manuals or your state law guidelines provided by ACA? A. Yes. Q. Which ones? A. Some of our testing material, some of the case law that I've handed out during some of my training sessions. I have a book about an inch thick (indicating) that I get from Collect America, who's a member of ACA, that I use for my training programs, so sometimes I'll make Xerox copies from the book. Q. And these materials are actually given to you by Collect America? A. Yes. The book has been given to me by Collect America. Q. Can you describe it? Is it like a three-ring binder or -A. It's a soft copy about an inch thick, 8 x 10. Q. Like a seminar material book? And is there a CLE or something? A. Exactly. Q. When was that material provided to you? A. Oh, I've had the book given to me, you know, an updated book recently. I believe it was April. Part of that was during our initial training, probably fall of '99. Q. And do you use that material provided from Collect America to train the collectors at Neuheisel? A. Yes. Q. Are you responsible for training? A. Not entirely. Q. Who else does training? A. Matt Gascon. Q. Do you know Mr. Gascon's background in collections? A. I think he's been in collections since 1995. Part of that, he managed a telemarketing -- or was involved, I think, as an employee and then a manager in a telemarketing environment. Q. A. Q. A. Did he start with your firm as a collector -No. -- or was he brought in just as a supervisor? He was brought in as a supervisor.
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0037 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0038 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Q. When did he start with Neuheisel? A. July of 2000. Q. What's his title, if he has one? A. General manager. Q. Is he a member of ACA? A. I don't know. Q. And Cube Recovery is not a member of ACA? A. No. Q. And Neuheisel is not a member, but Collect America is? A. I believe so. Q. Are collectors at Neuheisel allowed to use aliases? A. No. Q. Other than the book you received from Collect America, do you have any other materials that you've received that were from ACA? A. Not that I am aware of. Q. They have -- ACA has some newsletters they send out. Have you ever received their newsletters? A. I may have. I'm not positive. Q. I think they're generally by E-mail, if that helps trigger your memory. A. I've received forwarded E-mails from one of the attorneys at Collect America. I can't recall if it's ACA or some other entity. Q. Do you get any type of materials from Collect America other than the book and the forwarded E-mails from -- but I'm going to come back to that. A. Yes, I have. Q. What other materials do you get from Collect America? A. I have a big three-ring binder they gave me. They gave me the FDCPA book written by Manning Neuburgher and a lady -- I can't remember her name. I think it's Barbra something. I can't remember. Q. Okay. There's a book. Can you describe the book, the FDCPA book? A. It's blue. It's like a statute book. That's what it looks like. Q. It's that soft-bound? A. Yes. Q. And it was by Neuburgh? A. Manning Neuburgher. Q. And someone else? A. I want to say Barbara Burton, or something like that. I can't remember. Q. A three-ring binder. What's in the three-ring binder? A. All kinds of training materials. Q. Does it have scripts? A. I don't believe so. Q. Talk-offs? A. I don't believe so. Q. Can you tell me what kind of training
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0039 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0040 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
materials? A. A lot of training material on the STARS program. It gives some general background on Collect America. It gives a lot of legal, you know, copies of statutes or -- you know, FDCPA regulations are in there. Q. Does it contain the state law statutes? A. I believe so, but I can't remember. Q. The training that it includes on the STARS program, is that something that you just forward on to new employees so they can learn how to operate the computer program? A. It's available for them, this book. They don't have this book at their desk. Q. Okay. Is it something that's used in training with new hires? A. It's a model for the trainers. I don't know that the book is in front of them -- the book is not in front of the new employee. Q. Is the STARS program a Windows-based program or DOS based? A. Windows, I believe. Q. Who are your trainers? A. Matt Gascon, primarily. I do a little bit. And then my two collection managers that are directly under Matt Gascon, who is Matt Filak and Dave Lerner. Q. Whose main responsibility is it to train the new collectors when they're hired? A. Matt Gascon. Q. And how long does that new hire training generally last? A. It varies on the experience of the new hire. Q. Do you hire people who have no collection experience? A. We have. Q. If they have no collection experience, how much training would they generally receive when they first start? A. It varies on how they're grasping; how long Matt sits with them; how long I sit with them; how long they spend with Dave and/or Matt Filak. Q. Is the training more a side-by-side where they're actually looking at the computer screen or is it classroom training? A. It's both. Q. Is there a set time for the classroom training, where you try and like -- for instance, if you hired three or four new people, you're trying to get them all in the classroom at the same time so you're training that group at one time? A. We've never hired that many at one time. But the most we ever hired at one time is two. And, yes, it's set up initially -- the initial training is set up in the conference room.
23 0041 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0042 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0043 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Q. And does Matt do the initial training?
Is it
like a classroom setting or does that still depend on the actual person? A. It's Matt Gascon. Q. Other than the three-ring binder and the FDCPA book, are there any other materials that you've received from Collect America? A. Yes. I mean, I receive stuff from them all the time. Q. Can you describe it for me? Does it come, like, in a letter or a brochure? A. It comes in all formats, depending on what the information. Q. Okay. What type of information are they sending to you? A. Oh, it might be a memo telling us about a new client and describing what kind of business it is and the background information on that particular client, so we can turn around and educate, you know, the collectors who are going to be receiving this business. It might be a letter regarding new policies on how we're going to handle legal accounts. You know, it just depends. Q. What's a legal account? A. An account that's going to be processed for legal action. Q. What's necessary for an account to become a legal account? A. It has to fit the criteria set forth by Collect America based on the forwarder. Q. Okay. And some of -- would it be fair to say that some of Collect America's criteria are based on what's given them by the original creditor or a subsequent client? A. Yes. Q. That client could include CACV? A. Yes. Q. Or some other purchaser of the paper? A. Right. Q. What is Collect America's general criteria for a legal account? A. Well, it is generally 3,000 or more, depending on the state. We need an asset regardless. But depending on the state, some assets are preferable over others. That's about it, good address. Q. Do you file lawsuits in any states other than California or Arizona? A. No. Q. And you handle collection accounts that can be in any state? A. There are a few states we're not getting because they're restricted states. Q. Okay. Can you tell me states you don't
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0044 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0045 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
collect in? A. Massachusetts. If we get one by mistake, like an address change, we're to send it back. And Colorado, I believe; they're not generally placed with us, so we never see them. Q. Is that based on a determination made by Collect America or is that a determination you made that you don't want to deal with those? A. Collect America. Q. Do you have the authority on behalf of Collect America to recommend -- to determine whether a lawsuit is filed on an account? A. Can you rephrase that? Q. Sure. If one of your collectors recommends that suit be filed on an account, do you have the authority to approve or disapprove whether a suit is filed? A. I approve or disapprove the recommendation. Q. Okay. And then what happens to it? A. Collect America sweeps it, takes it away from our system so we don't ever see it again. And they make a determination whether or not they want to proceed. Q. So if a lawsuit is recommended by the collector, it comes to your desk to decide whether or not you think that's a good recommendation; is that right? A. Correct. Q. And then after you decide it's a good recommendation, the account is given back to Collect America? A. I put it in a request suit que, and then they sweep it, yes. Q. In the [Consumer] account, did you approve the recommendation that a lawsuit be filed? A. No. Q. Why not? A. I never saw it. Q. Never saw the request? A. No. Q. How does a request for suit come to you? A. Usually, in written form. And that is the process today. What happened in the [Consumer] account was he put it in request suit, the RS function. Q. And so it never came to you because it was not in writing? A. I didn't have time to get to it let's -- I didn't see it in writing, and it was in the request suit que. And Collect America got to it before I got to it. Q. When they did their sweep? A. Yes. Q. Okay. A. They come in and handpick accounts, periodically.
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0046 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0047 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0048 1
Q. In your review of the case file for the deposition, did you see any document at all from Ken Jones requesting the suit be filed? A. Paper? Q. Correct. A. No. Q. If there had been a paper request, like what was Plaintiff's Exhibit 1 to Mr. Jones' deposition, that would be something that would be maintained by Neuheisel Law Firm? A. No. Q. They're not kept? A. This is just a form actually that was provided by Collect America. Q. Plaintiff's Exhibit 1 to Mr. Jones' depo? A. Yes. Q. Okay. A. And it's a guideline on what -- the information they're looking for. And that's why it's in their notebook to kind of get the guideline. The form they use to give to me is entirely different. Q. Okay. Have you seen -- I don't think that we have a form -- or a copy of the form -- that collectors use to give to you to request a suit. In your review of the case file, have you run across a copy of that form? A. In the case file? Q. Right. A. No. Q. Can you get a copy of the form -- not of the actual form involving the [Consumer] account -- but just a copy of the form itself? A. Yes. Q. It's so confusing since they're both called forms. But you have not seen any written paper requesting suit be filed on the [Consumer] account? A. No. Q. Is it your understanding that Collect America denied their request for suit in the [Consumer] account? A. Yes. Q. Do you know why the request was denied? A. I know what they wrote in the note lines. Q. Okay. What is that? A. It didn't meet -- I can't remember if it said suit or arbitration requirements. Q. I think it says arbitration. Does Collect America have a preference for arbitrating claims rather than filing lawsuits? A. No. I believe it's mandated under the MBNA agreement. Q. To arbitrate? A. Right. Q. Do you know what the arbitration requirements
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0049 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0050 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
were for the [Consumer] account? A. I thought it was 2500. To be honest, I don't know why it was -- it didn't meet criteria. I still don't. Q. Okay. Have you had any conversations with anyone at Collect America regarding the [Consumer] account? A. Yes. Q. Who have you talked with? A. Michelle Marron; her married name is now Holderness. Allen Singer, Bill Barnett. And in passing -- I don't know specifically -- like I gave names, but a few other people at their offices (sic). Q. Let's start with Michelle Holderness. Tell me about the first conversation you had with her. When was it? A. The day I got served. Q. And where is she located? A. She's no longer with Collect America. She resigned on May 30th, but she was in Collect America's corporate headquarters. Q. And where is that? A. Denver, Colorado. Q. And you called her? A. Yes. Q. And what did you say? A. "I've just been served with a lawsuit." And she said, "Fax it up." Q. And you faxed her a copy of the lawsuit? A. Uh-huh. Q. Was that the initial lawsuit? A. Yes. Q. Or the amended complaint? A. Yes, the initial. Q. Do you know Michelle's job at Collect America? A. I don't know her exact title, but she's in their legal department. There's two legal departments. She's in one of them. Q. Do you know why there are two legal departments? A. One deals with compliance issues and when we get sued. And one deals with processing all the accounts for legal action. Q. Okay. Any other -- was anything else said during the course of this conversation? A. I don't recall. Q. Is Collect America indemnifying Neuheisel Law Firm in this lawsuit? A. No. Q. Are they paying -- do they provide the insurance coverage? A. No. Q. So why did you fax a copy to Collect America?
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0051 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0052 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
A. They asked me to advise them of all formal complaints. Q. Do you advise Collect America when you receive a complaint from the attorney general regarding a collector? A. Yes. Q. So any time there's a complaint, whether it's a lawsuit or a complaint from a governing body like an attorney general, you notify Collect America? A. Yes. Q. Is that something that's required under the franchisee agreement? A. I don't know if it's required under the agreement. And I know they've just been asking for it more recently than initially. I haven't reviewed that agreement in quite some time. Q. Have you had any other conversations other than this first one with Michelle Marron-Holderness? A. Yes. Q. When was your second conversation? A. I could not tell you. Q. Tell me generally what was said in the second conversation. A. We talked about getting the backup -verification of debt on this particular account. We determined what kind of application information we had, you know, the charge-off statement, that sort of thing, whether or not we could proceed with arbitration. Q. And was a determination made during the second conversation regarding the arbitration? A. She didn't see why not and was going to discuss it with some of her colleagues. Q. Did she call you back? A. No. Q. Did someone else call you back? A. I've talked to Allen Singer about it and Bill Barnett about it. Q. Tell me about your first conversation with Mr. Allen Singer. A. Actually, it was recently. It was in May. He was in my office. And I asked him when we were going over suit requirements and criteria, why this one couldn't be arbitrated. And he didn't see why not, either. Q. He didn't know? Did he say he would check on it? A. Yes. Q. And have you gotten any response from him? A. Yes. I was up at Collect America last week, and we talked about it. Q. And what did he tell you? A. I talked to Bill Barnett. And Bill Barnett said he saw no reason why not and to call him after this week.
20 21 22 23 0053 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0054 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0055 1 2 3 4
Q. Did you have any other conversations with Allen Singer? A. Not that I'm aware of, no. Q. So other than the conversation in your office in May, that's the only conversation you had with Allen? A. Right. Q. And other than discussing the criteria for moving forward with arbitration, did you discuss anything else about this case? A. With Collect America? Q. Right. A. Michelle and I have had conversations on and off, just like how it's going, what stage are you in, that sort of thing. Q. Anything about the specific facts involving Mr. Jones or Mr. Davidson? A. I'm sure we talked about it. I don't remember details, though. Q. And when was this conversation with Bill Barnett? Last week? A. Yeah. Q. And you were actually in their -- at their headquarters in Denver? A. I was in Denver. No. I was at a hotel for a seminar. Q. And tell me what y'all talked about in this first conversation. A. Bill and I? Q. Right. A. He just said call me about it. We'll look into it. Q. Prior to this lawsuit being filed and you receiving a copy of it, did you discuss with any of these three individuals proceeding with arbitration? A. On this account? Q. Right. A. No. Q. Have you had any other conversations with Bill Barnett other than the one where you talked about the arbitration? A. I don't believe so. Q. Do you have to provide Collect America with any reports, like a monthly report or a quarterly report? A. No. Q. Do you provide them any documentation on -to show how much has been collected on a particular portfolio on an account? A. They have the ability to run more reports than I do. No, I don't provide it. It's just in the system. Q. Does Collect America have access to your system?
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0056 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0057 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
A. Yes. Q. And they can connect in somehow -- I don't pretend to understand computers very well, so I won't even pretend. But they can connect in somehow to your system and access the information of any account? A. Yes. Q. And they can run reports based on your accounts at Neuheisel only? A. Yes. Q. See how much money has been collected? A. Yes. Q. Pull accounts if they choose to? A. Yes. Q. Can they enter like in -- tell me what they're called. A. Note lines? Q. Note lines. In the note lines, there's an entry from a D. Myers. Is that actually an entry that was entered by Collect America? A. Yes. Q. So they have the authority and the ability to enter information into the note lines? A. Yes. Q. Do you pay any type of maintenance agreement or maintenance fee for the ongoing use of their software? A. Yes. Q. What is that? A. We pay 4 percent of our contingent fee, whatever that may be. Q. Back to Collect America -A. Yes. Q. -- for access to the computer software program? A. It's not really what it's for. I mean, not for access, for maintaining it. Q. Okay. For upgrades and fixing problems or correcting problems? A. Correct. Q. Does Collect America provide you with any forms based on the number or the percentages of accounts that you're collecting over a period of time? A. I don't understand your question. Q. Sometimes -- well, does Collect America ever provide you a printout or a report that they run from your information saying: In August you collected 40 percent of the accounts we turned over on this portfolio? A. Yes. Q. How often do you get reports from Collect America? A. Pretty often. Q. More than once a week?
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0058 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0059 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
A. No. Q. Would you say you get reports once a week? A. We get a monthly report card. Q. Okay. A. And then we each have a VP, vice president, that's our liaison at Collect America. And that particular person changes periodically. And, depending on who it is, we may get a report daily. We may get it weekly. You know, we may get it -and that's usually just information between my manager and the vice president. Q. Does it come through you to your manager or is it just -A. I get a copy of it usually through E-mail. Q. Who is your liaison at Collect America, currently? A. Howard Grinnsteiner. Q. Can you spell his last name? A. I'm not positive I'm right. But it's, G-R-I-N-N-S-T-E-I-N-E-R. Q. And he's a vice president at Collector America? A. Vice president of franchise relations or something is their title, something like that. Q. Who was the -- your vice president liaison in December of 2001, early 2002? A. I believe it was Frank Woodhouse. Q. Were there any other liaisons between Frank Woodhouse and Howard Grinnsteiner? A. Sorry. Could you rephrase it? Q. Sure. Frank Woodhouse was the liaison at Collect America in December of 2001, early 2002. And now it's Howard Grinnsteiner? A. Right. Q. Have there been any in between? A. In between, no. Q. Do you know when it changed? A. I believe beginning of the year. I'm not positive, though. Q. And you get a monthly report card? A. Yes. Q. What's on this report card? A. It's a 12-month rolling average on liquidation rates on the various products that are placed with us. Q. Any other information on the report card? A. It tells us for the prior 12 months each product that's been placed with us, whether we're above or below the corporate average -- or their expectation of us. Q. Are you given any type of grade or recommendation if there's a problem? MS. NETTLES: Object to the form of the question. And if I could, I just want to put on the record an objection to this whole line of
23 0060 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0061 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0062 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
questioning as to relevancy.
I just don't see it.
They're not a part of the lawsuit. They cannot be added into the lawsuit. This appears to me just a fishing expedition. MS. HAYS: Okay. Well, they set out the criteria that they collect these accounts under -MR. COBB: But this has nothing to do with criteria. MS. NETTLES: Yeah. We've already been through that. MS. HAYS: Well -MR. COBB: That's the only reason we objected back then. MS. HAYS: I'm going to go into it anyway because I think it's relevant. MS. NETTLES: Well, we'll go for a while, and then we may stop -MS. HAYS: That's fine. MS. NETTLES: -- because I just think that what you're doing here is you're fishing about their business. And that's all you're doing. It has nothing to do with this lawsuit. MS. HAYS: Okay. Well, I disagree with that. Q. (By Ms. Hays) Is there any other information that's contained on these report cards? A. No. Q. The reports that you're receiving from Collect America, do they -- can you tell me what type of reports they are? MS. NETTLES: Object to the form of the question. A. I don't know what you mean. Q. (By Ms. Hays) You said sometimes you get a daily or a weekly or a monthly report. Other than the report cards, are they just generally telling you how many accounts you currently have for Collect America? A. It'll tell us why we're -- our liquidation rate on a particular portfolio. Q. And can you just tell me what a liquidation rate is? A. It's a percentage of collections of the amounts placed, so if you collect 10,000 on 100,000, you've collected 10 percent. Q. Does your firm keep track of how many accounts are recalled? A. No. Q. Well, as an owner of Neuheisel and Cube Recovery, Neuheisel's reputation is important to you? A. Yes. Q. And you pride yourself on handling accounts correctly, pursuant to the FDCPA? A. Yes.
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0063 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0064 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Q. And quickly? MS. NETTLES: Is that a question? A. Yeah. I'm not sure what you mean by that. Q. (By Ms. Hays) Do you, as one of the owners of Neuheisel Law Firm, pride yourself on collecting accounts quickly? A. It's a case-by-case basis. Not every account can be collected quickly. Q. Do you keep any kind of percentages or liquidation rates of how many accounts are collected for a specific time? For instance, a yearly report that you generate to use to obtain new business for collection? MS. NETTLES: Object to the form of the question. A. No. Q. (By Ms. Hays) We have a copy of the insurance agreement that was provided through your counsel. That insurance agreement is something that Neuheisel Law Firm obtained on their own? A. Yes. Q. Is that a required -- is that insurance required by Collect America? A. Yes. Q. Have you received any collection criteria from CACV? A. No. Q. Do you have any ownership in Collect America? A. We're a franchise owner. Cube Recovery is a franchise owner. Q. Does Collect America currently own this account, the [Consumer] account? A. Yes. Q. Neuheisel Law Firm has never had any ownership of the account? A. No. Q. Has the account been recalled by Collect America? A. No. Q. It's still being held by Neuheisel? A. Yes. Q. Do you have any documents or writings where you notified Collect America of the lawsuit, in addition to the telephone conversations we already talked about? A. I may have a fax cover sheet showing it went, but, no. Beyond that, no. Q. Okay. The initial letters that are sent out when accounts are received -A. Yeah. Q. -- or placed by Collect America, are those letters sent from California? A. No. Q. They're sent from Arizona? A. No.
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0065 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0066 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0067 1
Q. All right. Where are the letters sent from? A. Our out-sourcing company, which I believe at the time was in New York. Q. Who's the out-sourcing company responsible for sending the initial letter? A. I want to say it's Northshore. Q. Northshore? A. Yeah. Q. And how does that work? A. It's my letter. I wrote it. I approve it. I give them a facsimile of my signature. And then when they send one of these (indicating), I go in and approve. The accounts are in my -- I have access to the accounts listed, which in this particular instance would have been 500. And I go in and review them and decide whether or not I want that portfolio or not. And once they receive this, then we'll generate that letter. Q. Do you E-mail or electronically transmit the debtor or consumer's name and address to Northshore with a copy of the form letter, and then they put them into the actual letters? A. I'm not sure how it works. Q. Okay. Neuheisel Law Firm has nothing to do with the initial letter actually going out? A. Well, I have to approve the business and the account before the letter will go. And it's -- I draft the letter. Q. Right. A. And I approve them -Q. Sending it? A. Exactly. Q. Okay. The form letter, though, does that change based on the account, the form letter? A. Well, sure, the name, balance -Q. Okay. A. -- and client code, certain things change. But the general gist of the letter does not change. Q. Neuheisel doesn't -- you don't print the letters and actually mail them from your office in Arizona? A. Not the first demand. Q. Or from California? A. No. Q. That's what comes from Northshore in New York? A. It did. Q. At the time in December 2001? A. Correct. Q. You don't use Northshore anymore? A. No. Q. Did you have a problem with Northshore not sending out the letters? A. No.
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0068 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0069 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Q. Once Northshore sent the letters, did you receive some type of notification that they had been mailed? A. In the STARS system, yes. Q. How did that happen? A. It's in the system notes. Q. Can you show me on the note lines where it indicates that the letter was sent? A. When it goes from NCOA to demand. That's the time -- between demand and house (sic) is when the letter is sent. Q. Okay. What does NCOA mean? A. National Change of Address. Q. So sometime between 12/13 and 12/15, according to the note lines, the letter was supposed to go out? A. Yeah. Q. And part of the criteria for Collect America is that it has to go out within three days, I believe? A. I'd have to refresh my memory. It says two business days. Q. Will you look at Plaintiff's Exhibit 2 -- oh, I'm sorry, you're right. It's two business days? A. Yes. Q. And the collection criteria from Collect America states the collectors should not call a debtor more than one time a day? A. I don't know that it says that. Q. It says, "For all accounts with phone numbers, call each debtor at the number given up to three times on different days"; is that right? A. Yes. MR. COBB: Where are you reading from? MS. HAYS: Plaintiff's Exhibit 1, within the first 15 days -Q. Do you have anyone in your office, Ms. Neuheisel, that actually maintains the STARS program or is that all handled by Collect America? A. I have an independent contractor that comes in and keeps my computer system up and running. And he works with Collect America. Q. No employees, though? A. No. Q. Other than the note lines and the account information report that was Plaintiff's Exhibit 7 to Mr. Jones' deposition, is there any other information maintained on the [Consumer] account that's not included in Plaintiff's Exhibit 7? A. Yes. Q. What information is that? A. The credit bureau. Q. Was this account reported to the credit bureau? A. I don't know if it was reported by Collect
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0070 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0071 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
America, but it was on their credit bureau, the one we accessed when it was placed with us. Q. Okay. And is that credit bureau report maintained in the data base, computer system? A. Yes. Q. Do you keep any actual paper files? A. No. Q. Is your STARS software connected to Collect America in Colorado? A. Yes. Q. Do you have an auto-dialer? A. We do not. Q. Have you had an auto-dialer in the past? A. No. Q. Are collectors at your firm required to enter call notes every time they speak to an individual regarding an account? A. Yes. Q. Regardless of whether it's the debtor or some other person? A. Yes. Q. Even if there's no conversation that takes place, if a collector makes a call, are they required by your policy to enter it in the note lines? A. Yes. Q. Can the note lines be altered? A. No. Q. Can note lines be added after the fact? A. No. Q. When you go in to enter a note line, does it automatically date and time stamp the entry? A. Yes. Q. Do you ever record calls made by collectors? A. No. Q. Have you ever in the past, between 1999 and today? A. No. Q. There was a previous lawsuit against Neuheisel that was filed in Florida? A. Yes. Q. Has that lawsuit been resolved? A. Yes. Q. Did it go to trial? A. No. Q. Was that lawsuit -- do you remember when that was filed? A. I think it was late 2000. Q. After that lawsuit -A. Or maybe 2001. I can't remember, to be honest with you. Q. After that lawsuit was filed, did you change any policies at Neuheisel Law Firm as a result of that lawsuit? A. I don't remember.
20 21 22 23 0072 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0073 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0074 1 2 3 4
Q. Have you changed any of your policy or procedures since January of 2002? A. We're changing our procedures all the time. Q. Do you have -- we were given the Neuheisel Law Firm employee manual, which includes a policy and procedures guideline that -- has it changed since these documents were produced? A. I wouldn't say it's changed. It might have been supplemented. That has not been updated. Q. Are you aware of how the policy and procedures manual was supplemented? A. Either verbally or by memo form. Q. Okay. And those memos are given to the collectors? A. Yes. Q. For them to maintain a copy? A. Yes. Q. Are those generally given out at the collector meetings? A. Yes. Q. You attend the monthly collector meetings? A. Yes. Q. Do y'all keep minutes of those meetings? A. No. Q. Do you ever review the note lines for accuracy of what's being entered by the collectors? A. Yes. Q. Do you ever monitor calls? A. Yes. Q. How often do you review note lines? A. It varies on my schedule. I do all the incoming mail and notate all the mail on every account. So usually when I'm in there, I check. Q. Okay. What type of -- the incoming mail on accounts would be like a cease and desist request? A. Yeah. Q. Or a dispute letter? A. Correct. Q. Are there any other types of mail you generally receive on an account? A. Yeah. I get debt management company mail. I get offers of payment. I get, you know, "please be patient with me" letters. There's all kinds of letters. Q. Other than at the time you're entering mail that's been received on an account, do you monitor the collection notes any other times? A. Yes. Q. Tell me about those. A. Well, whenever I get a letter request, I go in and review the account. I spot check newer employees, just at random. Q. What do you consider a newer employee? A. Somebody there less than 90 days.
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0075 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0076 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Q. And I think in the employee manual there's an initiation period. Is that 90 days? A. Yes. Q. Does your telephone system allow you to monitor calls? A. Yes. Q. And listen? A. Yes. Q. Do you ever monitor calls? A. Periodically. Q. Do you monitor calls on a weekly basis? A. Yeah, give or take. Q. How many calls do you generally monitor a week? A. I'd say around five. Q. Is that just a spot check to pick a random call? A. Yes. Q. Does Matt Gascon monitor telephone calls? A. Yes. Q. Do you have an idea of how many calls he monitors on a weekly basis? A. I don't know on a weekly basis. He's required to monitor each employee an hour each month at ran -- you know, it can be a broken-up hour, but a total of one hour a month, at least. Q. Okay. Let me make sure I understand. Mr. Gascon is required to monitor each collector for one hour each month? A. Yes. Q. Total. It can be -- the one hour is per employee? A. Correct. Q. Do either of the other supervisors have a monitoring responsibility? A. Yes. Q. What is their responsibility? A. They're to monitor each of their -- we call them teams -- each member of their team at random and incorporate it into their monthly review, and, obviously, alert management if there's any problems. Q. But they don't have a specific time requirement that they have to listen to each member of their team? A. No. Q. Are the supervisors -- do they have any other title other than supervisor? A. Collection manager is what their true title is. Q. Okay. Are the collection managers responsible for doing a monthly review of each member of their team? A. Until recently, yes. Q. Where are those monthly reviews kept? A. In a monthly review file.
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0077 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0078 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
Q. Is it kept by month and year? A. No. It's just a monthly review. It's a relatively new procedure, so -Q. When did they start performing monthly reviews? A. In the fall of 2002. Q. 2002? Did you make a review of any of the monthly reviews to check the reviews of Mr. Davidson or Mr. Jones? A. Mr. Davidson wasn't with us anymore when the reviews started on a monthly basis. Mr. Jones, yes. Q. And have you reviewed his monthly reviews? A. Yes. Q. Do you have those? A. No. Q. Were they provided to us? A. I don't know. I don't believe so. Q. Prior to the fall of 2002, how often were collection managers reviewing their team members? A. We just added the collection managers at the end of the summer of 2002. Q. Prior to that time, was it just Mr. Gascon? A. Yes. Q. And he was responsible for all 20 collectors? A. We didn't have 20 at that time. Q. How many did you have in December 2002 -- I mean, January 2002? A. I think around 12, maybe 13. Q. Was that the same for December of 2001, 12 to 13 collectors? A. Yeah. I mean the numbers are constantly changing. That would be the average, yeah. Q. Okay. And there was just Mr. Gascon, or were there other supervisors in December of 2001, January 2002? A. Just Mr. Gascon. Q. Did he have any requirement at that time for monitoring calls of the collectors? A. Yes. Q. What was the requirement at that time? A. That he was to do it. It wasn't as specific as it is today. Q. Was Mr. Gascon required to perform performance evaluations? A. Yes. Q. How often was he to perform a performance evaluation? A. Once a year. Q. Where are the performance evaluations kept? A. In a performance evaluation -Q. File? A. Yeah. Q. And did you review a performance evaluation on Mr. Jones? A. I believe so, yes.
23 0079 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0080 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0081 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Q. Do you recall the date of that performance evaluation? A. No idea. Q. Was there a performance evaluation on Mr. Davidson? A. I believe so. I don't know. Q. In December 2001, January 2002, you were not making any recordings of telephone calls? A. No. Q. Other than the fact that Mr. Gascon was to monitor calls, there was no set guideline for how often he was to monitor calls? A. Correct. Q. And there was no monitoring form used that he could complete when he was monitoring calls? A. Correct. Q. In December 2001, January 2002, did you monitor any calls? A. I can't remember. Q. December 2001, January 2002, other than listening in on the telephone calls, what other methods did you use to monitor collectors' activity? A. Well, we're very small. And Mr. Gascon was on the floor almost 100 percent of the time. Q. So he would just walk around and actually just listen to the calls? A. Yeah. Q. No video camera recording the actual work? A. No. Q. Today when you monitor a call do you have the ability to go in and view the note lines as they're being entered by the collector? A. Yes. Q. Do you check the note lines as they're being entered? A. Let me clarify it. I can't see it until they hit save. Q. Okay. A. So if I'm at my office and they're at their desk, and he's making note lines, I can't see them, no. Q. When the call is terminated or the information is saved, do you go back and check the notes to verify the accuracy? A. Sometimes. Q. Can note lines be deleted? A. No. Q. I know they can't be added, but they can't be deleted? A. No. Q. Has the STARS program, other than simple maintenance, changed at all since January of 2002? A. Yes. Q. How has it changed?
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0082 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0083 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
A. It's going to a Windows-based program. Q. Has that happened? A. I have access to both systems, but they're working out the kinks on the new one. Q. Is Neuheisel paid by Collect America based on the amount of money collected? A. No. Q. How does Neuheisel get paid? A. Cube Recovery pays Neuheisel. Q. Does Collect America then pay Cube Recovery? A. Yes. Q. Is that monthly or biweekly? A. Twice a month. Q. How many phone lines does Neuheisel have? A. 35. Q. 35? A. Phone lines? Q. Right. A. Or phones? Q. Phone lines. A. We have a T-1. Q. Okay. And how many lines can you have on your T-1? A. I'm not sure. I think 24. Q. Do you have different -- do you have just one 800 number, or do you have more than one 800 numbers? A. Just one. Q. And what is the 800 number? A. 1-800-366-3510. Q. Do you have other lines or numbers that are dedicated to your company, to Neuheisel Law Firm? A. Yes. Q. Can you tell me the other phone numbers? A. Well, our main line is 480-838-5000. Test my memory. 480-557 -- wait. I can't remember it. We have like 11 other lines. We have two fax lines: 6358, 363-6366, I believe. And then we have two, I couldn't tell you, that we just added for incoming calls and two fax lines. 557-6366 is a fax line. Q. Okay. A. 480-377-0355 is the fax in my office. Q. I missed the first fax. Did you tell me it was 6366? A. Yes. Q. So the phone lines actually go from 6358 to 6365 that are actually -A. Well, 6363 is, I think, our DSL. 6365 is our router that connects us to Collect America. I mean, they all -Q. And then you have two dedicated lines for incoming calls that are new? You don't know what the numbers are? A. Yeah. They're local. 967 something. And I have an ISDN line.
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0084 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0085 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0086 1
Q. What is that used for? A. It's a backup line if our router goes down, our frame relay. Q. Let me show you what I've marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit 3. (Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 3 marked for identification.) (Witness reviews document.) Q. Can you identify that? A. It appears to be our 1-800 phone bill from February 1, 2002 -- or wait. This is in reverse order. Wait a minute. Oh, okay. February 1, 2002, February 15, 2002. It appears to be pages from our incoming phone bill, our 1-800 phone bill. Q. And these are incoming calls? A. Yes. Q. Did you actually go through the phone bill for your incoming 800 number? A. This particular phone bill? Yeah. Q. Did you compile Plaintiff's Exhibit 3? A. With help, yes. Q. Was that help someone at your office? A. Yes. Q. Who was that? A. Matt Gascon. Q. Do you just have one 800 number? A. Yes. Q. And then you have non-800 numbers? I'm trying to make a better question. Excuse me. Certainly, people can call in on your 800 number? A. Yes. Q. Can consumers call in on your non-800 numbers? A. Yes. Q. Did you review any of the call logs that are not the 800 number? A. Our local numbers, we've got -- yeah. I mean, there are no call logs unless it's a 1-900 number that we make to a bank or something. It doesn't record incoming calls on our local numbers. Q. This Plaintiff's Exhibit 3 says it's an inbound call detailed by levels. Was this a report compiled by Collect America? A. It was provided to me by Collect America. I don't know who compiled it. Q. Does the long-distance bill go to Collect America? A. It did at that time. Q. How -A. The 1-800 number did at that time. Q. Is that an 800 number that's provided to you by Collect America? A. No. Q. But they paid the long distance?
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0087 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0088 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
A. They took it out of my remittance, Cube Recovery's remittance. Q. Do you have the other pages for December 2001 through February 2002 that were excluded from Plaintiff's Exhibit 3? A. I believe they do. Q. Who does? Your counsel? A. My counsel. Q. Okay. Did you review Plaintiff's Exhibit 3? A. As I said -Q. No. Have you in the past reviewed Plaintiff's Exhibit 3? A. Yes. Q. Let me show you Plaintiff's Exhibit 4 and ask you if you can identify that. (Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 4 marked for identification.) MR. COBB: Penny, for the record, the one you just said Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 3 is 404 through 410. MS. HAYS: Yeah. I'm going to get a stapler, but, yes. MR. COBB: And then Plaintiff's No. 4 is going to be 411 through 416? MS. HAYS: Correct. A. It appears to be a Touch America long-distance bill for outbound calls from Neuheisel Law Firm. Q. (By Ms. Hays) Is Touch America the long-distance carrier Neuheisel Law Firm uses? A. Not currently. Q. I'm sorry. At the time in December 2001 through February 2002, was Touch America the long-distance carrier Neuheisel was using? A. Yes. Q. Were you using any other long-distance carrier? A. No. Q. Who were you billed for on the T-1? A. I don't understand your question. Q. Was the T-1 through Touch America? A. Yes. Q. Do you review the long-distance bills that you get -- or in December 2001, 2002, did you review the long-distance bills you received from Touch America? A. I saw it. It was several thousand pages. So, no, I didn't review it in detail. Q. Do you keep them? A. Yes. Q. On this particular exhibit, Plaintiff's Exhibit 4, the phone bill goes -- we have page 66 and page 67. And then there's a gap until page 114. Did you review the pages in between? A. I did not.
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0089 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0090 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
Q. And you have those pages? A. Yes. Q. Do you know who reviewed them to provide what's included in Plaintiff's Exhibit 4? A. Matt Gascon. Q. Are the long-distance -- is the rest of this long-distance bill at your office in Arizona? A. Yes. Q. This has a Neuheisel Law Firm No. 59581783. Is that an account number? A. I have no idea. Q. Do you have any idea what the number under that is, 107758984? A. No. Q. There's also a heading that says, "Calls without Project Code." A. Right. I see it. Q. Do you know what that means? A. No. Q. The 2641071-TA, do you know what that is? A. No. Q. Is the phone bill that you receive from Touch America inclusive of all lines that Neuheisel had from December of 2001 to February of 2002? A. I believe so, but I'm not sure. Q. There could be other long-distance records that are not included in Plaintiff's Exhibit 4? A. I can't imagine it because there's no other company involved, but -Q. Have you reviewed Plaintiff's Exhibit 4 and compared it with the note lines? A. Yes. Q. Did you find any calls notated on the long-distance bills that were not in the note lines? A. I can't remember if it's in four or three, but there was one call that was not noted in the note lines. Q. Do you know what call that was? A. I believe it was to Paul Todd. Q. Paul Todd? Any other calls that you noticed that were contained within the phone records that were not within the note lines? A. No. Q. You still have the complete phone bill -A. Uh-huh. Q. -- from which Plaintiff's Exhibits 3 and 4 was compiled? A. Yes. Q. Are there any job requirements for an individual applying for the collector position? A. I'm not sure what you mean by that question. Q. Do they have to have, like, a high school diploma? A. No, not necessarily. Q. And they don't have to have any prior
20 21 22 23 0091 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0092 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0093 1 2 3 4
collection experience? A. Not necessarily. Q. Do you do background checks on your collectors before they're hired? A. No. Q. Do collectors have an expectation or a quota that they're expected to meet on a daily or weekly basis on the number of accounts that they attempt to contact on? A. I'm not sure. Can you rephrase that, please? Q. Sure. Some collection companies have a requirement that collectors make 100 calls per day or 200 calls per day. Does Neuheisel have any type of quota or expectation that collectors are expected to make a certain number of calls each day? A. No. Q. Do they have any type of quota or expectation that collectors are expected to work a specific number of accounts each day? A. No. Q. Other than the incentives where collectors are paid bonuses based on the amount of dollars that they collect, are there any other requirements governoring a collector's activity on an account not law related? A. Yeah. Q. I'm sorry. I understand that there's going to be requirements pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Neuheisel's policy and procedures manual and state law regulations for the specific state. But excluding the legal requirements, does Neuheisel have -- in the policy and procedures manual -- do you have any requirements for a collector's activity on an account; for instance, on how many calls they make or how many times they access an account on a daily basis or a weekly basis? A. No specific requirements. Q. How many accounts are generally assigned to each collector at one time? A. It depends on tenure. Q. For collectors that are past their initiation period, how many accounts are they generally handling? A. Are you talking about file size? Q. Right. A. It varies. Q. Can you give me a range? A. Anywhere from 300 to 6 or 700. There's one collector that has more than that. Q. Who's that? A. Henry Aldrete. Q. And there's some reference to him. tell me what his job title is?
Can you
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0094 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0095 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
A. He's a PPA collector. Q. And what's a PPA? A. Partial payment arrangement collector. Q. So if a payment plan is set up, does that account get transferred to Henry for collection? A. It depends on the type of plan. Q. Okay. Can you tell me what type of plans he normally collects? A. Accounts less than $250, payments of less than $250, without postdates. Q. And that's the only type of accounts he handles? A. Pretty much. Q. When did Jason Davidson leave? A. Late June of 2002. Q. Was he terminated? A. No. Q. Do you know why he quit? A. Yeah. I mean, I suspect. I don't know for sure. Q. Why did he quit? A. He went back to his old job. Q. Where was his old job? A. Corporate Receivables. Q. And they're located in Arizona, as well? A. Yes. Q. Do you have a last known address for Mr. Davidson? A. Yes. Q. Do you have it with you? A. The only one I have is in his personnel file, which, I believe, has been provided to you. Q. Okay. So that's the only address you have? A. Yes. Q. You listened to the -- or part of the recordings that were provided in this case; is that right? A. Yes. Q. And as a result of Mr. Jones' activity on this account, was he disciplined in any way? A. Verbally, yes. Q. Who was responsible for that verbal warning? A. Both me and Matt Gascon. Q. What did you tell him? A. That he was wrong. Q. Do you know what Matt told him? A. Basically, the same thing. We were both there. Q. It was at the same time? A. Yeah. They may have had separate conversations about it. I'm not aware of them. Q. Based on your -- do you know which calls you listened to? A. Part of the call, I believe, it was December 20th. And part of a call that I did not receive a
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0096 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0097 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
transcript for. MS. NETTLES: It was on the 21st. MS. NEUHEISEL: It was on the 21st? MS. NETTLES: Am I right? MS. NEUHEISEL: Yeah. I think you're right. Q. (By Ms. Hays) There's one on the 20th with Jason Davidson. A. I've not heard Jason Davidson on tape. Q. If Jason Davidson told [Consumer 2] that [Consumer 2] had been speaking to one of his representatives regarding a claim, that would be untrue? A. I can't speak for what Jason was thinking, but on its face, it appears untrue. Q. Mr. Davidson is not a lawyer? A. No. Q. Didn't have anyone that worked for or reported to him during his time at Neuheisel? A. Correct. MR. COBB: Were you reading from, "I believe you spoke to one of my representatives, Mr. James?" Is that the part you're reading from, Penny? MS. HAYS: Yeah. Q. (By Ms. Hays) That is a December 21, 2001, tape of the conversation with Mr. Jones? That's the one you listened to? A. Part of it. Q. Part of it? A. Uh-huh. Q. Do you know if it was the first part or middle part? A. I'd have to look at the transcript. I can't remember. MS. NETTLES: None of the telephone calls start where the telephone calls start. They all start mid-call. I don't know if that's what you're referring to, Penny. None of the tapes start with: Hello, this is, I don't think. MS. HAYS: Some of them do. I think it's -MS. NETTLES: I dont' think the one on the 21st does. It's not on the CD we got. Q. (By Ms. Hays) Was Mr. Davidson reprimanded in any way as a result of the calls? A. Yes. Q. Was that also a verbal reprimand? A. Yes. Q. Did you tell him the same thing you told Mr. Jones? A. Yeah. Q. Prior to this lawsuit, had you received any complaints, whether in writing from a debtor to your firm or through an attorney general on Mr. Jones? A. A debtor? I'm sorry. Can you say that again? Q. Yeah. Prior to the filing of this lawsuit,
23 0098 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0099 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0100 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
had you received any other complaints on Mr. Jones? A. Yes. Q. Prior to the filing of this lawsuit, had you received any prior complaints on Mr. Davidson? A. Yes. Q. Were either -- as a result of those previous complaints, were either of them on suspension? A. No. Q. Were either Mr. Jones or Mr. Davidson on probation? A. They had been verbally warned -- well, Mr. Jones' complaint I wasn't quite sure was a valid complaint. Mr. Davidson, yes. Q. Okay. And on Mr. Jones, because you weren't sure, was he just verbally warned? A. We went over the problems that that complaint involved. Q. And do you recall what those problems were? A. Oh, it was about an ex-wife who answered the phone at the number and address we had on file. And she advised us he wasn't there anymore. And Mr. Jones -- or Ken Jones asked whether or not he was still on the title for homestead purposes. And she complained about that. Q. Okay. The complaint on Mr. Davidson, was it -- let me go back. Sorry. Other than that one complaint, had you received any other prior complaints before the filing of this lawsuit on Mr. Jones? A. Not that I remember. Q. And the prior complaint against Jason Davidson, what did it involve? A. I'd have to review his personnel file, but he did get a written reprimand. Q. Was he on any type of pro -- was Mr. Davidson on any type of probation as a result of the prior complaint? A. I would consider him on a short leash, but formal probation term, no. Q. And Mr. Davidson was not given a written reprimand as a result of the filing of this lawsuit with the complaints made by [Consumers]? A. Written reprimand, no. Q. Does Neuheisel have a stepped discipline policy, stepped meaning like verbal warnings? There's a certain number of verbal warnings, and then they're given a written reprimand. And they can get a certain number of written reprimands before some -A. It's all discretionary based on, you know, the type of complaint, whether they're related, you know. Q. Is there any set number of written reprimands an employee can receive prior to being terminated?
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0101 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0102 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
A. No. Q. Is there any set number of verbal warnings that an employee can -- or a collector can receive prior to receiving a written reprimand? A. Not necessarily. Q. Who is responsible for issuing a verbal warning or a written reprimand? A. Matt Gascon and myself. Q. When you're -- what goes into your determination of whether or not a complaint should result in a verbal warning or written reprimand? A. The investigation and whether we think it was a legitimate complaint or not. Q. How do you investigate complaints? A. Well, we take any information provided to us by the complaining party. And we meet with the collector. And we study the notes and the phone records and try to determine whether it's legitimate or not. Q. You take the information provided by the debtor, meet with the collector, review the talk notes -- talk lines? A. Note lines. Q. Note lines? Did I miss one? A. Phone records, if it seems pertinent to the nature of the complaint. Q. And by phone records, do you mean records similar to what's contained in Plaintiff's Exhibits 3 and 4? A. Yes. Q. So you actually go to the long-distance bills or the report from Collect America? A. Yes. Q. Is there any other information that you look for in an investigation? A. I can't think of any right now. Q. When you're meeting with the collector, does that usually involve Matt Gascon, as well as yourself? A. Yes. Q. What types of violations or conduct generally results in a written reprimand instead of a verbal warning? A. If we can confirm the violation, it absolutely goes into a written reprimand. If it's a real dangerous area, it'll be a written reprimand even if we haven't been able to confirm it -- more warning as opposed to a reprimand if we can't confirm it, but we want to make sure they understand the seriousness of the allegations. Q. Can you give me an example of a dangerous area? A. Claiming to be an attorney when you're not. Q. Any others -- dangerous areas that you can think of that would result in a written reprimand
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0103 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0104 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0105 1
instead of a verbal warning? A. Any kind of threat of legal action that's not intended to be taken, not able to be taken. Q. Anything else? A. Not right now. Q. So if you can confirm that there was, in fact, a violation, does the violation have to be of the FDCPA, or does that include company policy? A. Company policy, as well. Q. And state law, as well? A. Yes. Q. Any violation of either FDCPA, company policy, or state regulation results in a written reprimand? A. Not always. Q. When would it not result in a written reprimand? A. Well, for example, if someone noted a dispute in the note lines and forget to click the dispute box, a verbal warning. You know, it's a training issue. If it's a training issue on the STARS program and they're just getting use to some of our policies, we might not write them up for it. Q. Can you think of any others, like the notice box, that would be a training issue? A. Yes. Q. What are some of the other ones? A. It's our policy that any time there's an attorney on an account, whether or not they represent them for this particular matter, we light up the attorney box and put it on the front screen, note it on the front screen. If someone forgets to do that, where they're handling a divorce, but not necessarily this matter, and they're seeking our cooperation or something. Q. Any other ones that you can think of? A. Not right now. Q. If it's not a training issue, like the two that we just had examples of, and there's a violation of FDCPA, company policy, or state law, that results in a written reprimand? A. Generally. Q. Can you think of any other examples or times when a violation would not result in a written reprimand? A. I just said I couldn't think of anything right now, but I don't -Q. I mean, I know we talked about the training issues and there might be some other example that is more of a training issue in your mind. Is there anything that you classify differently than a training issue that might not result in a written reprimand? A. I can't think of any.
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0106 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0107 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Q. Dangerous areas sometimes result in written reprimands. What other conduct by collectors can result in a written reprimand? A. Attendance issues, insubordination to management, things of that nature. Q. Okay. Are collectors given a verbal warning on attendance before a written reprimand? A. Generally. Q. How many? A. It varies on the frequency and within what time frame. Q. Is that generally the case with insubordination, as well? A. Yes. Q. Other than verbal warnings and written reprimands, what are the other means that you use to discipline your collectors? A. Well, termination, you know, reduce in pay. Q. Reduce in pay? A. Yeah. Q. Okay. A. Losing their bonus, placement of new business. Q. Have all of those been in effect since December of 2001? A. Yes. Q. What type of conduct results in a reduction in pay? A. Usually performance issues. Q. That would include not collecting their goal? A. Correct. Q. Are there any others that you -A. No, not that I can think of. Q. What about losing a bonus? A. Well, you abandon your job, you lose your bonus, attendance issues, certain things. Q. Do collectors ever lose their bonus if there's a confirmed complaint on a call where they received a payment? A. I'm not sure what you're asking me. Q. If a collector makes a call on an account and collects, for example, a $1,000 payment, and then subsequent to that -- and as a result of that payment that they collect, receives a bonus, and then subsequent to that bonus, the Neuheisel Law Firm receives a complaint on how that call was handled, can collectors lose the bonus that was paid? MS. NETTLES: Object to the form of the question. A. That is not a written policy, if that's what you're asking -- the way you phrased it, no. Q. (By Ms. Hays) Is that part of the practice at Neuheisel? A. No, not necessarily.
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0108 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0109 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
Q. Has that ever been done? A. No. Q. Placement of new business, I think I got a little bit of an understanding from Mr. Jones' deposition. But that's where the new accounts are not -- or as many new accounts are not given to the collector; is that right? A. Correct. Q. What type of conduct results in the loss of placement of new business? A. Usually attendance issues and/or performance issues. Q. What type of conduct results in termination? A. Insubordination, violation of, you know, the laws, a variety -- I mean, it's discretionary, performance. Q. Have you terminated any collectors since December of 2001 based on a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act? A. No. Q. Have you terminated any collectors since December of 2001 based on a violation of company policy? A. Yes. Q. Who was that? A. Vanessa Perez. Q. What policy did she violate? A. Attendance. Q. Have you terminated any employee since December of 2001 based on a violation of a state law? A. No. Q. Other than this collector who was terminated for violating the attendance policy, have you terminated any other collector since December of 2001? A. Yes. Q. How many? A. Two that I can think of. Q. Were either of those two individuals terminated based on how they handled collection calls versus performance and attendance? A. No. Q. Have we talked about -- I think we have, but can you think of any other means that are used to discipline a collector base on their conduct? A. Not right now. MS. HAYS: I think that's a pretty good place to stop. MS. NETTLES: How much longer do you think you're going to be with her? MS. HAYS: Maybe an hour, two, not very long. MS. NETTLES: Two hours is an eternity in a deposition. MS. HAYS: It would be tonight, but it won't
20 21 22 23 0110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0111 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0112 1 2 3 4
be later. MS. NETTLES: Okay. MS. HAYS: I think that's a really good place to stop before I go into the new area. And that way we can just start fresh either tomorrow or after the [Consumers]' depos or Thursday. MS. NETTLES: Hopefully, we can do it tomorrow just so she won't have to -MS. HAYS: Right. And I'll bring all my information, and we'll -MS. NETTLES: Are we doing this here, or are we doing it at your office? MS. HAYS: We're doing it in here. MS. NETTLES: Okay. That's fine. I don't care. I just -- I didn't know. Actually, that's better for me. MS. NEUHEISEL: I know where I'm going. MS. HAYS: Actually, we thought it would be better just because y'all had so many more people that we thought it would be easier, so we just moved it here. MS. HAYS: Before we go, I want to put this on the record. Plaintiffs notice the deposition of Jason Davidson, who is a party defendant in this case. We were notified by defendant's counsel they could not locate him or bring him. And I want the record to reflect that he did not appear for his deposition today. MS. NETTLES: All right. I'd like to go on the record, also, today by saying that he's not here today. I'm still representing him. I'm still attempting to get him to travel to Alabama to take a deposition. He had a -- his father-in-law died. He's been in Florida. We've not been able to contact him, but that's where we are right now. MS. HAYS: Okay. That's fine. (The deposition adjourned for the day.) June 19, 2003 8:15 a.m.
KATHRYN NEUHEISEL, having been previously first duly sworn, testified as follows: EXAMINATION BY MS. HAYS (Continued): Q. Back on the record. Good morning. It seems like a long delay since we last left. I have a couple of things that I forgot to cover that are just background. Do you have any relatives that live in the state of Alabama? A. No. Q. Okay. Do you belong to any churches or synagogues in Arizona? A. No.
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0113 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0114 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Q. Any clubs or organizations? A. Informal clubs and organizations. Like, I'm in an investment group. I'm a member of the county and state bar in Arizona, Maricopa County. Q. And we had noticed the deposition for the person most knowledgeable under the corporate representative, as well as your deposition. And I understand that you're here as the person most knowledgeable, as well; is that right? A. Correct. Q. Is there anyone, other than yourself, who would have more knowledge than you on the -- other than Ken Jones and Jason Davidson -- on the conversations between Ken Jones and Jason Davidson and the plaintiffs? A. Possibly Matt Gascon. Q. Okay. Have you had any conversations with Matt regarding the conversations between your two collectors and the plaintiffs? A. Yes. Q. Tell me about those conversations. A. We just went over the transcripts once they were received and were outraged. Q. Was that just one conversation? A. I'm sure we've had a few. Q. Do you know -- the first -- when you went over the transcripts, can you tell me what you talked about during the second conversation? A. Same stuff. Q. Did you talk at all about disciplining Davidson or Jones? A. By the time we got the transcripts, Davidson was no longer employed by Neuheisel Law Firm. Q. What about Ken? A. By that time, we had had so many conversations with Ken Jones about his recollection, and he was very remorseful, and, frankly, couldn't recall that it even happened. As he testified here, he felt that he had a very good rapport with the [Consumers]. And at that point, we just -- we verbally had reprimanded him. He already had a final warning in his file. He knew if any more indiscretions, he was gone. Q. What about the policy and procedures of handling the collection of past-due accounts? Is there anyone, other than yourself, that would be more knowledgeable? A. On a day-to-day basis, Matt Gascon. Q. And what about the actual monitoring of collectors, would Matt have more knowledge on the monitoring procedures at Neuheisel Law Firm than you would? A. Yes. Q. And I believe you told me that he came on in 2000, Matt did?
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0115 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0116 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
A. Correct. Q. And you're here as a representative for Neuheisel, as well as on behalf of yourself? A. I believe so, yes. Q. Neuheisel Law Firm is governed by the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. A. Yes. Q. And they're a debt collector, as defined by Fair Debt Collection Practices Act? A. Yes. Q. And Ken Jones is also a debt collector governed by the Fair Debt Collection Practice Act? A. Yes. Q. And Jason Davidson? A. Yes. Q. There's no dispute that Ken Jones and Jason Davidson contacted [Consumers], is there? A. No. Q. And you also admit that they contacted both of the plaintiffs at their place of employment. A. I don't believe they ever spoke with [Consumer 1] at her place of employment. Q. But they called her places of employment? A. I believe so, yes. Q. And Neuheisel Law Firm received a cease and desist, verbally, from [Consumer 2] not to contact him at work any further? A. I believe so, yes. Q. And after they received that verbal cease and desist, the collectors made additional phone calls to [Consumer 2] at work on at least one occasion? A. Yes. Q. Does Matt Gascon live in Tempe, Arizona? A. No. Q. Do you know where he lives? A. I believe it's Phoenix. Q. Do you have -- are there any documents that collectors at Neuheisel Law Firm fax to employers? A. No. Q. Consumers? A. No. Q. Never? A. No. Q. If an employee is written up for a violation of company policy or the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, that write-up is in their personnel file? A. Correct. Q. And if there's not a write-up in the personnel file, then there was no write-up? A. Correct. Q. The collection work in California that Debra Harvego does, that just consists of filing the lawsuits in California?
23 0117 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0118 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0119 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
A. Correct. Q. There's actually no collection activity other than the lawsuits that takes place in California? A. Correct. Q. I was going over the Plaintiff's Exhibit 7, which contains the note lines and also the account history. And there were a couple of items that Mr. Jones could not identify for us. On the last page of Plaintiff's Exhibit 7, which is Neuheisel Document No. 11, it says on 12/12, the second from the bottom entry -A. Yes. Q. It has a C. Brower. A. Yes. Q. Who is that? A. His name is Curt Brower. Q. And is he a collector? A. No. Q. What is his position at Neuheisel? A. He is vice president of franchise relations for Collect America. Q. So he's not an employee of Neuheisel Law Firm? A. No, he's not. Q. Okay. And then on 12/13, it says, "[Consumer 1] was sent to Lexis for processing." What does that mean? A. I believe it goes through a Lexis-Nexis (phonetic) search mode. That's the NCOA que, National Change of Address. It searches for any changes of address from the one provided to us. Q. And is that something that -- are these first entries something that are done by Collect America? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And when you actually receive the bulk files, are they just put on the system at Collect America's headquarters and then you're notified, or how does that work? A. I'm not really sure. I know what I get in Arizona. Q. Tell me what you get in Arizona when accounts are turn -A. Well, in this particular case, you have the placement agreement. And I think 500 accounts from MBNA were placed with my office. And I only have access to those 500. Q. Okay. When you received those 500 accounts, you didn't actually get 500 paper files? A. Correct. Q. It's all electronically? A. Correct. Q. Okay. And what you -- is what you receive -what's contained within Plaintiff's Exhibit 7 is an account history and information on their address,
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0120 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0121 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
phone number, date, Social Security number? A. Correct. Q. So NCOA means National Change of Address? A. Correct. Q. Do you know what the RA means? A. Reviewed account. Q. On the next page, going in order on the very bottom, there's an entry on 12/17. And it has AC, which I believe I was told is active, meaning active? A. I'm sure -- oh, yes. Q. On the very bottom entry, it has AC for active, and then it has COL for collector? A. Correct. Q. RA -- what is that? A. Reviewed account. Q. Okay. PR? A. Personal information. Q. Going back to page 9 on the 1/18/2002. A. Yes. Q. It has, "Sent to First Data for processing." What is First Data? A. I'm not sure. Q. Okay. And then on 2/13/2002, the account was moved from the suit-request que to the returned que; is that right? A. Yes. Q. Meaning that the request for suit had been denied? A. Yes. Q. On page 8, going forward one page, there's the 2/15 entry that has the PON? A. Yes. Q. Do you know what that is? A. Put on notice. Q. Let me show you what I'm marking as Plaintiff's Exhibit 5 to your deposition. And it's a document that I pulled out from the payroll records that were submitted. Can you tell me on -where it has your name, and then it has a check for 1846.15. (Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 5 marked for identification.) A. Yes. Q. And then it has the amount deducted of 1846.15? A. Uh-huh. Q. Can you tell me what's happening there because it happens -A. Direct deposit. Q. Direct deposit. So if the deducted amount equals the amount of the check, it means it was direct deposit? A. Correct. Q. Regardless of the employee? Because it's
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0122 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0123 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0124 1
throughout the records. And I can give them to you if you need them. I was just trying to give an example. A. I believe that's true. Q. Okay. And if a collector receives a bonus, are taxes withheld from those bonuses? A. Yes. Q. And so any check, like on Henry Aldrete, where there's two checks, is the second check a bonus check? A. Yes. Q. Let me show you what I'm marking as Plaintiff's Exhibit 6. This is just something that was also in the documents. And can you tell me -this looks like -- or can you identify Plaintiff's Exhibit 6? (Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 6 marked for identification.) A. It's a flow chart for supervisor review. Q. All right. And what does this represent? A. The ideal process for the flow of accounts that are put in the supervisor review que. Q. How many accounts are in the supervisor review que? A. It varies. Q. Is there a certain percentage of accounts? A. I have no -- no. I mean, it just varies. Q. Okay. How does an account get to a supervisor review que? A. Someone places it there and they put: Request paid, request cancel, request suit, request for verification of debt. Q. Okay. So it starts with new business on the far left? Is that what's coming from the collector or is that just a new account coming in? A. That's a new account coming in to the collector's que. Q. Okay. And what does RC mean? A. Request cancel. Q. What does that mean? A. Canceling the account. Q. And what does canceling the account mean? A. We're requesting that our client take the account back. Q. So in this case, it would go back to Collect America? A. Correct. Q. And can you tell me what BP means? A. Broken promise. Q. And RP? A. Request paid. Q. What does request paid mean? A. Means the account has been paid and no more payments are due.
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0125 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0126 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Q. Okay. So if they make a promise to pay and then they don't follow through, and you have a good number, looks like it goes back to trying to obtain a promise to pay? A. Possibly. I'm not sure where you're looking. Q. Right here (indicating). If there's a promise to pay, and that promise is not kept, and there's a good number, then it would come back to promise to pay? A. Correct. Q. Where the collector is trying to obtain a subsequent promise? A. Correct. Q. And if it has to go to skip tracing, is that what skip is (sic)? A. Correct. Q. And then RC would be a request cancel the account? A. Correct. Q. What is S -- looks like SR Fran? A. Supervisor review at the franchise level. Q. Would that be done by you? A. Someone with the supervisor status at Neuheisel Law Firm. Q. What individuals have supervisor status at Neuheisel? A. Myself, Debra Harvego, Matt Gascon. Possibly, Matt Filak and Dave Lerner. I'm not sure. Q. Who would know whether they had the ability to perform the supervisor review? A. Well, they have access to it. I just don't know that when they hit request cancel if it stays at the supervisor review franchise level or goes to the corporate review level. It would take me a minute on the computer to figure it out. Q. Okay. Is that something that you set up as to who has the authority to do the supervisor review? A. Matt Gascon. Q. He set that up? A. With my authority. He's handier on the computer than I am. Q. And what does the franchise -- supervisor review at the franchise level actually mean? What kind of review are you talking about? A. That just means at the law firm level. Q. What are you actually reviewing? A. The account to see if it warrants canceling or if we want to put it, maybe, in a different collector's que. Q. Are collectors -- do all of the collectors that work for Neuheisel receive accounts at various stages? A. I don't understand the question. Q. Sometimes collectors are divided into groups
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0127 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0128 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
where certain collectors who have more experience are given accounts that are older that are more difficult to collect, maybe after an initial collector has made some attempts to collect on a debt. Do you have that type of division at Neuheisel Law Firm? A. No, not currently. Q. Have you in the past had that division? A. Yes. Q. When did you have that type of division? A. It wasn't exactly as you explained it. But I think from December of 2001 through October of 2002, we had what we called a tier structure. Q. Okay. Tell me about the tier structure. A. The more experienced collectors, which we called front-line collectors, got a division of the new business and were given 90 days to collect it. Q. In December of '01, who were your more experienced collectors? A. Well, Ken Jones and Jason Davidson, Dave Lerner, Matt Filak. And that's all I can remember right now. Q. So when new business came in, it was assigned to one of those four collectors? A. I believe there were more than that, but I can't remember who they were. Q. Okay. When new business came in, it was assigned to one of the collectors in this first tier, which was the more experienced, front line? A. Correct. Q. And then they had 90 days to collect the account. A. Yes. Q. What happened after 90 days? A. The account was reviewed on a case-by-case basis and determined whether it would stay with that collector or move to a second-tier collector. Q. What type of information were you looking for in making your determination whether it would stay with the collector or move to the second tier? A. Just if there was communication between the collector and the consumer. And we felt, you know, it would be beneficial to leave it with that collector, to keep the relationship going, whether there were promises on the account, payments on the account, things of that nature. Q. In making that review, were you just reviewing the note lines? A. Yes. Q. Was there any conversation with the collector? A. Not generally. Q. So if there's communication on a file or possibly promises to pay or actual payments made, would the account generally stay with the first-tier
20 21 22 23 0129 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0130 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0131 1 2 3 4
collector? A. Yes. Q. And if those items weren't there, it would move to a second-tier collector? A. Generally, yeah. Q. Can you tell me some of the second-tier collectors at the time? A. I can't. I don't remember. Q. The second-tier collectors were less experienced? A. Sometimes. Some people who had experience preferred that role. Q. And what role would the second-tier collectors play? A. They would try to just set up payment arrangements as opposed to settlements and payments in full. Q. Is the second tier generally a less firm demand from the collector? MS. NETTLES: Object to form. A. Not necessarily. Q. (By Ms. Hays) The goal of the second-tier collector is to just set up payment arrangements, though? A. Not necessarily. Q. Okay. Tell me what the goal of the second-tier collector would be. A. The goal is always to get the account paid in full, as quickly as possible; however, some cases warrant payment arrangements. Q. At that time, in December of 2001, did front-line collectors have the authority to set up payment arrangements, as well? A. Yes. Q. Did you have any other tiers other than first and second tier? A. Just the PPA file. Q. Was Henry handling the PPA file at the time? A. I don't believe so. And to be honest, we had one person before Henry, a Mike Malaski, who's no longer with us. And I'm not sure when we established the PPA file. It wasn't established the minute we opened our doors. It was down the road. And I can't remember, as we sit here today, what month that happened. Q. And, correct me if I'm wrong because I'm not remembering, but PPA files, you told me, were payment arrangements where the account balance was -- or the payments were less than $100? A. $250. Q. $250. Is that the payment or the balance? A. Payment. Q. So the account would stay with the second-tier collector so long as the payments were
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0132 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0133 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
in excess of $250 a month? A. Or if they had a postdate. Q. Okay. Back to Plaintiff's Exhibit 6. Did Neuheisel Law Firm develop Plaintiff's Exhibit 6 or did this come from Collect America? A. No. It came from Collect America. Q. Okay. And after the review at the franchise level, then it goes to -- it says, "SR Corp." And is that a supervisor review by Collect America? A. No. That's a supervisor review by an attorney or a senior manager at Neuheisel Law Firm. Q. Who had the authority to perform that review? A. Myself, Debra Harvego, and Matt Gascon. Q. Matt is not an attorney, is he? A. No. Q. And then after the senior review at corporate level, which was Neuheisel Law Firm, it went to -and it's cut off, is it cancelled (sic)? A. I believe so. Q. Let me show you what I've marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit 7 and ask if you can identify that for us. (Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 7 marked for identification.) A. It's the sales que flow chart. Q. What does that mean? A. The sales que is generally used for obtaining information from our client. Q. Being Collect America? A. No, our client varies. Q. Is this, Plaintiff's Exhibit 7, a document you received from Collect America? A. Yes. Q. Would you use it whether the accounts came from Collect America or one of your other clients? A. All the accounts in the STARS system come from Collect America. But the clients that they manage the accounts for vary. Q. So it might be CACV? A. Correct. Q. Or one of the other clients that you've already told us about? A. Correct. Q. Is there a report that's printed based on the diagram contained in Plaintiff's Exhibit 7? A. I don't understand your question. Q. Well, it tells you that -- what does Plaintiff's Exhibit 7 tell us? A. It tells us the flow of accounts that enter the sales que. Q. And what's a sales que? A. It's the que where you put an account where you need information from your client. Q. I'm kind of confused. Does that mean if Collect America gives you this group of accounts
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0134 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0135 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
from MBNA and there are ten or 15 in there that have incomplete information or have requested a verification of the debt, is that when Plaintiff's Exhibit 7 would come into play? A. Yes. Q. And can you tell me what HCI at the top means? A. Hold for client information. Q. Okay. And then the next one, HCV? A. Hold for client verification, which is verification of debt information. Q. And HCP on the bottom? A. Hold for client payment. If a payment had been made between the point where the account was sold from the original creditor to our client. Q. And on the verification of debt, it goes back to Collect America who then sends it to their client. And if the debt is verified, it comes back to the collector? A. Correct. Q. If it's not verified, it's closed? A. Correct. Q. On the lawsuit we talked about on Tuesday, the Ferrin (phonetic) versus Neuheisel Law Firm -A. Yes. Q. -- that was resolved. Was that case settled? A. Yes. Q. Was that settlement confidential? A. I don't remember. Q. You don't remember if it's confidential or you don't remember what it was settled for? A. I remember what it was settled for, but I don't remember if I signed a confidentiality agreement or not. Q. Was it less than what was sued for? A. Yes. Q. How much was it settled for? MS. NETTLES: I'm going to instruct her not to answer that if she can't remember whether she signed a confidentiality agreement or not. Q. (By Ms. Hays) Will you check to see if there's a confidentiality agreement? A. Certainly. Q. When this Ferrin lawsuit was settled, was the payment made from your law firm or from the insurance company? MS. NETTLES: I'm going to object to that, as well. That could very well be covered by the confidentiality agreement. MS. HAYS: On who paid it? MS. NETTLES: Yes. Q. (By Ms. Hays) Let me show you what's been marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit 8. Can you identify that for us? (Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 8
23 0136 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0137 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0138 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
marked for identification.) A. It is Collect America's minimum work standards. Q. And are these the work standards and performance standards that your collectors are governed by on Collect America accounts? A. Yes. Q. I'm going to show you this document, which is Neuheisel Law Firm, page 12 through Neuheisel -- NLF page 90. And there's a cover on it that says, "Neuheisel Law Firm's Employee Manual." A. Yes. Q. Is this how the manual is given to the employees in its entirety together? A. Yes. It comes in a notebook. Q. Okay. And there's different groups of documents, like a policy and procedures manual, contained within the employee manual? A. Correct. Q. Correct. But it's all given under this title of employee manual? A. Yes. Q. So anything contained within those pages would be something that was given to the collectors at Neuheisel? A. Yes. Q. Did you help draft the policy and procedures in the employee manual? A. Not initially, no. Q. When was the employee manual compiled? A. In mid-1999. Q. And it's been updated since then? A. Yes. Q. And I believe the personnel guide is actually dated July of 2001? A. Correct. Q. When the personnel guide was amended in July of 2001, did you help prepare that personnel guide? A. Yes. Q. Has it been changed at all -- the personnel guide, has it been changed at all since July 1, 2001? A. A little bit, yes. Q. Can you tell me -- and you're welcome to look at this -- what's been changed by the personnel guide? (Witness reviews document.) A. The compensation section has been changed. Q. Okay. And that's on page 39? A. Yes. Q. When did that change? A. Well, it changed in December of 2001. And then it changed again in, I believe, October of 2002.
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0139 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0140 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Q. The page 39 that we have, is that the current compensation schedule, or was that the schedule in July of 2001, prior to its change? A. That was the compensation provisions in July of 2001. Q. Okay. What is the compensation -- what was the compensation schedule for December 2001? A. It was basically, I believe, the same as put forth on page 39 -- strike that -- now that I read it, we did not have contingent debt collectors in December of 2001. Everybody collect -- did a little bit of everything. And that was when the tier structure went into effect. Q. So the change in December of 2001, you got rid of contingent collectors and introduced the tier structure? A. I believe so, yes. Q. Okay. What's a contingent collector? A. That was AIMCO. I talked about AIMCO before, AIMCO debt, primarily. I think there was a few other small accounts that Collect America placed with us, but I can't remember their names. Q. But you don't have contingent collectors at this time? A. No. Q. Was the bonus schedule the same for dollars and percentages? A. I don't understand your question. Q. I believe it says that they have to collect more than ten times their gross salary; correct? A. To receive a bonus, yes. Q. Correct. And that's the same as it -- is that what it was in December of 2001, as well? A. Yes. Q. And if they collect more than ten times their gross salary, they're entitled to a bonus of 2.5 percent up to 40,000; and then if they collect more than 40,000, they were given 5 percent? A. According to this document, yes. Q. Okay. And do you recall what it was in December of 2001? A. The first-year collectors, their hurdle to reach 5 percent was raised to 45,000. Q. So from 30 to 45, they received 2.5 percent? A. No, ten times their base to 45. Q. Okay. Were all the first-year collectors being paid 3,000? A. No. Q. Who was -- were some being paid more than -A. No. No one has ever been paid more than 3,000 base. Q. Okay. What was the bonus schedule for second-tier collectors, if you remember? A. It was similar, ten times their base. But their hurdle to reach 5 percent was, I believe,
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0141 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0142 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0143 1
30,000, but I'm not 100 percent sure. Q. Was their hurdle lower because once it moved to second tier, the account was more difficult to collect, generally? A. Well, not difficult to collect, but the liquidation was lower because a lot of the accounts had already been collected. Q. Any other changes in the employee manual other than page 39? A. No. Q. There's also a policy and procedures guideline that's included in this employee manual. Has it changed at all? A. No. Q. Did you -- in 1999, who prepared the employee manual? A. Debra Harvego. Q. Did anyone else contribute? A. I helped. Q. What portions did you help with? A. A little bit of all of it. Q. Policy and procedures manual, has it changed since 1999? A. I don't know. Q. Do you know if what we have in this employee manual that was provided to us is the guidelines as they existed in 2001, December 2001? A. Yes. Q. Has the policy and procedures guidelines changed since December 2001? A. Yes. Q. When did they change? A. Well, I don't know dates, but we no longer work with that, for example, so that's kind of obsolete. The postdated check section, we now require management verification before we take a check. Q. When did the management review become a requirement? A. I want to say sometime last summer. Q. What prompted that change? A. Growth and we added additional managers. Q. Is that when you added Mr. Lerner and Filak as supervisors? A. Yes. Q. Did you add any other managers? A. No. Q. Do Mr. Lerner and Mr. Filak have responsibilities for collecting their own accounts, as well as supervising the other collectors? A. No. Q. In December 2001, January 2002, Mr. Lerner and Mr. Filak were just collectors? A. Yes.
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0144 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0145 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Q. And when they became supervisors, they no longer had to collect their own accounts? A. Correct. Matt Filak had a file for a brief period of time. Q. Do those two supervisors receive a bonus based on how much their collectors collect on accounts? A. Yes. Q. What is their bonus schedule based on? A. They have a minimum number to hit. And then they get 3 percent of all gross dollars collected over that number. Q. Do you know what that number is? A. Today it's 190,000. Q. A month? A. Yes. Q. Other than the postdated checks and the fact that you no longer deal with Equity somebody, do you see any other changes that have occurred? A. We no longer get Wells Fargo accounts. Q. When did that stop? A. Not sure. Q. Why did that stop? A. I don't know. Q. Was that a decision made by Collect America? A. I don't know. Q. Did the Wells Fargo accounts come from Collect America? A. Yes. Q. Any other changes in the employee manual? A. I thought we were on this one section. Let me keep looking. (Witness reviews document.) A. Not that I recall. Q. Other than the changes that we've talked about, has there been any change to the conduct sections in the employee manual that was provided to us since December of 2001? A. Not that I recall. Q. What's contained within that employee manual, beginning with document page 12, was governing Ken Jones and Jason Davidson in December of 2001? A. Correct. Q. Were the policies contained within the employee manual adopted in order to comply with the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act? A. To assist with compliance. Q. And that employee manual also contains the state laws and their requirements; correct? A. Yes. Q. And those were included in the employee manual to assist in collectors complying with those state requirements? A. Correct. Q. Does Neuheisel Law Firm collect debts in all
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0146 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0147 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
50 states? A. No. Q. Which states do they not collect in? A. We are not provided with Massachusetts accounts or Colorado accounts. Q. Was that a decision made by Collect America? A. It's state law. They're restricted states, so, yes. Q. This manual is provided to every collector when they're hired; correct? A. Yes. Q. And it comes in a binder? A. Yes. Q. Do the collectors have to sign an acknowledgment that they received an employee manual? A. Yes. Q. And if they signed it, that would be in their personnel file? A. Yes. Q. At the end of the employee manual, there's like a law review article. And that's just also something that was provided to collectors? A. If it's here, it was provided to the collectors. Q. Okay. A. I'm not sure which one you're referring to. Q. Let me show it to you. It's on page 78. A. Yes. Q. If there were collection memos that had been provided to collectors as part of training, would those memos be added to the employee manual, as well, to be given to the new employees? A. Yes. Q. I'll show you what I've marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit 9 and ask you if you can identify that. (Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 9 marked for identification.) A. It's a certification of Jason Davidson. Q. Is this certification something that's required by Collect America? A. Yes. Q. And you signed it? Is that your signature on the bottom? A. Yes. Q. And it was dated 1/5/2001? A. Yes. Q. And you personally certified that Jason Davidson, who is a person employed by the Collect America franchise, for which you're the supervising attorney, is sufficiently proficient in his knowledge of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act; is that correct? A. Can you say that again? Q. Sure. You certify that Jason Davidson, a
20 21 22 23 0148 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0149 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0150 1 2 3 4
person employed by the Collect America franchise, for which you are the supervising attorney, was sufficiently proficient in his knowledge of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act? A. Yes. Q. Did you ever notify Collect America that you were withdrawing your certification of Jason Davidson? A. No. Q. Did you ever withdraw your certification of Jason Davidson? A. No. Q. I'm going to show you what I've marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit 10. And is that a written reprimand on Jason Davidson? (Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 10 marked for identification.) A. Yes. Q. And it's dated February 20, 2002? A. Yes. Q. He was written up for failing to properly disclose that he was not an attorney? A. Correct. Q. And I'm assuming you had had a complaint that he claimed to be an attorney? A. Yes. Q. And do you know what file that was on? A. The file that's got Social Security number 144-62-2005. Q. That's not the [Consumer] account? A. No. Q. I'm showing you what I've marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit 11, and it's a letter -- can you identify Plaintiff's Exhibit 11? (Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 11 marked for identification.) A. Yes. It's a letter addressed to me from Jeffrey M. Cohen -- or actually, I guess, it was from Enrique M. Lamela, from the Law Offices of Jeffrey M. Cohen. Q. And it was regarding an account for Angela Hartman? A. No. Q. I'm sorry. His client was Angela Hartman? A. Yes. Q. And the write-up on Jason Davidson is the same day that you received a fax of this letter from a lawyer? A. Yes. Q. And in this letter the attorney notified you that Mr. Davidson had repeatedly harassed and threatened his client regarding a debt; correct? A. Yes. Q. And that Mr. Davidson had threatened to take
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0151 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0152 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
his client to court, seize her bank accounts, and take her house; correct? A. That's what the letter said. Q. And also that he claimed he was an attorney? A. Yes. Q. But Mr. Davidson was only written up for failing to disclose he was not an attorney? A. Yes. MS. NETTLES: I think that mistake is the document. Go back and look at the exhibit. MS. HAYS: You can come back on redirect and ask any questions you like. MS. NETTLES: Thank you. I object to the question because I believe it misstates the document that she's already marked into evidence. MS. HAYS: The question has been already answered, and the document can speak for itself. This document is -MS. NETTLES: It certainly can. Q. (By Ms. Hays) When you received this letter from the attorney on February 20th, did you do any investigation? A. Yes. Q. Tell me about the investigation that you performed. A. Talked to Mr. Davidson and reviewed the note lines. Q. And did Mr. Davidson admit he represented himself as an attorney? A. No. Q. Did he admit that he had harassed or threatened this individual? A. No. Q. Did you take his word for it? A. On this occasion, yes. Q. I'll show you what I've marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit 12. Is that the certification that you provided to Collect America on Ken Jones? (Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 12 marked for identification.) A. Yes. Q. And it was dated May 30, 2001? A. Correct. Q. I'll show you what I've marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit 13. Is that a write-up on Mr. Jones? (Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 13 marked for identification.) A. Yes. Q. And it's dated March 21, 2002? A. Correct. Q. Do you have any knowledge of what account this complaint arose out of? A. I have a vague recollection. Q. Can you tell me, as best you recall, what account this might have been related to?
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0153 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0154 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
A. It was a woman. I don't remember her name. I think it's Maria something. Q. Do you remember how you were notified of this woman's complaint? A. I'm not sure she complained. I was notified by Mr. Gascon of the problem that resulted in this write-up. Q. Okay. What did Mr. Gascon tell you? A. That Mr. Jones contacted -- or attempted to contact a consumer at a phone number provided to us by our client and spoke with a third party who hung up on him. He picked up the phone and called that third party again and tried to leave a message. Q. How did Mr. Gascon know that this had taken place? A. I'm not sure, but I believe it was through an account audit, auditing notes. Q. To the best of your recollection, did you ever receive anything in writing from this individual complaining about Mr. Jones' conduct? A. We did not. Q. I show you Plaintiff's Exhibit 14. Is that a write-up on Mr. Jones from 6/5/02? (Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 14 marked for identification.) A. Yes. Q. And what was he written up for on this occasion? A. Third-party disclosure. Q. Was this write-up done by Matt Gascon? A. Yes. Q. Was Plaintiff's 13 also done by Matt Gascon? A. Yes. Q. And then you also signed off on the bottom of Plaintiff's 14? A. Yes. Q. Did you receive a letter complaining about the conduct which resulted in the June 5, 2002 write-up? A. I believe so, yes. Q. Was that letter from Carol Davie? A. Yes. Q. I'll show you Plaintiff's Exhibit 15. Is that one of the letters that you received from Ms. Carol Davie? (Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 15 marked for identification.) A. Yes. Q. Did you have any conversations with Ms. Davie? A. No. Q. Tell me what -- did you investigate at all her claims? A. Yes. Q. How did you investigate her claims?
23 0155 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0156 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0157 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
A. We spoke with -- Matt Gascon and I spoke with Mr. Jones. Q. And she claimed that Mr. Jones had began his conversation with, "What are you going to do about this?" A. That's what she alleges, yes. Q. And that he was hateful and raised his voice? A. Yes. Q. Did you -- did Mr. Gascon happen to be monitoring this call when it took place? A. I don't think so. Q. Were you monitoring this call? A. No. Q. Did anyone besides Mr. Jones at Neuheisel Law Firm have knowledge as to what took place during this call? A. No. Q. I'll show you what I've marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit 16. And that's a written reprimand for Ken Jones on July 31, 2002; is that right? (Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 16 marked for identification.) A. Yes. Q. And that was also a write-up done by Matt Gascon? A. Correct. Q. And this write-up indicates that Mr. Jones violated company policy by making two calls and sending a letter after they received a dispute? A. Correct. Q. And this was Mr. Jones' final warning? A. Correct. Q. Do you recall how you were made aware of Maureen Vaughn's complaint? A. Yes. Q. How? A. In our system we have what we call system letters. And we have a first demand and a second demand. And the collector requests a second demand, which can only be printed 35 days after the first demand has been printed. And they print at my office. And we review those letters daily -- or this week I'm not there, so they won't be printed until I get back -- and we cross-reference to make sure that the letter should go, so we look at the account notes. Q. And were you actually the individual who noticed that he had requested the letter too soon, or how did this come about? A. It wasn't that he requested it too soon; it was it should not have been requested. Q. At all? A. Correct. Q. Who discovered --
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0158 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0159 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
A. Mr. Gascon. Q. Was any other investigation done other than reviewing the account notes with the request for the letter? A. Speaking with Mr. Jones. Q. Did he admit that he had done that? A. Yes. Q. When collection memos are given out to collectors, are they still required to sign that they received them? A. Not always. Q. When would you require a collector to sign that he had received a specific memo? A. I'm not sure. Q. Have you done that in the past year? A. I'm not sure. Q. Have you given out any collection memos in the past year? A. I'm sure we have, yes. Q. And those would be at the weekly -- I'm sorry -- at the monthly meetings? A. Not necessarily, no. Q. What other times would you give them out? A. As things arise. If we believe attendance is becoming a problem, we'll issue a memo reminding everyone that attendance is important and of our policies regarding attendance, things of that nature. Q. If it's a memo dealing with the FDCPA or a state law or the handling of an account, as it relates to the FDCPA, is that a memo that would be signed by the collectors? A. Not necessarily. Q. And are those given out as needed, as well? A. Yes. Q. If you give those out, do you have a meeting so that you can talk about the changes? A. Yes. Q. Is that generally happening at the monthly meeting, or would that be like a special call meeting? A. It depends. Q. Would you have any notes or record of those meetings taking place? A. You mean like minutes? Q. Right. A. No. Q. The complaints against Mr. Jones were all from women; is that right? A Maureen Vaughn -A. I believe so, yes. Q. -- Carol Davie, and then a Monica -- Maria -excuse me. A. Maria or Mary. I can't remember. Q. Did any of those three complaints or problems result in Neuheisel Law Firm paying money to any of
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0160 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0161 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0162 1
those individuals? A. No. Q. I'll do this jointly as Plaintiff's Exhibit 17. This is the second part. It's actually a letter that you received from -- did you receive a letter from the Office of the Attorney General of Colorado? (Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 17 marked for identification.) A. I don't believe I received one. I can't recall if it came directly to me from the attorney general in Colorado or if it came through Collect America to me from the attorney general in Colorado. Q. Okay. But you responded to the letter? A. Yes. Q. And is that what's the first part of Plaintiff's Exhibit 17, your letter of May 16th? A. Yes. Q. Do you remember the basis of the complaint from Mr. Kornbluth? A. Not without reviewing this letter. Q. Take your time. (Witness reviews document.) Q. Ms. Neuheisel, let me hand you this, as well. I thought it was attached to your copy of 17. But it looks like the actual complaint that was filed with the attorney general. Mr. Kornbluth was complaining of repeated telephone calls; is that right? A. Yes. Q. And the threatening of illegal actions? A. Yes. Q. And the threatening to take or sell his property and garnish his wages; is that right? A. Yes. Q. And that he had been told by -- it says, "Both agencies." And he's identified Collect America and Neuheisel Law Firm. He says, "Both agencies stated they were coming after me"; is that right? A. That's what he states, yes. Q. Do you remember the collector who handled this account? A. Not without looking at the note lines. Q. Did you do any investigation when you received this complaint? A. I always investigate every complaint. Q. Tell me what your investigation included. A. A review of the note lines -- of conversation, I'm sure -- with the collector involved -- or the collectors involved; possibly a review of the phone records. Q. Do you have any documentation that shows the results of your investigation?
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0163 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0164 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
A. My letter. Q. Anything other than your letter that you keep in a file to document that you investigated the complaint? A. Just what was provided to you. Q. In part of Plaintiff's Exhibit 17, there's also a letter from Michelle Marron at Collect America responding to the complaint; is that right? A. Yes. Q. Did you receive a copy of Ms. Marron's letter -A. Yes. Q. -- prior to writing your letter? A. I can't be certain, but I presume so, yes. Q. It looks like there's a fax line at the top of the second letter, the one dated May 12th by Ms. Marron. A. Yes. Q. It looks like May 13, 2000. A. Correct. Q. When you sent your letter to the attorney general of Colorado on May 16th, you didn't include any note lines? A. No. Q. You didn't include any phone records? A. No. I don't ever include phone records unless they specifically request them. Q. Well, do you keep the phone records with the complaint for verification? A. No. Q. Do you -- after reviewing the complaint, do you have any recollection of the collector involved on this account? A. No. Q. Is that something you could obtain? A. Yes. MS. NETTLES: Penny, for the record, we've produced the account notes. There in -- about this -- you have them. MS. HAYS: What page, Laura? MS. NETTLES: 417. MS. HAYS: 417? MS. NETTLES: Well, that's what it says down here, but it can't possibly be right. Hold on a second. It's attached in the group of documents. It actually should be -- that's backwards. It should be -- no. That number is wrong. I don't know how 417 got put on there, but it would be just following 167. The first page for some reason says 417. I don't understand that. But the next number is 168, 169, 170, 171. MS. HAYS: Okay. I don't have a 417. I have a 168 -- 167, 168, 160 -MS. NETTLES: Okay. Well, I don't know why that didn't get copied, but the first page appears
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0165 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0166 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
to be -Q. (By Ms. Hays) Will you look at what's marked page 417 -- and we'll get a copy of it later -- and tell me who the collector involved on the account was. A. It appears to be initially assigned to a gentleman by the name of Brian Elliot. Q. Any other collectors involved on the account? A. Dean Edner. And those are the only two from Neuheisel Law Firm. Q. How long do you keep the telephone records if you've reviewed them in reference to a complaint? A. I should have all the phone records, but I'm not certain. Q. Do you also request Collect America to provide you the reports of incoming calls? A. That was a brief period of time. They don't do that anymore. And at this time, which was more than three years ago, I don't recall if the bills were coming directly to me or to them. Q. The long-distance bills? A. The inbound 1-800 number. Q. Okay. What period of time was Collect America providing or able to provide a report of incoming calls on the 800 number? A. I'm not real sure. I know -- let me think here. In the spring of 2001, they were shopping for a group rate for all of their franchises. And I'm not sure exactly when it went into effect, but I know my problems with my long-distance bill began in June of 2001. They've assisted us in getting our rates since at least the spring of 2001. Q. Okay. I'm confused -- and maybe it's the rain -- but Collect America, did they handle the 800 number for you prior to spring of 2001? A. I don't remember. Q. But sometime in 2001, they started trying to shop and get a better rate for all the franchises? A. I remember that, yes. Q. Okay. And then in June of 2001, you started having a problem with the long-distance bill? A. Outbound. Q. With outbound but not inbound? A. No. Q. Okay. The fact that they started shopping for a better rate on the 800 number in spring of 2001, does that help you remember when Collect America was able to provide you reports of inbound calls? A. No. Q. Was it -A. It was around that time. Q. Around the spring of 2001 -A. I believe so. Q. -- to summer of 2001?
20 21 22 23 0167 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0168 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0169 1 2 3 4
A. Q. A. then I
To what? I'm sorry. When? To summer, June of 2001? No. I believe they paid my 1-800 bill and reimbursed them until May of 2002, I think.
Q. Okay. So earlier if -- you told me that they started shopping for a bill in spring of 2001, and you started having trouble with the 800 number -A. I never had trouble with my 1-800 number. Q. Okay. Something happened in June -- you told me -- of 2001 with respect to your long-distance bill. Was that June of 2002? A. No, June 2001. Q. So Collect America could provide you reports of inbound calls from spring of 2001? A. I believe so, yes. Q. And do they provide you those reports on a monthly basis? A. Yes. Q. And do they still do that? A. No. Q. Can you give me your best judgment as to when it stopped? A. The 1-800 number I currently get a bill for -- it's through Univance (phonetic) -- and I think I started getting that in May of 2002. Q. And that's when the report from Collect America would have stopped? A. Yes. Q. If you reviewed a report from Collect America or the long-distance telephone records that you have, would you have maintained that with the complaint that you received? A. No. Q. And, to the best of your knowledge, you have all of your telephone records? A. Yes -- no, I don't. I'm sorry. Q. What records do you have? A. Do I have? Q. Right. A. I have all of my records, I believe, but I know I don't have records from, I believe, January 11, 2002 through March -- I want to say -- 19, 2002. Q. Why are you missing those records? A. Because I didn't get them. The bill was never sent to me. Q. Who was the long-distance carrier at that time? A. Touch America. Q. After you responded to the attorney general of Colorado in your letter, which is part of Plaintiff's Exhibit 17, did you hear anything further from Mr. Kornbluth? A. I don't believe so. Q. And there's no determination by the attorney
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0170 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0171 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
general of wrongdoing? A. No. Q. And was any money ever paid to Mr. Kornbluth to resolve his complaint? A. No. Q. Let me show you what's mark as Plaintiff's Exhibit 18. Is that a copy of a complaint you received from the attorney general of Washington? (Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 18 marked for identification.) Yes. And what was the date of that complaint? January 31, 2001. And it was made by Rachelle Currier? Correct. Did you ever speak to Ms. Currier? I don't believe so, but I may have. Did you perform an investigation of her
A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q.
complaints? A. Yes. Q. And on Neuheisel Document 418, which is the third page of Plaintiff's Exhibit 18 -A. Yes. Q. In the bottom three lines it says, "Neuheisel Law Firm made many threats, including legal action"; is that right? A. That's what it says. Q. Did you review the phone records with respect to this complaint? A. I don't remember. I'm sure I did. Q. But you don't have any writings or notes documenting what was actually reviewed; correct? A. Correct. Q. And Plaintiff's Exhibit 19 is the response that you made to the attorney general of Washington; is that right? (Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 19 marked for identification.) A. Correct. Q. Do you recall the collector involved in Ms. Currier's complaint? A. Not without looking at note lines. MS. NETTLES: There it is. (Witness reviews document.) A. Kevin Alberts. Q. (By Ms. Hays) Kevin Alberts? A. Yes. Q. Did he receive a written reprimand as a result of this complaint? A. He was no longer with the firm at the time I received the complaint. Q. And the only documentation you provided to the attorney general of Washington was your letter? A. I believe so, yes.
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0172 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0173 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
Q. I'll show you what I've marked together as Plaintiff's Exhibit 20. And it involves a complaint from Lori Salter. (Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 20 marked for identification.) A. Correct. Q. And her complaint was made to the attorney general of Vermont? A. Yes. Q. We have one page of account information. Do you know the collector assigned to this account? A. It appears to be David Lerner. Q. Do you know if Mr. Lerner received a written reprimand as a result of Ms. Salter's complaint? A. I don't believe he did. Q. And the only thing provided to the attorney general of Vermont was your letter? A. Correct. Q. Again, if you had any written notes or documentation of your investigation on Ms. Salter's complaint, those would have been provided? A. Yes. Q. Let me show you what I've marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit 21. It looks like a notice from the attorney general of North Carolina; is that correct? (Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 21 marked for identification.) A. Yes. Q. Dated January 22, 2002? A. Correct. Q. And it's regarding a complaint from Morgan Doyle? A. Correct. Q. And Mr. Doyle's complaint says that on the week of December 17th he had told them they could not call him at work. And they called him on January 10th and January 11th. "The person I talked to was named Kenny Reeves. He accused me of stealing from the creditor and called me a thief. Also, threatened to call my employer and talk to them about it." Is that what that says? A. That's what that says. Q. And this was in December of 2001? A. Correct. Q. Which was the same time as the [Consumers]' calls? A. Correct. Q. Did you perform any investigation of this complaint? A. Yes. Q. Was Kenny Reeves reprimanded in any way? A. I don't recall. Q. Does Kenny Reeves still work for you? A. Yes. Q. And if you had any notes of any investigation
23 0174 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0175 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0176 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
that was done, those would have been provided to us? A. Correct. Q. I'm going to show you what I've marked Plaintiff's Exhibit 22. It's four pages. The first two looks like a letter from you to Ms. Rosemary Revis -(Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 22 marked for identification.) A. Yes. Q. -- responding to the complaint. A. Yes. Q. And in that letter, you indicated that Mr. Reeves disputed Mr. Doyle's allegations? A. Correct. Q. And disputed that he had threatened to call Mr. Doyle's employer? I'm sorry. It's on the next page. A. Yes. Q. There's also a statement that's handwritten. Do you know who wrote this statement? A. Mr. Reeves. Q. Was it provided to North Carolina? A. No. Q. No? A. No. Q. And this statement is not signed or dated? A. No. Q. I forgot to -- did Mr. Doyle's complaint to the attorney general of North Carolina result in a lawsuit? A. No. Q. Did it result in any type of settlement? A. No. Q. And you don't recall if Mr. Reeves received any type of written reprimand? A. I don't recall. Q. Plaintiff's Exhibit 23 is the second complaint from the attorney general from North Carolina. And it involves Marvin Worley? (Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 23 marked for identification.) A. Yes. Q. And his complaint states that Neuheisel continued to call and send letters after he had requested they stop? A. That's what it says. Q. And Plaintiff's Exhibit 24 is your response to Mr. Worley's complaint? (Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 24 marked for identification.) A. Yes. Q. And in your letter you indicated that Mr. Richard Crawford was the collector assigned to the account?
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0177 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0178 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
A. Yes. Q. And that no one from your firm had ever contacted Mr. Worley? A. Correct. Q. If you had included any documents to Ms. Revis at the State of North Carolina, you would have noted that in your letters; correct? A. Yes. Q. And, to the best of your knowledge, you didn't send any other documents with your letter? A. No. Q. Did Mr. Worley's complaint result in any type of claim for money or settlement? A. No. Q. Have any consent decrees been entered by any attorney -- any state's attorney general against Neuheisel Law Firm? A. No. Q. Let me show you what's marked Plaintiff's Exhibit 25. And that's a complaint involving Lewis Ross Brown? (Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 25 marked for identification.) A. Correct. Q. And it involved a complaint against Ken Jones? A. Yes. Q. Mr. Brown complained that Mr. Jones had continued to call him after a letter requesting that they cease and desist? A. Where are you looking? Q. On 240. A. Can you repeat your question? Q. Certainly. Mr. Brown complained that Mr. Jones had continued to call him after he had received a letter requesting that calls cease and desist? A. Yes. Q. And that Mr. Jones had threatened Mr. Brown with a barrage of legal actions? A. That's what it says. Q. On page 248 -- it's the last page -Mr. Brown wrote to the assistant attorney general of Arizona and complained that he had also notified Mr. Jones that he had an attorney who was handling this case and that he continued to call his house. A. It appears to be. Where are you looking exactly on this page? Q. In the second paragraph. A. Could you repeat your question? Q. Sure. In his letter to the assistant attorney general of Arizona, Mr. Brown complained that Mr. Jones continued to call him after receiving a cease and desist letter; correct? A. Yes.
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0179 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0180 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0181 1
Q. And that he had notified Mr. Jones that he was represented by an attorney? A. Yes. Q. And that Mr. Jones was abusive, nasty, and, quote, down right ignorant? A. That's what it says, yes. Q. Did you perform any investigation of Mr. Brown's complaints? A. Yes. Q. Do you have any documentation of that investigation? A. My letter. Q. And let me show you what I've marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit 26 and ask you if that's the letter that you sent in response to Mr. Brown's complaints? (Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 26 marked for identification.) A. Yes. Q. No other documents were provided in addition to your letter? A. No. Q. And Mr. Jones was not written up as a result of this complaint? A. No. MS. HAYS: Take just a quick restroom break. (A break was taken.) Q. (By Ms. Hays) I asked Mr. Jones this, and I'm not sure that I got a clear answer, so I want to ask you if you know. How does the collector know which accounts to work when they come in in the morning? A. Well, each collector is a little different. We do have a feature in the STARS computer program. It's call the Whip Work in Progress where we can program their file, broken promises -- their file consists of broken promises, good numbers, actives, promise to pays, and returns. And we have a, you know, prime time -- prime contact hours are usually in the morning and after work. So that you would be working your good numbers and actives during those times and your skip tracings during non-prime hours. So they can use the Whip if they want to, but not everyone always does. Q. Okay. Is your computer system -- does it use that work-in-progress programming? A. I'm not sure I understand the question. Q. You said you can program your computers to use the work in progress. Have you done that? A. It's a feature available to us at any given time, yes. Q. Okay. And are collectors trained to use that feature? A. Yes.
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0182 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0183 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Q. And if it's a good number, what is the work in progress -- how often does the work in progress bring up that account? A. I'm not sure. Q. Who would know that? A. Matt Gascon or Collect America. Q. What about broken promises? A. I don't know. I believe only once a day, at the most. Q. And returns, what happens with that? A. Return que is something they're supposed to look into. I don't usually -- I don't believe they program that into their work in progress. It's a return meaning VOD has been provided. We return it to them. They ask for, you know -- request help. We'll go in the request help que, look at it, make some suggestions, put it in their return que. Any time I get a letter on an account, I document the contents of that letter and return it to the collector so they know about that letter. Q. Are the broken promises worked more than accounts with good numbers? A. It depends. Q. What would it depend on? A. If we get an insufficient funds check, they may try and call that number more than once a day, where if it's just a payment is late -- you know, we have a scheduled payment for the 15th, they may wait a couple of days because of mail or where the 15th fell on that particular month. If it was a Saturday or a Sunday, you might wait until Tuesday or Wednesday and just call, you know. Q. Call to see where the payment is? A. Yeah. You might wait three days before you touch that account. Q. And how often can a collector call on an insufficient funds check per day? A. They can only make one contact per day. Q. How many times can they attempt to make contact? A. It's not specified. Q. On an insufficient funds check, the collector can only contact the individual one time per day? A. Correct. Q. But they can call more than that in an attempt to make contact? A. Correct. Q. Is it your policy that collectors should contact them a minimum number of times in order to attempt to make contact? MS. NETTLES: Object to the form of the question. I don't understand it. A. Want to rephrase it? Q. (By Ms. Hays) Do you have a policy or a guideline for collectors requiring them to make a
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0184 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0185 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
minimum number of calls in an attempt to reach an individual -A. I believe we do. I'm sorry. I interrupted you. I believe we do, yes. Q. What is that policy? A. I believe it's eight to ten times. Q. Per day? A. Per day. Q. And other than the insufficient-funds checks, that's the only time a collector should call more than one time a day? A. No. Q. So collectors can call more than one time a day for broken promises or good numbers, as well? A. They can only make one contact per day. Q. But they can call multiple times in an attempt to make contact? A. Correct. Q. Is there a policy or guideline, like the eight to ten times per day on the insufficient funds checks, for collectors contacting individuals on broken promises? A. No. Q. What about on good numbers? A. No. Q. Is there a limit of how many times a collector can call a number in an attempt to make contact? A. No, I don't believe so. Q. So as long as they haven't spoken to the consumer -A. No. Q. -- they can call them as many times as they choose to -A. If they've left a message, they cannot call again. Q. But they can -- if they haven't left a message, they can continue to call in an attempt to make contact? A. No. Q. So there is a limit? A. No. Q. You just told me that there's no limit in the number of times a collector can attempt to make contact with a consumer during the day; is that correct? A. If there's no answer, they can continue to call. If there's an answer, they're not to continue to call. Q. Right. If there's no answer, then there's no limit on how many times they can call the number in an attempt to reach someone? A. We do not have a policy that places a limit. Q. So an individual's phone can ring all day long if they're not answering their phone?
20 21 22 23 0186 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0187 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0188 1 2 3 4
A. I suppose so, yes. Q. The phone logs that were provided and compiled by Collect America, when did you request those phone records? A. Could you be more specific, please? Q. I don't have a copy I can mark right now, but the phone records that were provided of inbound calls from Collect America, did you request this report from Collect America? A. No. It was provided to me via E-mail on or about the date of the bill. Q. And you maintain those reports as part of your records? A. Yes. Q. The times that are set out in the call detail are in Mountain Time; is that correct? A. I'm not sure. I believe it's Arizona time, and we change. Q. You change? A. Yes. Q. So you're between Mountain and Pacific? A. Mountain in the winter and Pacific in the summer, yes. Q. Tell me the months that your office is in Mountain time. A. Well, I believe it's the last Saturday of October through the first Saturday in April. MR. LORANT: Daylight Savings Time? MS. NEUHEISEL: Yes, exactly. We change with Daylight Savings. Q. (By Ms. Hays) And then -MR. LORANT: What time do you go up, one hour or two hours? I'm sorry. I'm off the record. (Off the record.) Q. (By Ms. Hays) And your Pacific Time, then, is from whatever the date is in April through October? A. Ask that question again, please. Q. Yes. Your office is in Pacific Time, in the Pacific Time zone from April until October? A. Correct. Q. And the phone records are based on the time that the call was received by your office? A. Correct. Q. Whether it be Mountain or Pacific, depending on the month? A. Correct. Q. And the long-distance records are also based on the time the call was made by your office? A. Correct. Q. A couple days of ago you told me that Neuheisel Law Firm handles approximately 10,000 accounts at any given time. Can you tell me what percentage of those accounts are generally from Collect America?
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0189 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0190 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
A. Oh, all of them. We have a lot more than that. Q. You have a lot more than 10,000 accounts? A. Correct. Q. Okay. How many accounts does Neuheisel Law Firm handle at any given time, total? A. Well, in the four years or almost four years we've been in business working with Collect America, we've had 65,000 or more placed with our office. A lot of those have been paid, so they're in a different que. They're in my office still. But they're in a que that nobody goes into, or they're in the sales que, which aren't actively being worked by anybody. They're in a legal que, meaning they're an Arizona or California account. The 10,000 figure relates to the activities of the collectors. On any given day, there's roughly 10,000 accounts in those ques. Q. To be worked? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And of those 10,000, 100 percent of them belong to Collect America? A. They don't belong to Collect America. Q. They were placed by Collect America? A. Correct. Q. And Collect America doesn't have any requirement for monitoring calls? A. No. Q. When did Neuheisel Law Firm begin requiring Matt Gascon to monitor each collectors' calls for one hour per month? A. Sometime when the two assistant managers were placed -- or hired or promoted -- I should say. Q. And I think you told me that was in June of 2002? A. No. I would -- August of 2002. Q. Is that the same time when you began doing the spot checking of collectors' calls? A. Since we've had the monitoring software, we've always spot checked. Q. When did you get the monitoring software? A. I don't remember. It was sometime after July of 2000. Q. Of 2000? A. Uh-huh. Q. Who provided the monitoring software? A. Macintosh, I think. I forget the -- MT Technologies. We purchased it from him. He's our phone vendor. Q. And do you know what type of software it is or the make of the software? A. I have no idea. Q. What's a box breaker? A. It is a document that allows us to get a physical address from the post office.
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0191 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0192 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
Q. Instead of a P.O. box? A. Correct. Q. Which states are suit-friendly for Neuheisel Law Firm? A. For Neuheisel Law Firm? Q. Uh-huh. A. Arizona and California. Q. Are there other states that are considered suit-friendly? A. I believe all of them, according to Collect America. They have attorneys in every state. Q. You were using, in December of 2001, Northshore to generate mail, the initial letters to consumers; is that right? A. Yes. Q. And Northshore was in New York? A. Correct. Q. And yesterday we marked a couple of envelopes, which we don't have today because we have a different court reporter. But one of the envelopes has a zip code of 11590. Do you know if that's the zip code where Northshore is located? A. I believe it is, but I'm not sure. Q. Once you certify one of your collectors to Collect America as being proficient in the FDCPA, do you have to recertify them on a regular basis? A. No. Q. Have you ever revoked certification to Collect America on Ken Jones? A. No. Q. One of the write-ups on Ken, the 7/31/02 write-up, says he was written up for writing a dunning letter to a debtor. What do you consider a dunning letter? A. I don't -Q. I'm sorry. It says that after he spoke to the debtor, he was dunning her for payment. What does dunning mean to you? A. Demanding. Q. Is dunning beyond a collector's basic right to demand payment? A. No. Q. So your collectors are allowed to dun consumers for payment? A. As I understand and define dunning, yes. Q. Do you have any judgment as to how many lawsuits Neuheisel Law Firm has filed on behalf of CACV? A. I don't know for sure. It would be merely a guess. Q. Can you give me a range? A. Over 500. Q. Would it be more than 1,000? A. I don't believe so, but possibly. Q. Other than reviewing the note lines, speaking
23 0193 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0194 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0195 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
with Mr. Jones and Mr. Davidson, and possibly reviewing the telephone records, did you do any other investigation of the [Consumers]' complaints? A. I'm not sure what you mean. MS. NETTLES: I'm going to object to that because if you're talking about the lawsuit, anything that she did after that could be construed to be work product if she did it at my direction. But the [Consumers] didn't make a complaint until they filed a lawsuit. MS. HAYS: Right. Q. (By Ms. Hays) When you have received complaints from anyone other than the [Consumers], have you ever done anything besides talk with the collector, review the note lines, and possibly review the phone records? A. Well, if possible, I'll speak with the complaining party. That's not always possible. Q. And if you speak with the complaining party, is that noted in the note lines? A. Yes. It should be, yeah. Q. Other than possibly speaking with the complaining party, is there anything else that you do to investigate a complaint? A. We may speak with the people that sit next to, or at that particular time, the collector. Q. If you speak with those individuals, do you make any notes of those conversations? A. Sometimes. Q. If you made notes, would those be contained with the complaints that were received? A. Yes. Q. What is Sun West PEO, Inc.? A. It's an employee leasing company, provided my payroll and health benefit coverage, as well as the 401K. Q. So they handle your payroll? A. They did. Q. They did? What time period? A. I believe January of 2001 through March of 2002. Q. I believe you told me earlier that other than the areas that we specifically discussed, the policy and procedures manual, which was compiled in 1999, has not changed since that time? A. That's not true. Q. It has changed? A. July 2001 it was updated. Q. You're right. For the employment practices section, personnel guide, was the whole thing updated in July of 2001? A. Yes. Q. And other than the changes that we've talked about specifically, it's remained the same since
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0196 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0197 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
July of 2001? A. To the best of my knowledge, yes. Q. At the time Ken Jones told [Consumer 1] he was sending a sheriff to pick her up, that would have violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act? MS. NETTLES: Object to the form of the question. MS. NEUHEISEL: Can you rephrase that? MS. HAYS: Okay. Give me just one second. MS. NEUHEISEL: Okay. (Off the record.) Q. (By Ms. Hays) I just want to make sure that I'm clear. You did not personally have any telephone conversations with either [Consumer 1] or [Consumer 2]? A. No, I did not. Q. And you were not actually monitoring any of the calls between Ken Jones and Jason Davidson at the time that they had communications with [Consumer 1] and [Consumer 2]? A. No, I did not. Q. [Consumers]. I'm sorry. A. No, I did not. Q. You weren't standing beside them when they made the call? A. No. Q. Sitting beside them when they made the call? A. No. Q. Matt Gascon was not monitoring the call -any calls between Ken Jones and the plaintiffs? A. Not to my knowledge, no. Q. And have you asked him if he was monitoring any calls? A. I'm sure he would have told me if he was. Q. And he didn't tell you that he had been monitoring calls? A. Correct. Q. And he wasn't monitoring the calls made by Jason Davidson to [Consumers]? A. Not to my knowledge, no. Q. So you personally don't have any knowledge that would allow you to dispute what the [Consumers] testified about yesterday regarding the content of the calls? A. Personally, no. Q. And you're not aware of anyone who monitored or overheard any of the calls between Ken Jones and the [Consumers]? A. No, I'm not. Q. And you're not aware of anyone who monitored or overheard any of the calls between Jason Davidson and the [Consumers]? A. No, I'm not. Q. Did you ask any of the collectors who sit
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0198 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0199 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0200 1
beside them if they overheard any calls? A. They sat next to each other. Q. Did anyone else sit in their area? A. No. Q. And you're not aware of anyone who monitored any calls between -- or overheard any calls between Henry -- is it Aldrete -- and [Consumer 1]? A. No, I'm not. Q. Or any other collector from Neuheisel Law Firm that might have spoken with the [Consumers]? A. No, I'm not. Q. Your knowledge of the calls is based on the recordings that we provided you, as well as the note lines; is that right? A. Personally, yes. Q. Do you have any knowledge of the conversation that allegedly took place between Paul Todd and one of the collectors at your firm? A. Personally, no. Q. You didn't monitor that call? A. No, I did not. Q. Nor overhear that call? A. No, I did not. Q. And, in fact, that call is not recorded in any way in the note lines on of the [Consumer] account? A. I believe that's correct. Q. Are you aware of anyone who monitored or overheard the call between the collector and Paul Todd? A. No, I am not. Q. You also -- I believe you told me earlier that you reviewed the transcripts of the tape recordings; is that right? A. Yes. Q. And did you review those transcripts with the note lines on the [Consumer] account? A. Not necessarily. Q. You've made no comparison of the transcript with the note lines? A. I'm sure I have. But as I sit here, I can't recall the specifics. Q. Are you aware that the content of the conversations contained on the tapes does not match what was entered by the collectors on the note lines? A. I would not necessary agree with that. Q. Is it your contention that the note lines accurately reflect the conversations which are -which were recorded by the phones? MS. NETTLES: Object to the form of the question. A. Not necessarily. Q. (By Ms. Hays) What is your position on the note lines as they reflect the calls?
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0201 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0202 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
A. I would need to see the transcripts and the note lines, as I sit here today, to make an accurate assessment. Q. And you have no recollection of what your previous investigation revealed to you? A. That the note lines weren't comprehensive enough. I mean, they were vague. Q. The note lines entered by Jason Davidson and Ken Jones don't reflect that they told the [Consumers] they were dead meat, do they? A. No, they do not. Q. Or that they were going to send a summons and complaint? A. No, they do not. Q. So they would be incomplete, at best? A. If they did, in fact, say those things, yes. Q. Well, those things are actually on tape. Are you aware of that? A. I've been told that, yes. Q. Have you actually listened to the tapes? A. Not all of them, no. Q. But you reviewed the transcripts? A. Yes. Q. What rights do your collectors have to collect a debt, other than to call a consumer, write a consumer, or sue the consumer? A. I don't understand your question. Q. Other than writing, calling, or suing the consumer, do your collectors have any other rights that they may undertake to collect a debt? A. Well, they don't sue and they don't write. They only call. Q. So your collectors only have a right to call the consumer in order to collect the debt? A. Correct. Q. And Neuheisel Law Firm has the right to -- or you have the right to write the consumer, as well as sue the consumer? A. Well, I don't sue consumers outside of Arizona or California. I just make recommendations, but I do have the right to send letters. Q. And the right to call or send a letter -- the collector's right to call the consumer is limited by the rights given to consumers pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act? A. That, as well as the state laws. Q. So federal and state laws limit a collector's right and actions they take in communicating with a consumer? A. Yes. Q. Would you agree that the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act is specifically concerned about notice of a consumer's debt being exposed to an employer? A. Yes. Q. And your policy and procedures manual
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0203 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0204 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
addresses that concern over employers or other third parties from directly or indirectly being informed that a consumer is behind on a debt or in collections? MS. NETTLES: Object to the form of the question. MS. NEUHEISEL: Can you rephrase that? MS. HAYS: I'll try. MS. NEUHEISEL: Good luck. Q. (By Ms. Hays) The policy and procedures manual, which is in this employee manual, addresses the concern set out by the FDCPA that a consumer's employer or some other third party be notified that they are behind on a debt? A. I believe so, yes. Q. And this policy and procedures manual also addresses that communications with third parties should be limited so that those third parties are not informed a consumer is behind on a debt; correct? A. Yes. Q. Or that their account is in collections? A. Correct. Q. The policy and procedures manual also -- your policy and procedures manual, as well as the FDCPA, was adopted to prevent a collector from directly or indirectly informing a third party of a consumer's debt being behind? A. You want to rephrase that? MS. NETTLES: Well, I don't know if she can attest to what the intent of the drafters of the FDCPA were. She can attest to what it says. Q. (By Ms. Hays) Have you -- you've read the FDCPA; correct? A. Yes, I have. Q. And you're familiar with it in your ten years that you've been practicing? A. Yes. Q. And in the last five years, I think you told me, you've been specializing in collections? A. And bankruptcy, as well. Q. And bankruptcy. And have you read the drafters' notes regarding why the FDCPA was adopted? A. I don't recall if I specifically read that portion. Q. And the FDCPA specifically addresses a lawyer's conduct in handling the collection of accounts -- or past-due accounts? A. I don't believe it does. Q. It specifically applies to attorneys? A. Yes, it does apply to attorneys. Q. And the FDCPA is the most expansive federal law governing the work that you do in collecting past-due accounts? A. I believe so, yes.
20 21 22 23 0205 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0206 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0207 1 2 3 4
Q. And the FDCPA prohibits, directly or indirectly, informing a third party that a consumer is behind on a debt or that their debt is in collections? A. I believe so, yes. Q. And it's Neuheisel Law Firm's job to make sure it's in compliance with the FDCPA? A. Yes. Q. And it's your job and Neuheisel Law Firm's job to make sure that your collectors are in compliance with the FDCPA? A. Yes. Q. And your policy and procedures manual indicates that collectors should exercise caution as to what happens specifically with the consumer's employer? A. Can you rephrase that, please? Q. Your policy and procedures manual specifically indicates that a collector should exercise concern and caution as to what happens with a consumer's employer? A. I don't know if it states it as you're stating it. I'd have to read the manual. Q. If the manual says that, then you would agree with that? A. If the manual says that, I would agree with it. Q. And certainly that's the goal of the policy and procedures manual? A. Yes. Q. I know that state laws are contained within the employee manual. Are you aware that some states have found that calling a consumer more than one time a day is presumed harassment? MS. NETTLES: Object to the form of the question. A. Can you rephrase that, please? Q. (By Ms. Hays) Sure. Are you aware that some state laws have found that calling a consumer more than one time a day is presumed harassment? A. The way you're phrasing it, I'm not specifically sure that's how the states address it. But more than one contact, unless the consumer consents, is against the Neuheisel Law Firm's policy. Q. Is it presumed harassment? A. I don't -- I can't answer that question. Q. By some state laws? MS. NETTLES: She's already -- asked and answered. She said she can't answer that question. Q. (By Ms. Hays) You have no idea if some state laws hold that calling consumers more than one time a day is presumed harassment? MS. NETTLES: Object to the form of the
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0208 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0209 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
question. A. As I've stated before, I don't know that the state laws specifically are using the verbiage you're using here today. Q. (By Ms. Hays) Which is the presumed harassment? A. Correct. Q. Are you aware that some states have found that calling a consumer more than three times a week is presumed harassment? MS. NETTLES: Object to the form of the question. A. Again, I can't answer with regard to the presumed harassment. Q. (By Ms. Hays) Have you reviewed state laws which use the term "presumed harassment"? A. I don't recall. Q. Are you aware that some states have -- some state laws indicate that calling a consumer more than three times a week is excessive? MS. NETTLES: Object to the form. A. I don't recall reading the word "excessive." Q. (By Ms. Hays) Are you aware of any state laws prohibiting a collector from contacting a consumer more than three times a week? A. Yes. Q. And contacting that consumer more than three times a week in those states would be harassment? MS. NETTLES: Object to the form of the question. A. I can't answer that. Q. (By Ms. Hays) If your collectors are making calls in states which limit contact with the consumer to fewer than or equal to three times a week, they follow that state's law; correct? A. Can you rephrase the question? I missed part of it. Q. Sure. In the states that have found -- in states that have limited contact with the consumer to no more than three times a week, your collectors are required to abide by that state's law? A. Yes. Q. Why do you think the state enacted that law? To protect the consumers? A. Yes. Q. And to limit the number of calls they receive? A. I would say yes. Q. And even Collect America has a limit on how many calls to a consumer should be made in a 15-day period? A. I don't -- I can't answer that question. Q. How do you determine at the senior franchise review if an account gets canceled or sent to another collector? Strike that question. How do
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0210 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0211 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
you determine at the senior franchise review whether an account gets canceled or if an account gets canceled? A. There's a variety of things we look at. Q. Can you tell me what those are? A. Balance on account, age of the account, the circumstances of the consumer, the client on the account, you know, the amount of work on the account. Q. What is the balance? Is there a cutoff on the balance that you're looking for? A. No. Q. You just look at how much the balance is? A. Yeah. Q. If the balance is greater than $1,000, is it more likely for the account not to be canceled? A. I would agree with that, yes. Q. What about the age of the account? Are you looking for something specific with the age of the account? A. Not anything specific. Q. Are there some guidelines that you use? A. It's a case-by-case basis. Q. Tell me how the age of the account affects your decision on canceling an account. A. Obviously, the older an account is the more work effort has gone into it. And the possibility of collecting that account is less. So it's more likely to be canceled. Q. And what about the circumstances of the consumer? How do those play into the decision? A. You know, if they're on disability, if they're elderly, what their assets are, whether they're employed, those sorts of thing. Q. The client, that would be CACV or one of the other companies that places accounts through Collect America. A. Sure. Q. Are there some clients that have specific guidelines for whether an account is canceled or not? A. Not really. Q. This account, the [Consumer] account, is owned by CACV; is that correct? A. I believe so, yes. Q. It is not owned by MBNA? A. No, it's not. Q. In fact, the account was purchased by CACV from MBNA for some percentage of the account balance? A. I don't know any details about the transfer from MBNA to CACV, but I would believe your statement to be correct. But I do not have personal knowledge. Q. But the account was, in fact, purchased by
23 0212 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0213 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0214 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
CACV? A. That's my understanding, yes. Q. When accounts are placed with Cube Recovery and then Neuheisel Law Firm, that come from Collect America, those accounts have generally been purchased either by CACV or some other party instead of the original creditor? A. The majority of the accounts placed with Neuheisel Law Firm for collection are purchased accounts. Q. And those are generally purchased after an account has been charged off? A. That's my understanding, yes. Q. Are you aware of whether Collect America places groups of accounts with other collection agencies prior to placing them with your law firm? A. I'm not aware of that, no. Q. Are you aware that prior to -- would you agree that prior to an account being charged off, there's generally collection activity on the account? A. I would agree with that, but I don't have personal knowledge of that. Q. Does Neuheisel Law Firm operate under the presumption that when accounts are placed with Neuheisel Law Firm that collection activities have already been undertaken by the original creditor? MS. NETTLES: Object to the form of the question. A. Can you rephrase that? Q. (By Ms. Hays) Sure. Does Neuheisel Law Firm operate under the presumption that when the account is placed with you, there has already been some collection activity undertaken on the account? A. Yes. Q. The FDCPA prohibits and specifically outlines that it would be harassment to threaten action without the present intent to take that action; correct? A. I don't know that present intent is set forth in the FDCPA, but I do believe you have to intend to take the action, yes. Q. The FDCPA prohibits and outlines that it would be harassment to threaten action that a collector didn't actually intend to carry out? A. I would agree with that. Q. And that the collector didn't have the ability to carry out? A. I would agree with that, yes. Q. And Neuheisel's own policy and procedures also prohibits threatening an action which cannot be carried out by Neuheisel Law Firm? A. Correct -- I believe so. I'd have to review the manual.
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0215 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0216 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Q. And it should; right? A. Pardon? Q. The policy and procedures manual should say that? A. I'm not going to agree with that, no. Q. Your collectors should be trained that the FDCPA prohibits threatening an action which Neuheisel Law Firm cannot carry out? A. Yes. Q. And you told me earlier that Neuheisel Law Firm never faxes wage verification or any other forms to an employer; right? A. Repeat the question. Q. Sure. You testified earlier today that Neuheisel Law Firm never faxes any documents to a consumer's employer; correct? A. I don't recall testifying to that. Q. Does Neuheisel Law Firm ever fax any documents to an employer? A. We have in the past, yes. Q. When? A. Usually it was when we had a judgment and were prepping for garnishment. Q. Other than when a lawsuit has already been filed and a judgment obtained, does Neuheisel Law Firm ever fax any documentation to an employer? A. No. Q. And that would include wage verification forms; correct? A. Correct. Q. So any threats made by Ken Jones or Jason Davidson to fax a wage verification to [Consumer 1]'s employer would be a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act? A. Yes. Q. And your policy and procedures manual? A. I believe so, yes. Q. And there was never a decision by Neuheisel Law Firm or Collect America to file a lawsuit against [Consumer 1]? A. I can't answer that question. Q. The request for suit was not approved by Collect America? A. Ken Jones' request for suit was not approved by Collect America. Q. And prior to the [Consumers] filing this lawsuit against Neuheisel Law Firm and the individual defendants, a request for suit against the [Consumers] was never approved? A. Correct. Q. So there was never a decision by Neuheisel Law Firm to move forward with a suit against the [Consumers]? MS. NETTLES: Object to the form of the question.
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0217 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0218 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0219 1
A. I can't answer that question. Q. (By Ms. Hays) You can't answer that question for Neuheisel Law Firm? A. It's not black and white. Q. Because Neuheisel Law Firm doesn't actually have the authority to sue? A. That's not correct. Q. Certainly they don't have -- Neuheisel Law Firm doesn't have the ability to sue the [Consumers] in Alabama? A. Correct. Q. And I believe you told me earlier -- two days ago when we first began your deposition -- that you had been speaking with the individuals at Collect America regarding moving forward with arbitration against the [Consumers] on this account? A. Yes. Q. Is it your understanding that this account is governed by arbitration? A. It's my understanding, yes. Q. So any insinuation that the [Consumers]' wages would be garnished would be a violation of the FDCPA? A. Not necessarily, no. Q. There's no judgment in this case against the [Consumers]? A. Not yet, no. Q. And since no proceedings have been instituted against the [Consumers], there was no reason for your collectors to insinuate that the [Consumers]' wages would be garnished? A. Not necessarily. Q. What would allow your collectors to insinuate that the [Consumers]' wages would be garnished? A. If the [Consumers] were asking if you were to get an arbitration awarded (sic) and that was converted to a judgment, what could happen. Q. Is that the only reason that the collectors could insinuate or tell the [Consumers] that their wages would be garnished? A. It's against Neuheisel Law Firm to ever talk about garnishing wages -- or our firm's policy, so they shouldn't have done it. But I don't know that that's the only time. They might be entitled to -under the law to insinuate. Q. And in addition to your policy and procedures prohibiting collectors from speaking about garnishment when there's no judgment, the FDCPA also prohibits a collector from threatening garnishment if there's no judgment? A. I don't know that the FDCPA states that specifically. Q. You would agree that threatening or insinuating that a consumer's wages were going to be
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0220 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0221 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
garnished, when a judgment had not been obtained, would be a violation of the FDCPA under the provision which precludes threatening actions which cannot presently be taken? MS. NETTLES: Object to the form of the question. A. You need to rephrase that again. MS. HAYS: Can you read it back? (Question read back by reporter.) A. Again, it depends on the context in which the conversation took place. But as you state it, yes, I would agree that that's a violation. Q. And certainly any threat or insinuation that Neuheisel Law Firm was going to be sending a sheriff to get either of the [Consumers] was a violation of the FDCPA? MS. NETTLES: Object to the form of the question. A. I'd agree with that. Q. (By Ms. Hays) And any threat or insinuation that Neuheisel Law Firm was going to be sending a sheriff out to get either of the [Consumers] was not something that Neuheisel Law Firm was actually going to do? A. Correct. Q. And any threat or insinuation that Neuheisel Law Firm was going to be issuing a summons and complaint to the [Consumers] was not something that Neuheisel Law Firm was actually going to do? A. Correct. Q. And that would be a violation of the FDCPA? A. Correct. Q. Your policy and procedures manual and the FDCPA prohibit any communication to a third party that implies or insinuates, even indirectly, that a consumer owes money to Neuheisel Law Firm? A. I believe that's true, yes. Q. In fact, your collectors are prohibited from even stating the name of your law firm unless they're specifically asked by the third party? A. That's correct. Q. Any threat to knowingly send or say something to an employer or third party that will expose that a consumer owes a debt is a violation of your policy and procedures? A. I believe so, yes. Q. And the FDCPA? A. I believe so, yes. Q. And that would -- would that be harassment in your opinion? A. Would what be harassment? Q. Threatening to knowingly send or say something to an employer or third party to insinuate or expose a consumer owing a debt. A. Yes.
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0222 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0223 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
Q. Jason Davidson never had the authority to make a decision to file a lawsuit against the [Consumers]? A. He could only recommend it. Q. And certainly he could not have filed the summons and complaint? A. No, he could not. Q. Ken Jones could never have sent the sheriff or a summons and complaint to the [Consumers]? A. Correct. Q. And I think you sat in on his testimony. Mr. Jones testified that he didn't even know when a lawsuit gets approved by Neuheisel Law Firm; do you remember that? A. I recall that, yes. Q. So he never knows that a sheriff will be sending -- or delivering a summons to a consumer at all? A. No. Q. It's against your policy and procedures manual to tell a consumer that they're dead meat? A. Yes. Q. And in your professional, legal opinion violates the FDCPA? A. Yes. Q. And you don't dispute that Ken Jones told [Consumer 2] that, quote, you guys are dead meat? A. I've not heard the tape. Q. If that's what it says on the tape, you don't have anything to dispute that? A. Correct. Q. Have you read the transcript that contains that information? A. Yes. Q. In your position as the supervising attorney of Ken Jones, that statement was harassment? A. Yes. Q. I may have already asked you this, and forgive me if I have, but your collectors are prohibited from stating they're attorneys; correct? A. Correct. Q. And, in fact, your policy and procedures manual specifically states that in every phone call, they should specifically inform the consumer that they are not an attorney? A. I believe its says that, yes. Q. The FDCPA, as well as Neuheisel Law Firm's policy and procedures manual, and you, understand the sensitivity of not leading the consumer to believe they're being called by an attorney? A. Can you rephrase that? Q. Sure. The FDCPA, the Neuheisel Law Firm employee policy and procedures manual, as well as yourself, understand the sensitivity of not misleading a consumer into believing they're being
20 21 22 23 0224 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0225 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0226 1 2 3 4
contacted by an attorney? MS. NETTLES: I'm going do object to the form of the question. A. I'm going to say yes. Q. (By Ms. Hays) And you, as being part of -you and Matt Gascon are responsible for training; correct? A. Primarily, yes. Q. And you have trained the collectors to not represent themselves as attorneys? A. Correct. Q. Have you trained your collectors on the sensitivity of not leading a consumer to believe they're being called by an attorney? A. Yes. Q. How have you done that? A. In training. Q. Is that in the initial training that happens at the beginning when they're first hired? A. Yes, and our ongoing training, as well. Q. What does the ongoing training consist of? A. Well, we have quarterly training that's pretty intensive. We have our monthly meetings, which address many issues. And as issues arise, we'll have, you know, spontaneous meetings. And we are constantly reminding them of their obligations under the FDCPA and Neuheisel Law Firm employees' manual. Q. Who conducts the quarterly training? A. Matt Gascon and myself. Q. Are all collectors required to attend? A. Yes. Q. How long does the quarterly training last? A. It varies. Q. Give me a range. A. An hour to two hours. Q. And is that done during working hours? A. Yes. Q. Do you have any documentation of quarterly training that's provided to your collectors? A. I have a sheet they fill out that they've attended the -Q. Where -- I'm sorry. Go ahead. I interrupted. A. That they've attended the training classes. Q. Where are those sheets of attendance? A. In a file in my office. Q. Does it have a name? A. FDCPA Compliance. Q. Is there anything else in the FDCPA compliance file other than -A. I have a lot of FDCPA compliance files. Q. And one containing attendance records for the quarterly training?
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0227 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0228 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
A. Yes. Q. What do the others contain? A. Case law, text of the FDCPA, testing materials. Q. Is the case law that you have on FDCPA compliance something that you receive from Collect America or is that something you contained on your own? A. Both. Q. Is there any distinction as to where the case law was obtained? A. No. Q. And the testing materials were obtained from Collect America? A. Not all of them, no. Q. Oh, you have some that were -A. Actually, I don't think any of them. Q. Were they testing materials from ACA? A. Some were, yes. Q. Where are the others from? A. To be honest with you, I have no idea. Q. I just want to make sure I've covered everything we discussed Tuesday about the initial training that happens when a collector is hired. And now you've told me that there's some quarterly training. And we previously talked about the monthly meetings. Is there any other training? A. Training is daily, I mean, to be honest with you. I mean, we've got two collection managers that sit right on the floor that move from desk to desk to desk. I've got a general manager whose office opens onto the floor. He moves from desk to desk to desk. And my office opens right onto the floor. So anytime we think we hear something or identify something, whether it be FDCPA related or Neuheisel Law Firm policy related or a STARS issues, it's addressed on an as-needed, daily basis. Q. Do you belong to any lawyer groups that deal with collections, like the National Consumer -A. No. Q. -- Lawyers Group? Have you gotten any FDCPA material from professional associations like a bar association or a lawyers' group? A. I'm sure some of my materials have come from there, but I don't -- I mean, the ACA testing materials I received, for example. I'm sure some of them have. I mean, they're circulated among collection attorneys. Q. Do you attend seminars specifically on the FDCPA? A. Yes. Q. Do you keep your materials from those seminars? A. Yes. Q. Do you still have those?
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0229 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0230 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
A. I'm sure I have some of them, yes. Q. In updating your collectors in their training materials, what materials do you use most often from the FDCPA? Is it materials you obtain from the ACA or from your seminars? A. It varies. I can't say one is more than the other. Q. Is there any particular materials that you refer to more than others? A. No. Q. Are there any books or materials that you keep on your desk for a quick reference? A. A blue FDCPA book, yes. Q. And that's the blue book you received from Collect America? A. I bought it through them, yeah. They had several. I bought it from them, yes. Q. Anything else? A. On my desk? Q. Right. A. No. Q. Do you have a credenza behind your desk? A. I have a lot of credenzas in my office. MS. HAYS: And I have a big floor, so -Q. (By Ms. Hays) Are there any documents, other than the employee manual, that are given to collectors for training on the sensitivity of leading a consumer to believe that they are being contacted by an attorney rather than a collector? A. Documents? Q. Right. A. Not that I'm aware of, no. Q. Neuheisel Law Firm is not Ken Jones' or Jason Davidson's law firm; correct? A. I don't understand the question. Q. They're not owners in Neuheisel Law Firm? A. Oh, no. Q. And they're not attorneys? A. No, they're not. MS. NETTLES: That's about the fifth time you've asked that question, Penny. Could we, please, not keep repeating the same questions over and over again? MS. HAYS: I'm doing the best I can. There's been two days, so -MS. NETTLES: I know that. I'm very well aware of that. Q. (By Ms. Hays) Jason Davidson doesn't have any collectors that work for him? MS. NETTLES: Asked and answered. MS. HAYS: You can answer it again, if you will, please. A. Jason Davidson is no longer employed by Neuheisel Law Firm. Q. But at the time he was a collector for
23 0231 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0232 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0233 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Neuheisel Law Firm, he did not have any representatives that worked for him? A. No. Q. When a collector is requested by a consumer to stop calling them at home, they're trained to request that notice in writing; is that right? A. Yes. Q. And in the meantime, they'll continue to call? A. Yes. Q. And are they -- and that's on all accounts; correct? A. Yes. Q. If a consumer requested that a collector stop calling them at home, and the collector responded that: I'm not concerned with what you're asking, and continued to call that individual, that could be considered harassment under the FDCPA? A. I suppose it could be considered harassment. Q. Do you have documentation -- other than the letters that you provided in response to the attorney general complaints, is there any documentation of any investigation made by Neuheisel Law Firm for any complaints by consumers, whether the complaints have been marked as an exhibit or not? MS. NETTLES: Object to the form of the question. It's been asked and answered. A. I didn't understand the question. Q. (By Ms. Hays) Sure. Excluding the complaints that have previously been marked as exhibits -MS. NETTLES: Excluding. I'm sorry. I didn't understand that part. A. Okay. Say that again. Q. (By Ms. Hays) Sure. Let me just start over. Excluding the complaints that have been marked as exhibits, is there any documentation -- I'm sorry. Let me just start that over because I don't want there to be any question. Excluding the complaints that have been marked as exhibits here and the [Consumers]' complaint, is there any documentation evidencing any investigation ever undertaken by Neuheisel Law Firm in response to a complaint by a consumer? A. Yes. Q. Where is that documentation? A. I'm sure in files back at my office. Q. And what does it consist of? A. It depends on the nature of the complaint. Q. Have you received letters from lawyers complaining about conduct of Neuheisel Law Firm collectors that were not included in the exhibits marked today? A. Yes.
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0234 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0235 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Q. How many? A. I have no idea; not many. Q. More than ten? A. I can't say. I would say not that many. Q. And if you receive a letter from an attorney, do you respond in writing? A. Generally, yes. Q. And that would be the documentation evidencing your investigation? A. Among possible other things, yes. Q. Do you have a file where you keep letters from lawyers regarding complaints? A. No. Q. Where are those letters maintained? A. In a letters received filed for that particular month. Q. Were the complaints marked as exhibits today, are those kept in a specific file? A. Yes. Q. And does that file have a name? A. Attorney general complaints. Q. Do you have a file for complaints to the Better Business Bureau? A. I believe so, yeah. I think it's just called complaints, formal complaints, maybe. I think it's just complaints, though. Q. Do you have any idea how many complaints have been received from the Better Business Bureau? A. Not many. Q. Is that the Better Business Bureau of Arizona? A. Some. Q. And are they from other Better Business Bureaus, as well? A. Some, yes. Q. Do you have a complaint file for complaints received from the Arizona or California Bar? A. Yes. Q. And is that a separate complaint file? A. Yes. Q. Within that bar complaint file, have you also received any complaints from any other bar association other than California and Arizona? A. I've never received one from California. Q. Just from Arizona? A. Just from Arizona. Q. Are any complaint files maintained in the California office? A. I can't answer that question. Q. There's no specific complaint file for letters received from attorneys complaining unless it's through the attorney general? A. Correct. Q. Do you keep, what's Plaintiff's Exhibit 7 to Mr. Jones' deposition, the note line and account
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0236 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0237 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0238 1
records indefinitely? A. Indefinitely? Q. I'll just ask you this: How long do you keep the account information and note lines contained within Plaintiff's Exhibit 7? A. They're maintained by STARS. And as long as it's in my office, I have access to it. Q. Is there any permanent record of the collection activity on an account? A. I believe Collect America keeps a permanent record. Q. But Neuheisel Law Firm doesn't keep a permanent record if the account has left the office? A. Correct. Q. Do you know for certain that Collect America keeps that permanent record? A. No. I can't -Q. But who maintains the STARS program? A. I have no idea. Q. Does Neuheisel Law Firm report accounts to credit bureaus? A. No. Q. Oral requests to cease and desist calling a consumer at work are required to be honored by the FDCPA; correct? A. I don't believe that's true. Q. Are oral requests to cease and desist calls at work required to be honored by Neuheisel Law Firm's policy and procedures? A. Yes. Q. Are oral requests to cease and desist calls at work required to be honored by some state laws? A. I don't know the answer to that question. Q. And certainly with respect to Neuheisel's policy and procedures manual, an oral request to cease and desist is all that's necessary for calls to a place of employment to stop -A. That is our policy; correct. Q. And is it's your opinion that the FDCPA does not require collectors to stop calling a place of employment once they're given an oral cease and desist? A. Not necessarily. I think it depends on the facts. Q. What facts would allow your collectors to continue to call an individual at work after an oral cease and desist? MS. NETTLES: Object to the form. She just said it wasn't their policy to do it. Now, are you talking about the FDCPA, or are you talking about her policy? MS. HAYS: The FDCPA. Q. (By Ms. Hays) Under the FDCPA, you testified that it would depend on the facts. What facts,
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0239 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0240 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
under the FDCPA, would allow a collector to continue to call a consumer at work after an oral cease and desist? A. It's my understanding that to ask a collector to cease and desist collection efforts should be in writing, unless the collector knows -- or has reason to know that that consumer is not allowed to receive calls at his or her place of employment. I'd have to see the FDCPA to get the exact verbiage. But that's -- and I know it's a gray area, but -Q. And that's for calls at work? A. Correct. Q. And that's pursuant to the FDCPA? A. To my understanding, yes. Q. If a collector at Neuheisel Law Firm required a consumer to do something other than orally request that the calls to their employment stop, that would be a violation of your policy and procedures manual? A. I don't understand your question. Q. Sure. Your policy and procedures manual provides that if a consumer orally requests that calls to their place of employment stop, that those calls will stop; correct? A. That is our policy, yes. Q. And if one of your collectors required a consumer to provide something in addition to the oral request, that would be a violation of your policy? A. Yes. Q. Do you have any other documentation, other than the employee manual, to show that your collectors were trained on that policy? A. Possibly, yes. Q. What would those be? A. It would be a memo. Q. And there are memos that deal with -possibly deal with this issue that we have not been provided? A. Yes. Q. Are there any documents, other than the employee policy and procedures manual, that show your collectors were trained on how to respond to a cease and desist for calls at home? A. Yes. We have a training outline. Q. A training outline? A. Yeah. Q. Where is that document? A. In Matt Gascon's office or on his desktop. Q. Is there a reason that we have not been provided that? A. No. Q. No. Okay. MS. NETTLES: How much more do you think you have? MS. HAYS: You told me we had until 12:00.
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0241 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0242 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
And I will be done by 12:00. MS. NETTLES: Okay. I'm not going to redirect, then. I'll just save mine for trial. MS. HAYS: Okay. Q. (By Ms. Hays) When you signed up to be a franchisee of Collect America, did Collect America have any requirements or qualifications that you had to provide to them? A. I don't understand the question. Can you be more specific? Q. Yeah. We talked Tuesday that you're a franchisee of Collect America -- Cube Recovery is a franchisee of Collect America? A. Correct. Q. When Cube Recovery purchased the franchise, were there any requirements that you had to provide or show to Collect America in order to be allowed to purchase the franchise? A. They did background checks. That's all I know. Q. Okay. Does Collect America require you to attend any specific seminars or training to -- as part of your franchise agreement? A. I don't know that it's set forth in our franchise agreement, but we do have seminars that we're required to attend. Q. Are those seminars generally put on by the counsel at Collect America? A. Sometimes, yes. Q. Can you tell me some of the individuals who have put on the other seminars? A. Manning Neuburgher. Q. Manning Neuburgher? A. Well, they put on the seminar, but they invite guest speakers and bring different people from the industry to speak to all of us. MR. LORANT: From Texas? MS. NEUHEISEL: Yeah. MS. HAYS: I should have been going by notes all the time. It's easier for me. Q. (By Ms. Hays) When collectors pull up an account to make contact or to make a call, does the computer software automatically enter the call for the collector? A. No. Q. So the collectors are required to manually and physically enter that they've made a call? A. Yes. Q. And is that the same case if a consumer calls in and speaks with a collector? If a consumer calls in and speaks with a collector, the computer software doesn't automatically enter that a call was received? A. Correct. Q. It's up to the collector to enter that
20 21 22 23 0243 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0244 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0245 1 2 3 4
information. A. Correct. Q. Do you keep any type of records or reports on how many calls -- other than the phone records -- on how many calls are actually made per day? A. We can return a report how many accounts have been worked today. Q. Do you run those reports regularly? A. I look at them regularly. I don't necessarily print it. Q. Do you have the ability to go back and run a report on the number of accounts worked on a specific day in the past? A. Yes and no. I mean, I think I can two days ago or a week ago or -- but I don't -- like, I couldn't punch in a date. Q. Can you do, like, for the past six months? A. I don't think six months. I think it goes week, month, year. Q. So you can break it down in those categories? A. Yeah, I believe so. Q. On average, just based on your recollection, how many accounts are generally worked per day at Neuheisel? A. It depends on the day. Q. On a Monday through Friday because I know Saturday is a short day. A. Right. But it also depends on the time of the month and the hours of the day, but I'd say 50. Q. Total for all collectors? A. No, per collector. I'm sorry. Q. And are accounts worked more frequently at the beginning of the month or at the end of the month? A. When we get new business, a lot with -they'll get in there and leave messages at all those numbers. So we might work more accounts on that particular day. Q. Is there any set time when you receive the new business, like at the beginning of the month or -A. No. Generally, the beginning and the middle we get two drops. But it's sporadic. When they get it, they turn around and assign it. Q. So other than the general idea that collectors are working about 50 accounts per day, you have no idea how many calls they're actually making per day? A. I could figure it out. But, no, I don't as I sit here today. Q. on the A. Q. Does Collect America pay Cube Recovery based amount of money recovered on the accounts? Yes. And then Cube Recovery remits the payment to
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0246 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0247 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Neuheisel Law Firm? A. Correct. Q. Does Cube Recovery file tax returns? A. Yes. Q. Does Cube Recovery issue paychecks to the three owners? A. Paychecks, no. Q. Does Cube Recovery issue disbursements to them -A. Yes. Q. How often? A. Well, the first disbursement was made in October of 2002, and it was one disbursement. And the second disbursement was issued at the end of March, 2003. But other than that, there have been no disbursements. Q. Are those like stock dividend disbursements or just -MS. NETTLES: I'm going to go on the record as objecting to this whole line of questioning. Cube Recovery is not a defendant in this lawsuit. And what they do has absolutely nothing to do with the allegations in this case. I'm going to object to this whole line of questioning as to relevancy. MS. HAYS: Well, we weren't notified that Cube Recovery was even a potential party in this lawsuit until we received the documents, which was about a week and a half ago, where the document had the name Cube Recovery. They were not identified in any way prior to receiving this document. MS. NETTLES: Because they're not a part -there's no reason for us to have identified them. And we responded to the document -- to the request. And we gave you the documents. And you haven't done anything other than talk about Cube Recovery and Collect America this whole deposition. If you want to sue those two entities, go find a plaintiff. Q. (By Ms. Hays) When calls are made to a consumer and the line is busy, are your collectors trained to enter a note in the note lines? A. Yes. Q. What if there's no answer? A. Yes. Q. Then they're also to enter a note on the note lines? A. Yes. MS. HAYS: If you'll give me like two minutes, I think I'm done. MS. NETTLES: Okay. How much time does Charlie need? MR. LORANT: I always need more time. MS. HAYS: We offer all the exhibits, 1 through 26 marked as exhibits. And I have nothing further, so I've left you 30 minutes. MS. NETTLES: That's all right. I'm not --
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0248 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0249 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
I'll just save mine for trial. MS. HAYS: We're done. MS. NETTLES: Okay.
~~ooOoo~~ The deposition of KATHRYN NEUHEISEL concluded at 5:37 p.m. on June 17, 2003 (and) concluded at 11:33 a.m. on June 19, 2003 ~~ooOoo~~
C E R T I F I C A T E STATE OF ALABAMA ) COUNTY OF JEFFERSON ) I, Dionne M. Motley, Court Reporter of the State of Alabama, do hereby certify there came before me the aforenamed deponent, who was by me duly sworn to testify to the truth concerning the matters in this cause. I further certify that I am neither attorney or counsel for, nor related to or employed by any of the parties to the action in which this deposition is taken; and furthermore, that I am not a relative or employee of any attorney or counsel employed by the parties hereto, or financially interested in the action. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have set my hand this the 17th and 19th day of June, 2003. Dionne M. Motley Court Reporter Notary Public
22 23
My Commission Expires: July 27, 2005.
5.13 Memorandum Opposing Summary Judgment

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JEFFERSON COUNTY, ALABAMA [Consumer 1] and [Consumer 2], Plaintiffs, v. Neuheisel Law Firm, et al., Defendants.
PLAINTIFFS MEMORANDUM BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT COME NOW the Plaintiffs in the above-styled cause and respectfully submit this brief in opposition to Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment. STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS Neuheisel Law Firm (NLF) is a debt collector as defined by the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), and is governed by the FDCPA. (Neuheisel Depo p. 114, attached as Exhibit 1). Ken Jones and Jason Davidson are also debt collectors governed by the FDCPA. (Neuheisel Depo p. 115; Jones Depo p. 76). None of the collectors working for NLF are attorneys. (Neuheisel Depo p. 33). Ken Jones is not an attorney and Jason Davidson is not an attorney. (Neuheisel Depo p. 33). In December 2001 and early 2002, NLF had no means in place to monitor their collectors, nor did NLF have any guidelines for how often collection calls were to be monitored. (Neuheisel Depo p. 62, 79). Neuheisel herself did not monitor any calls during that time. (Neuheisel Depo p. 79, 196). None of the calls made by collectors were recorded and no video cameras were used to monitor collectors. (Neuheisel Depo. p 70, 80). There were no forms used if a call was monitored. (Neuheisel Depo. p 79). Matt Gascon, the supervisor, was required to monitor calls. (Neuheisel Depo p. 36, 78). During the time frame of the [Consumer] calls, Gascon was the only person monitoring calls. (Neuheisel Depo p. 77). However, there was no specific requirement on how many calls he was to monitor, how often he was to monitor those calls, or how he was to monitor the call. Nor is there any documentation that calls were actually monitored. (Neuheisel Depo. p 78 - 79). Neuheisel was not monitoring any of the calls between Jones and/or Davidson when they were communicating with [Consumers]. (Neuheisel Depo p. 196). She was not standing or sitting beside Jones or Davidson during any of the calls. (Neuheisel Depo p. 196). Gascon was also not monitoring their calls. (Neuheisel Depo. p. 196). No one monitored any of the calls between NLF collectors and the [Consumer]. (Neuheisel Depo p. 196-197). Accordingly, Neuheisel has absolutely no knowledge that will allow her to dispute [Consumers] testimony regarding the content of the calls. (Neuheisel Depo. p. 197).
27
Collect America has specific work standards which are required to be follow by NLF and its collectors. (Neuheisel Depo p 25-26). Collect America has specific minimum work standards for collection of Collect America accounts. (Neuheisel Depo p. 136). Jones was unaware of any such procedures and had never been provided the procedures. (Jones Depo p. 122-123, 130). The Policy and Procedure Manual at NLF was adopted in order to comply with the FDCPA and to ensure employees complied with State law requirements. (Neuheisel Depo. p. 144 - 145). Other then requiring collectors to comply with the FDCPA, NLFs Policy and Procedures Manual and State Law Regulations, there are no other specific requirements governing a collectors activity on an account. (Neuheisel Depo. p 92). There are no requirements on how many calls a collector can make on an account or how many times they can access an account on a daily or weekly basis. (Neuheisel Depo. p 92). Prior to the filing of this lawsuit, Neuheisel had received complaints on both Jones and Davidson. (Neuheisel Depo. p. 97-98). Despite this notice, neither collector was placed on probation or suspended. (Neuheisel Depo. p. 98). Davidson was given a written reprimand and, because she was not sure the complaint against Jones was valid, they simply went over the problems the complaint involved. (Neuheisel Depo. p 98-99). When Collect America assigns accounts for collection to CUBE Recovery and thus NLF, there are certain collection criteria that are required to be followed. (December 13, 2001 Placement Agreement attached as Exhibit 2). The December 13, 2001, Placement Agreement included the [Consumer] account. (Neuheisel Depo. p 18; Exhibit 2). In this Placement Agreement, Collect America specifically stated [p]ay particular attention to and review the work standards attached hereto as Exhibit A and the performance standards attached hereto as Exhibit B. (Exhibit 2). Neuheisel testified that the work standards referenced in this Placement Agreement were the same work standards and performance standards set forth in a Placement Agreement from Collect America to Neuheisel Law Firm dated February 4, 2000. (Neuheisel Depo. p. 18; February 4, 2000, Placement Agreement attached as Exhibit 3). Collect Americas work standards specify that within the first 15 days all accounts with phone numbers you must call each debtor at the number given up to three times on different days. (Exhibit 3). After 15 days all accounts in a collectors queue must be worked a minimum of two times per month. (Exhibit 3). Jones was unaware of any Collect America criteria and had never even seen them. (Jones Depo p. 30). On January 5, 2001, Neuheisel personally certified that Jason Davidson was sufficiently proficient in his knowledge of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and other Federal, State and local laws, and requested that he be allowed access to the STAR system. (Exhibit 4). Neuheisel has never withdrawn that certification of Davidson, even after reviewing the transcripts of the tape recordings in this case. (Neuheisel Depo. p. 148, 113). On May 30, 2001, Neuheisel also personally certified that Ken Jones was sufficiently proficient in his knowledge of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and requested that he be allowed access to the STAR system. (Exhibit 5). Neuheisel has never withdrawn her certification of Jones. (Neuheisel Depo. p. 191). Although Neuheisel and Jones testified that there were monthly meetings regarding training, the FDCPA, and State laws, no documents or records of any kind have been produced indicating that those meetings actually took place. In fact, Neuheisel testified that she did not have any notes or records documenting that such meetings actually took place. (Neuheisel Depo. p 159). On December 13, 2001, Collect America placed the [Consumer] account with NLF for collection. (Exhibit 2). On that same day, Ken Jones (Jones), a collector for NLF began
28
calling [Consumers]. (Exhibit 6). Some of the calls made to [Consumers] were recorded in the note lines, which are part of the Account Information Report. (Exhibit 6). On December 17, 2001, Jones called and spoke with [Consumer 1]. (Exhibit 6). During this first conversation, Jones told [Consumer 1] he was an attorney representing a client who had purchased her account from MBNA. ([Consumer 1] Depo p. 103, attached hereto as Exhibit 7). [Consumer 1] explained to Jones that she had just had disk surgery and that her husband, [Consumer 2], was handling the finances. (Handwritten notes of [Consumer 1] attached hereto as Exhibit 8; [Consumer 1] Depo p. 103, 178-179). Jones asked for a lot of identifying information. ([Consumer 1] Depo p. 178). When [Consumer 1] told Jones that it made her nervous, he responded the information was necessary to show stability. ([Consumer 1] Depo p. 178). The next morning, when [Consumer 2] spoke with Jones, he requested the name of the company Jones was calling from. ([Consumer 1] Depo p. 106). Jones only response was that is neither here nor there. ([Consumer 1] Depo p. 106). That same day, Jones called [Consumer 1] at home and then immediately called [Consumer 2] at work. (Exhibit 6). On December 19, 2001, [Consumer 1] received approximately four calls from Jones. ([Consumer 1] Depo p. 109). At the time [Consumer 1] was receiving these calls, she was unable to leave the house because of her neck surgery. ([Consumer 1] Depo p. 111, 193). During these calls, Jones demanded large payments over the phone and was very agitated. ([Consumer 1] Depo p. 189). In the last call on December 19, 2001, Jones asked [Consumer 1] where he should send the sheriff, to the church to pick up her husband or to the house to get her. (Exhibit 8, page 5). [Consumer 1] was extremely scared by these calls so [Consumer 2] asked someone to go stay with her. ([Consumer 2] Depo p. 57, 124; attached as Exhibit 9). [Consumer 2] also received numerous calls at work on December 19. ([Consumer 2] Depo p. 112-113). It was at least three calls. ([Consumer 2] Depo p. 116). On December 20, 2001, Jason Davidson called [Consumer 2]. (Exhibit 2). During this telephone call, Davidson told [Consumer 2] youve been given a definitive commitment by Neuheisel Law Firm that at this point your account has been closed as a refusal to pay and that we are going to be scheduling a summons and complaint to be served for [Consumer 1] for the amount of $3,295.75. (Affidavit of [Consumer 2] attached as Exhibit 10, Exhibit A p. 3). Davidson also told [Consumer 2] dont call this office back or Im gonna get you for harassment. Im going to call your wifes job now. Im gonna get the fax number. Im gonna fax a letter over to the payroll department verifying her wages and have her sued. (Exhibit 10, p. 6). On December 21, 2001, Jones called [Consumer 2] at home. (Exhibit 6; Exhibit 10). During this telephone conversation Jones admitted that he had called [Consumers] over 20 times. (Exhibit 10, p. 7). Jones also threatened [Consumers] by telling them they were dead meat. (Exhibit 10, p. 11). As a result of this threat, [Consumer 2] called the police and filed a police report. ([Consumer 2] Depo p. 135-137; Police Report attached as Exhibit 11). The collector was so aggressive that [Consumer 2] did not know if the next stop was going to be this collector knocking on his door. ([Consumer 2] Depo p. 139). On February 1, 2002, Jones called [Consumers] at home and left a message. (Exhibit 6; Jones Depo p. 183, attached as Exhibit 12). Jones also called [Consumer 1] at work and left a message. (Exhibit 6). On February 7, 2002, Jones called and spoke with [Consumer 1]s employer. (Exhibit 6; Jones Depo p. 186). A week later, on February 14, Jones called [Consumer 1] at work and then immediately called [Consumer 2] at work. (Exhibit 6). During Jones conversation with [Consumer 2], [Consumer 2] specifically requested that he no longer be called at home or at work. (Exhibit 6; Exhibit 10, p. 13). Jones told [Consumer 2] that given
29
the fact that you are in the clergy Im just trying to come up with a reason not to file suit, . . . I just havent gotten the petition back from court. . . (Exhibit 10, p. 13). The very next day, Davidson called [Consumer 1] at home and work and left messages at both locations. (Exhibit 6). Then, despite the previous cease and desist notice, Davidson called [Consumer 2] at work. (Exhibit 6). During this call [Consumer 2] again requested that he not be called at work. (Exhibit 10, p. 16). Davidsons response was I dont really take requests. This isnt a radio station, this is a law firm. (Exhibit 10, p. 16). [Consumer 2] continued to ask that the calls to him at work stop, to which Davidson replied the bottom line is, if youre not paying, you get calls. (Exhibit 10, p. 17). Davidson ended the call by stating We will just deal with [[Consumer 1]], because I think that if you put the right amount of pressure on her, I think shell probably do something, even if I have to make her run to a lawyer and file bankruptcy. The right amount of pressure, I usually have some tactics that can get people kind of motivated to do something. Why dont I do that, Ill document dont deal with you, cause you get, I dont know if its youre just sensitive or overwhelmed with it. Im gonna have all future correspondence directed to your wife and only your wife. (Exhibit 10, p. 18). During Davidsons telephone conversation with [Consumer 1] the same day, Davidson admitted that [Consumer 1] and [Consumer 2] had been complaining about the collection calls they were receiving. (Affidavit of [Consumer 1] attached as Exhibit 13, Exhibit A p. 6). [Consumer 1] told Davidson to stop calling her at work and Davidson responded I dont take requests, put it in writing, get it certified and notarized. I dont take requests, period. (Exhibit 13, p. 6). [Consumer 1] again told Davidson to stop calling her at work and Davidson replied I will call wherever I want, whenever I want. (Exhibit 13, p. 7). As a result of the calls, [Consumer 1] was extremely depressed and distraught. ([Consumer 1] Depo p. 156). She was afraid to answer the phone, did not want to be alone because she thought the sheriff might show up, and was scared because the collector had told them they were dead meat. ([Consumer 1] Depo p. 225). As a result, [Consumer 1] required a Zoloft prescription. ([Consumer 1] Depo p. 170). [Consumer 2] worried about [Consumer 1], had and continues to have trouble sleeping, and has stomach problems to such a degree that it resulted in problems having bowel movements and chest pains. ([Consumer 2] Depo p. 140143). [Consumer 2] feared losing his job at First Baptist Church, as well as feared answering the phone. ([Consumer 2] Depo p. 142, 161-163). Due to his ongoing stomach problems, [Consumer 2] now takes Protonox. ([Consumer 2] Depo p. 146). It is NFLs and Neuheisels job to make sure her collectors are in compliance with the FDCPA. (Neuheisel Depo. p 205). It is harassment and a violation of the FDCPA for a collector to threaten action that a collector does not actually intend to carry out. (Neuheisel Depo. p. 213). It is harassment and a violation of the FDCPA to threaten action which a collector can not carry out. (Neuheisel Depo. p. 214). Any threat made by Jones or Davidson to fax a wage verification to [Consumer 1]s employer was a violation of the FDCPA and NLFs policies. (Neuheisel Depo p. 215). Any threat or insinuation that NLF was going to be sending a Sheriff to get one of [Consumers] was a violation of the FDCPA and NLFs policies. (Neuheisel Depo. p. 219-220). Any threat to knowingly send or say something to an employer or third party that would expose that a consumer owed a debt is a violation of the FDCPA, NLFs policies, and is harassment. (Neuheisel Depo p. 220-221). Telling a consumer that they were dead meat is a violation of the FDCPA, and was harassment. (Neuheisel Depo p. 222-223). Jones agreed that telling a consumer or debtor they were dead meat, that Im sending the sheriff out to pick you up, and informing a debtors supervisor that a sheriff was going to serve a summons because of a debt
30
were all violations of the FDCPA. (Jones Depo p. 29). Calling a debtor three times in one day violates the law. (Jones Depo p. 148). Calling a debtor two times in one day violates the law. (Jones Depo p. 149). A review of the NLF call logs (Exhibit 6), [Consumer 1]s handwritten notes (Exhibit 8), and the telephone transcripts (Exhibit 10 and 13) reveal the following. On December 17, 2001, they were in contact twice; on December 18, 2001, they were in contact once; on December 19, 2001, they were in contact a total of six times with five of those times being initiated by NLF; on December 20, 2001, they were in contact one time; the week of December 13, 2001, through December 20, 2001, they were in contact nine times which were initiated by NLF; on December 20, 2001 they were in contact once; on February 7, 2002, they were in contact once; on February 14, 2002, they were in contact once and on February 15, 2002, they were in contact twice, one of which was initiated by NLF. Kathryn Neuheisel admitted that there was at least one phone call that did not appear on the logs. (Neuheisel Depo p. 89-90). Ken Jones testified there was no activity between December 21, 2001, and January 14, 2002. (Jones Depo p. 181). Contrary to that and the logs, the secretary at [Consumer 2]s place of employment stated that the frequency of the calls from Jones started out at two times per week and then escalated to two to three calls per day, two to three days per week. (Campbell Depo p. 13-15). Further, Campbell testified there was never a period when there were no calls. (Campbell Depo p. 38). Kathryn Neuheisel testified that collectors are to document contact with any individual on the notes screen. (Neuheisel Depo p. 70). She testified the notes on the [Consumer] account were vague, not comprehensive and incomplete at best. (Neuheisel Depo p. 200). Selected excerpts from the taped conversations between the NLF collectors and [Consumers] reveal the following words spoken by NLF collectors: potential wage garnishment and summons, go to litigation, going forward with litigation, verified you guys have income, your in a garnishable state, being served a summons and complaint, scheduling a summons and complaint; going to be dealing with litigation and dealing with additional court costs, attorneys fees and interest, check with your local attorney . . . going to advise you on a way to just go bankrupt. I am going to get you for harassment. Im going to call your wifes job and get the fax number. I am going to fax a letter over to the payroll department verifying her wages and have her sued. Your wife flips out; you as a man of God . . . sat here and lied like this. Youre married to her and youre stuck with her whatever she happens to do or be. Who do you think serves people when we send a summons? (Made in response to [Consumer]s comment about NLFs threat to send sheriff). She completely flipped and I mean when I say flipped, I mean flipped out. I couldnt believe it. She started screaming and crying; You guys are dead meat; MR. Davidson recommended suit or possible bankruptcy; Fax paperwork to your payroll today, then, so we can verify your wages and start the process to have you sued. Whatever you dont want them to know they are going to know when they get the fax. Main objective is not to worry about what happens with your employment; go ahead and have you served a complaint to appear in court and I promise you then your husband and your facade will come down. It will go on your permanent record; youre supposed to be a man of God. Already
31
recommended suit. I just havent gotten the petition back from Court. I dont take requests, period. (This was in response to [Consumer]s request to cease calls at work). I will call you whenever I want, wherever I want, as the law allows. (In response to [Consumer]s multiple requests to not call her at her place of employment). Before I can feel good about serving your wife a summons and complaint, issued a summons to appear in court . . . is going to force you guys to address this. I dont take requests. This isnt a radio station. This is a law firm. (In response to [Consumer]s request to stop calling at work). The bottom line is youre not paying and youre going to get calls. Im not concerned with what youre asking. (In response to [Consumer]s request to stop calling). Its pretty much up in the air whether I want to call you again in the future. I have the same rights you do. Well just deal with her because I think that if I put the right amount of pressure on her, I can probably get her to do something. (In response to [Consumer]s request caller not talk with wife). The right amount of pressure, I usually have some tactics that gets people kind of motivated. Im going to have all future correspondence directed to your wife and only your wife. Neuheisel testified their communications violated NLF policies, violated state laws, violated the FDCPA, were wrong, were outrageous and/or were harassment. (Neuheisel Depo pp. 95, 96, 113, 214-223). The FDCPA is the most expansive law governing NLF. It is Neuheisels job to make sure NLF collectors are in compliance with FDCPA. (Neuheisel Depo p. 204-205). More than one contact with a consumer per day would violate NLF policy. (Neuheisel Depo p. 206). There are documented occurrences with contact with caller greater than once per day. NLF collectors should be trained on the FDCPA prohibition on threatening action they could not take or did not intend to take. Doing so violates the FDCPA and is harassment. (Neuheisel Depo p. 214). NLF does not have the ability to sue [Consumers] in Alabama and never had approval to ever sue [Consumers]. (Neuheisel depo at 216-217). Threats by Ken Jones or Jason Davidson to fax documentation to an employer, including wage verification forms, violated the FDCPA. (Neuheisel Depo p. 215). There were multiple such threats recorded. It would be a violation of FDCPA and NLF policy to ever talk about garnishment without a judgment. No judgment on [Consumers]. (Neuheisel Depo p. 218). There were multiple such references recorded. Any threat to disclose a consumer debt to a third party violated the FDCPA, NLF policy and would be harassment. (Neuheisel Depo p. 220221). There were multiple such threats recorded. Telling someone they are dead meat, which Kathryn Neuheisel cant dispute, violates the FDCPA, NLF policy and, in her opinion, a supervising attorney would be harassment. (Neuheisel Depo p. 222). The tape recordings speak for themselves. Calls are not documented as required by NLF policies; notes are incomplete and not comprehensible. Kathryn Neuheisel performs a spot check on new employees the first 90 days. (Neuheisel Depo p. 74). Jones began employment on April 4, 2001. There are no records reflecting any spot check. There were no monthly reviews of Ken Jones or Jason Davidson provided to Plaintiffs counsel. Reviews were supposedly made on Jones. (Neuheisel Depo p. 75-77). Performance evaluations were done on Ken Jones and Jason Davidson. (Neuheisel Depo p. 78-79). No such reviews have been provided to Plaintiffs counsel.
32
Neuheisel had complaints on Jones and Davidson prior to this lawsuit. (Neuheisel Depo p. 98). Davidson was on a short leash as a result of prior complaints. (Neuheisel Depo p. 99). Nevertheless no one was sitting close to these collectors and none of the supervisors overheard or monitored any of the calls to [Consumers]. (Neuheisel Depo pp. 196-197). In addition to complaints provided to Plaintiffs counsel by Defendants, there are other documents in NLFs possession regarding complaints from consumers, letters from attorneys regarding consumer complaints, and Better Business Bureau complaints, which have not been provided to Plaintiffs counsel. (Neuheisel Depo pp. 232-239). Collectors are only allowed one contact per day. (Neuheisel Depo p. 182-183). A simple review of the log notes, handwritten notes of [Consumer 1], and the telephone transcripts on the [Consumers] file reveal that NLF collectors were violating the law and NLF policies. A review of the complaints provided by NLF, shows that their violation was ongoing prior to [Consumers] claims, during the time of [Consumers] claims, and after [Consumers] claims. A. STANDARD OF REVIEW One should first look at the standard of review by which this Motion for Summary Judgement and the evidence presented to the court should be weighed. Under Rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, summary judgment is proper only if there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265, 106 S. Ct. 2548 (1986). A dispute is genuine if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Ventress v. State Farm Ins. Co., 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19319 (N.D. AL 2000) quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202, 106 S. Ct. 2505 (1986). Credibility determinations, the weighing of evidence, and the drawing of inferences from the facts are left to the jury, and therefore the evidence of the nonmovant is to be believed and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in [their] favor. Ventress, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19319, *7. B. THE DEFENDANTS ACTIONS CONSTITUTED AN INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS In order to recover damages for the intentional infliction of emotion distress, a plaintiff must demonstrate conduct that (1) was intentional or reckless; (2) was extreme and outrageous; and (3) caused emotional distress so severe that no reasonable person could be expected to endure it. Black v. Aegis Consumer Funding Group, Inc. et al., 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2632 (S.D. Ala. 2001) at *21. Reasonable person is a person with all of the characteristics of the plaintiff. Fain v. Smith & Delaney, 479 So. 2d 1150, 1155 (Ala. 1985). In Black, the plaintiffs undisputed facts demonstrated that the defendant, through its collector, carried out a systematic campaign of harassment. Id. at *24. Specifically, the creditor called the plaintiff at home and at work approximately 20 times within a one-month period. Id. at *18. The calls were late at night and early in the morning, and made to the plaintiffs parents as well. Based on these facts, the Court found that the collector had carried out a systematic campaign of harassment and intimidation which was reckless and intentional. Id. at *24. As a result, the plaintiff was caused to suffer anxiety, concern and fear, and mental anguish. Id. At *25. The Court found that the plaintiffs evidence that the systematic campaign of harassment and intimidation caused the
33
plaintiff to fear not just her own safety, but the safety of her children, and the security of her home and property, as well as suffer emotion distress which impacted on her marriage, family and job, was sufficient to establish the tort of outrage in the creditor/debtor collection context. Id. at *26. As set forth above, it is undisputed that the Defendants in this case carried out a systematic campaign of harassment against [Consumers]. The intentional, extreme and outrageous aspect of the Defendants conduct is evident from the context of the telephone calls set forth in the transcripts. Not only did the Defendants repeatedly contact [Consumers] at home and at work, but they threatened their physical well-being. Jones told [Consumer 2] that they were dead meat. Davidson told [Consumer 2] that he had the right amount of pressure and tactics to get [Consumer 1] to pay the debt. Additionally, the telephone calls were in complete disregard to the FDCPA as well as NLFs policies and procedures. Neuheisel reviewed the transcripts of the tape recordings and admitted she was outraged. (Neuheisel Depo. p. 113). As a result of the Defendants conduct, [Consumers] were caused severe emotional distress as would any reasonable person. [Consumer 1] had just had neck surgery and was home bound when the calls began. ([Consumer 1] Depo p. 111). [Consumer 1] testified that, as a result of the calls, she was scared, afraid to answer the phone, very distraught, very nervous, cried off and on, and did not feel comfortable being alone. ([Consumer 1] Depo p. 156, 225). [Consumer 1] also testified that she was falling apart and was unable to deal with the situation. ([Consumer 1] Depo p. 38). Because of the calls, [Friend], a friend of [Consumer 1]s, would come to the house to sit with her. ([Consumer 1] Depo p. 156, 160). On December 19, 2001, when [Friend] walked in the door, [Consumer 1] was on the floor crying. ([Consumer 1] Depo p. 157). [Consumer 2] testified that [Consumer 1] was extremely scared by the calls and that he stayed very worried about her. ([Consumer 2] Depo p. 57). [Consumer 1] called Dr. Sparks office to see if he could give her a prescription to help with her depression. ([Consumer 1] Depo p. 171). Dr. Sparks wife called [Consumer 1] back and stated that she had a prescription filled for Zoloft which she had not taken. ([Consumer 1] Depo p. 171). Dr. Sparks said it would be okay for [Consumer 1] to take that prescription and save the cost of having a prescription filled. ([Consumer 1] Depo p. 171). [Consumer 1] started taking Zoloft on December 21, 2001. ([Consumer 1] Depo p. 171). On January 16, 2002, [Consumer 1] returned to Dr. James Whites office for follow-up on her neck surgery. (Exhibit 14). During that visit, Dr. White noted that [Consumer 1] burst into tears and cried continuously throughout the interview. (Exhibit 14). Dr. White also noted that [Consumer 1] appeared terribly depressed. (Exhibit 14). [Consumer 2] also suffered as a result of the outrageous calls. [Consumer 2] had and continues to have trouble sleeping, and has stomach problems to such a degree that it resulted in problems having bowel movements and chest pains. ([Consumer 2] Depo p. 140-143). [Consumer 2] feared losing his job at First Baptist Church, as well as answering the phone. ([Consumer 2] Depo p. 142, 161-163). Due to his ongoing stomach problems, [Consumer 2] now takes Protonox. ([Consumer 2] Depo p. 146). Charlotte Elkins heard a taped conversation of an NLF collector and it shocked her. (Elkins Depo. p. 23-24). Elkins saw [Consumer 1] and she looked like someone just threatened her life, and real emotional. (Elkins Depo. p. 26). [Friend] testified that she saw [Consumer 1] crying, shaking, and afraid after a conversation with an NLF collector. ([Friend] Depo. p. 26, 34). These two individuals are reasonable persons and based on their testimony, it is clear that Davidson and Jones conduct was outrageous.
34
There is no doubt the calls made to [Consumers] were intentional. Neuheisel herself admits that the calls violated the FDCPA, NLFs policies, and that she was outraged by the content of the calls. It is equally clear that as a result, [Consumers] were caused emotional distress so severe that no reasonable person could be expected to endure it. Based on the foregoing, summary judgment on the claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress is due to be denied. C. THE DEFENDANTS ACTIONS CONSTITUTED AN INVASION OF THE PLAINTIFFS PRIVACY An individuals right of privacy is violated by (1) an intrusion upon the Plaintiffs physical solitude or seclusion; ... Alabama Pattern Jury Instructions 35.00, as amended. A wrongful intrusion upon a persons solitude or seclusion is defined as the intentional wrongful intrusion by the defendant into the plaintiffs private activities in such manner as to outrage or cause mental suffering, shame, or humiliation to a person of ordinary sensibilities. Alabama Pattern Jury Instructions 35.03, as amended December, 2000. The Alabama Supreme Court has repeatedly held: The wrongful intrusion prong of the tort of invasion of privacy has been defined as the intentional interference with anothers interest in solitude or seclusion, either as to his person or [as] to his private affairs or concerns. W. Prosser & W. Keeton, The Law of Torts, p. 851 (5th ed. 1984). There must be something in the nature of prying or intrusion and the intrusion must be something which would be offensive or objectionable to a reasonable person. Busby v. Truswal Systems Corp., 551 So. 2d 322, 323 9ALa. 1989) (quoting Hogin v. Cottingham, 533 So. 2d 525, 531 (Ala. 1988). (Emphasis in Busby). An intrusion into ones solitude or seclusion can result from collection activities of a creditor. In Black, supra, the district court also entered a default judgment in favor of plaintiffs on their invasion of privacy claims. Black, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2632. In Black, the collector placed 20 calls in a one month period which was sufficient to constitute a deliberate systematic campaign of harassment, and thus an invasion of privacy. Id. at *19. (Emphasis added). In Norris v. Moskin Stores, Inc., 272 Ala. 174, 177, 132 So. 2d 321, 323 (1961). the Alabama Supreme Court held that a jury could find that the creditors three telephone calls were outrageous and humiliating to a person of ordinary sensibilities. Id. at 325. Furthermore, as noted in Norris, the sending of a series of malicious letters also exceeded the bounds of reasonableness and can be actionable. Id. at 323-324, citing Barnett v. Collection Service Co., 214 Iowa 1303, 242 N.W. 25 (1932). However, where there is evidence that the defendant instituted a systematic campaign of harassment, whether by telephone or letter, the defendants actions must fall beyond the realm of reasonable and into the area of wrongful and actionable intrusion. Id. at 324-325. While a creditor has the right to take reasonable action to pursue his debtor, a debtor has a cause of action against the creditor when the creditors conduct exceeds the bounds of reasonableness. Jacksonville State Bank v. Barnwell, 481 So. 2d 863, 865-6 (Ala. 1985). What is reasonable action to collect a debt is a question of the fact. Norris, 132 So. 2d at 323.
35
In this case, there is substantial evidence that the Defendants instituted a systematic campaign of harassment against [Consumers]. A deliberate and systematic campaign of harassment that goes beyond the realm of reasonable action is evident from the facts set forth above and supports [Consumers] claims for intrusion into their solitude and seclusion. The Defendants have presented the communications so as to make them appear minimum in number and as unoffensive in nature as possible. However, the handwritten notes and the transcripts attached show the true volume and nature of the calls. (Exhibits 8, 10, and 13). When there is a reasonableness inquiry, that inquiry should be resolved by the trier of fact. Myers and Myers v. First Tennessee Bank, 136 F. Supp. 2d 1225, 1230 (M.D. AL 2001). In addition to the fact that the shear number of communications should present a jury question on the issue of offensive, the communications themselves further create a jury question on the offensive issue. The Defendants argue that the calls in Black were much more egregious than those in this case. In Black, the collection agent spoke with persons other than the debtor. Here, Jones and Davidson also spoke with persons other than the debtor. When Jones spoke to [Consumer 1]s supervisor, Doch DeRamus, he told Mr. DeRamus that he was sending the sheriff to serve [Consumer 1] with a summons. ([Consumer 1] Depo p. 151). In Black, the collector threatened the debtor with physical violence and criminal prosecution. Likewise, in this case, both Jones and Davidson threatened [Consumers] with physical violence, and Jones threatened [Consumer 1] with criminal prosecution when he asked where he should send the sheriff. Finally, the Defendants argue that the statements to [Consumers] were not personal in nature. They must be joking. As set forth above, it is undisputed that Davidson told [Consumer 2] dont call this office back or Im gonna get you for harassment. In a subsequent call, Davidson also [Consumer 2] youre just sensitive or overwhelmed. Jones told [Consumer 2] I just wish you as a man of God that you wouldnt sit here and lie like this, youre stuck with [your wife] whatever she happens to do or be, and you guys are dead meat. Davidson told [Consumer 1] that youre not really going to get a shoulder to cry on at Neuheisel Law Firm, I dont take requests, this isnt a survey, and I will call you wherever I want, whenever I want. These calls were not only threatening and harassive, they were also an invasion of the [Consumers] privacy. Based on the foregoing, the Defendants motion for summary judgment is due to be denied. D. DEFENDANT NEGLIGENTLY FAILED TO TRAIN AND SUPERVISE COLLECTORS In Lane v. Central Bank of Alabama, N.A., 425 So. 2d 1098, 1100 (Ala. 1983), the Supreme Court of Alabama stated: In the master and servant relationship, the master is held responsible for his servants incompetency when notice or knowledge, either actual or presumed, of such unfitness has been brought to him. Liability depends upon its being established by affirmative proof that such incompetency was actually known by the master or that, had he exercised due and proper diligence, he would have learned that which would charge him in the law with such knowledge. It is incumbent on the party charging negligence to show it by proper evidence. This may be done by showing specific acts of incompetency and bringing them home to the knowledge of the master, or by showing them to be of such nature, character, and frequency that the master, in the exercise of due care, must
36
have had them brought to his notice. While such specific acts of alleged incompetency cannot be shown to prove that the servant was negligent in doing or omitting to do the act complained of, it is proper, when repeated acts of carelessness and incompetency of a certain character are shown on the part of the servant to leave it to the jury whether they would have come to his knowledge, had he exercised ordinary care Lane, 425 So. 2d at 1100. (Emphasis added). In the case sub judice, the evidence of negligent training and supervision is substantial. First, there are no specific job requirements for collectors. (Neuheisel Depo p. 90). They do not have to have a high school diploma nor do they have to have any previous collection experience. (Neuheisel Depo p. 90). Additionally, no background checks are done on applicants before they are hired. (Neuheisel Depo p. 90). Davidson and Jones personnel files reveal that NLF and Neuheisel did not even check references from previous employers. (Davidson Personnel File, attached as Exhibit 15; Jones Personnel File, attached as Exhibit 16). If NLF and Neuheisel had checked references on Jones, they would have known there was a previous complaint against Jones made to the Attorney General of Texas. (Jones Depo p. 48). Certainly that would have called into question Jones fitness for employment as a collector. After Jones and Davidson were hired, the allegedly received two weeks of training which included providing them a copy of the Employee Manual. Debts on which Jones and Davidson were collecting, including the [Consumer] debt, were debts assigned by Collect America. (Neuheisel depo. p 21). Collect America had specific minimum work standards which governed the NLF collectors on Collect America debts . (Neuheisel depo. p 136). It is clear that Jones had never been trained on these minimum work standards because he testified that he did not have any procedures for collecting Collect America accounts, had not been provided any policy or procedure for handling Collect America accounts and had never even seen any Collect America criteria. (Jones Depo. p 122, 123, 130). Collect America restricts a collector from calling a debtor more than three times on different days during the first 15-day period. (Neuheisel Depo p 68; Exhibit 2). Equally clear is that there are no performance evaluations in the personnel files of either Jones or Davidson. Though Neuheisel and Jones admit performance evaluations were preformed on Jones and Davidson. (Jones Depo. p 81-82; Neuheisel Depo. p 75, 77, 78-79). There is also no record that any of Jones or Davidsons calls had ever been monitored. More substantive evidence shows that NLF failed to exercise due diligence and ordinary care in supervising its employees, including Jones and Davidson. Had NLF and Neuheisel exercised such ordinary care and due diligence, the repeated acts of carelessness and incompetency would have been obvious. First of all, even a cursory review of the notes in the NLF note screen on the [Consumer] account would have revealed repeated violations of the FDCPA and NLF policies. The Collect America minimum work standards somewhat conform to the NLF policy prohibiting greater than one contact with a consumer per day. (Neuheisel Depo. p 182-183, 206). Regardless of these two pertinent policies, the NLF collection screen shows violation of these policies. Neuheisel and Jones admit that any calls to a consumers place of employment made after a consumer request to cease calls to the place of employment violates the FDCPA. Neuheisel and Jones admit that NLF records reveal such a violation occurred in the collection of the [Consumer] account. (Neuheisel Depo. p 115; Jones 190-192). Note lines are to be entered at any time a collector speaks with any individual on an account.(Neuheisel.
37
Depo. p 70). NLF has the ability to monitor a call then check the notes made by the collector for accuracy. (Neuheisel Depo. p 80). Neuheisel states that she reviews the note lines entered by the collectors as her schedule permits. (Neuheisel Depo. p 72-73). A cursory review of the [Consumer] note would have revealed that Jones and/or Davidson were violating the FDCPA as well as Neuheisel and Collect America policies. Furthermore, after learning of the [Consumer]s allegations, Neuheisel reviewed the not screens. Her review resulted in her opinion that the note screens were vague, not sufficiently comprehensive and incomplete. (Neuheisel Depo. p 200). Had there been review or monitoring of the calls, Neuheisel or NLF would have detected this carelessness and incompetency. Additionally, there were multiple complaints about NLF collection activities made to Attorneys General Offices and through attorneys and consumers. Though Defendants claim the complaints were made after the lawsuit, the activities made the basis of those complaints occurred before, during and after the [Consumer] account was handled by NLF. The complaints included multiple factual complaints strikingly similar to the conduct [Consumers] allege. (Exhibits 15-21 ; Neuheisel Depo. p 149-178). Neuheisels investigations and responses were basically a review of the note logs, conversation with the collector, no conversation with the complaining party and then canned denials. (Exhibits 15-21). The repeated nature of the complaints would and certainly should put NLF on notice that its collectors are exceeding the bounds of the FDCPA and NLF policies. NLF does not and never has recorded calls. (Neuheisel Depo. p 70). Every place but one where Jones previously worked, recorded calls to monitor collectors. (Jones depo. p 21, 30, 36). NLF says they do monitor calls. During the time frame at issue, only a supervisory employee, Gascon, was monitoring collector calls.. He had no specific criteria or form for monitoring the calls, had no specific number of calls to monitor and no specific criteria of how often he was to monitor calls. (Neuheisel Depo. p 78-80). Neuheisel also testifies that Gascon walked around and listened to collectors. (Neuheisel Depo. P 80). However, neither she nor Gascon, nor anyone else, ever overheard any conversations between the collectors and [Consumers]. (Neuheisel Depo. p 196-197). Those calls took place over a two-month period! Perhaps no one overheard Jones and Davidsons communications with [Consumers] because Jones and Davidson sat together and no one else sat around them. (Neuheisel Depo. p 197). Ironically, [Consumers] managed to record five calls over the two month period. Neuheisel admits that the contents of those calls caused her to be outraged, that Jones and Davidsons conduct was wrong, that the communications violated the FDCPA, state laws and NLF policy. and finally, that communications within those tapes would be harassment. (Neuheisel Depo. p 95, 96, 113, 214-222). The nature, character and frequency of the acts, as recorded by [Consumers], is substantial evidence for a jury to conclude that Neuheisel and should have been aware of the incompetency had the exercised due diligence in monitoring and supervising their collectors. Had NLF and Neuheisel been properly monitoring their collectors, then [Consumers] would not have suffered the emotional and physical damages set out above. In Big B, Inc. v. Cottingham, the issue of failure to train and supervise was properly presented to a jury. There was evidence that Big B ran a background and credit history check on the employee before he was hired, that the check did not reveal anything which would have called the employees fitness for employment into question, and that a psychological test was also done to evaluate the employees integrity. In the case sub judice, a background check was not preformed, there is no evidence of any credit or psychological inquiry nor reference checks in the personnel files of Jones or Davidson. Big B, Inc. v. Cottingham, 634 So. 2d 999, 1003
38
(Ala. 1993). However, Cottingham produced evidence that the supervisors at Big B had failed to review the companys training manuals with the employee or otherwise train the employee as to the proper methods for detaining and questioning suspected shoplifters. Big B, 634 So. 2d at 1003. Though there is testimony that manuals were reviewed, with Jones, there is also testimony that minimum work standards were never presented to Jones. In Big B, Cottingham produced evidence that the supervisors had notice of a complaint that the employee had acted improperly on a previous occasion. Id. When the employee denied the allegations of the complaint, his supervisors simply told him that that type of conduct would not be tolerated. Id. Neuheisel also had notice of a prior complaint against Jones. Based on this evidence alone, the Court concluded that Cottinghams claim of negligent training and supervision was properly submitted to the jury. Id. Based on that precedent as well as the substantial evidence of the repetitive and gross nature of the unlawful and wrongcollection conduct, the [Consumer]s claims should likewise be allowed to go to a jury. E. PAUL TODD Defendant list facts concerning Paul Todd in their Statement of Undisputed Facts. Thereafter, there is neither issue raised or argument made concerning Paul Todd. In response to the evidentiary submission, Plaintiffs submit Mr. Todds Resume and Report related to his opinions in this matter. (Exhibit 14). F. DEFENDANTS CONCESSION THEY VIOLATED THE FDCPA DOES NOT EXTINGUISH THE PLAINTIFFS ATTORNEYS FEES While Defendants concede that some violations of the FDCPA were made, they have not set forth the provisions of the FDCPA they acknowledge were violated. Pursuant to the FDCPA, each debt collector who fails to comply with the Act is liable to any person for actual damages sustained as a result of such failure and statutory damages up to $1,000. 15 U.S.C. 1692k(a)(1) and (2)(A). In this case, both Jones and Davidson violated the FDCPA. Accordingly, [Consumers] are each entitled to $1,000 in statutory damages from each Defendant, plus actual damages. 15 U.S.C. 1692k(a). Actual damages include damages for mental anguish. McGrady v. Nissan Motor Acceptance Corp., et al., 40 F. Supp. 2d 1323, 1338 (M.D. Ala. 1998). Furthermore, damages for mental anguish should also be potentially unlimited pursuant to the FDCPA. McGrady, 40 F. Supp. at 1339. The amount of actual damages is a question to be determined by the jury. Thus, [Consumers] must present evidence of their actual damages resulting from the Defendants conduct at trial. The Defendants argue that their liability for attorneys fees should cease on August 1, 2003, the date their Motion for Summary Judgment was filed. However, no case law or statute was submitted in support of this position. On the contrary, the Defendants admitted that [Consumers] will have to prove actual damages at trial. As such, the Plaintiffs attorneys fees should include time spent in researching and responding to this portion of the Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiffs attorneys fees should also include time spent preparing the issue of damages for trial and the trial itself. CONCLUSION
39
There is substantial evidence that the Defendants conduct constituted an intentional infliction of emotional distress upon [Consumers]. The Defendants intentionally violated the FDCPA which was designed to protect debtors. Charlotte Elkins, a reasonable person, testified that she was shocked by the Defendants conduct and the statements they made. Neuheisel also admitted that she was outraged. As a result of the Defendants intentional conduct, each of [Consumers] suffered emotional distress so severe that no reasonable person could be expected to endure it, including severe depression, uncontrollable crying, and fear. There is also substantial evidence that the Defendants same conduct constituted an invasion of privacy. As such, the Defendants motion for summary judgment on these two claims is due to be denied. Likewise, there is substantial evidence that NLF and Neuheisel negligently failed to train and supervise its collectors. The Defendants concede they violated the FDCPA. Pursuant to the Act, Defendants owe $1000 for Jones violations to both [Consumer 1] and [Consumer 2], as well as $1000 for Davidsons violations to both [Consumer 1] and [Consumer 2]. In addition to this $4,000 in statutory damages, [Consumers] are entitled to unlimited mental anguish damages. As [Consumers] must prove actual damages at trial, the Defendants liability for attorneys fees is not extinguished. Wherefore, premises considered, the Plaintiffs respectfully request this Honorable Court to deny the Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment as to their intentional infliction of emotional distress, invasion of privacy, and negligent training and supervision claims. The Plaintiffs also respectfully request this Honorable Court to hold the Defendants liable for statutory damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1692k, the Plaintiffs mental anguish damages and their ongoing attorneys fees, including time spent responding to this issue on summary judgment as well as proving damages at trial.
Respectfully Submitted, ____________________________ [Attorneys for Plaintiffs]
40
5.14 Consent Judgment
41
4# p IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF A L A B A ~ , ' r' 3,: , "/&. ' SOUTHERN DIVISION 2
0 ,
z <.< :
Plaintiffs,
NEUHEISEL LAW FIRM, KATHRYN NEUHEISEL. JASON DAVIDSON, KEN JONES, Defendants.
1 1 1 1 1
1
Case No.:
CONSENT JUDGMENT On April 4,2004, Plaintiffs' filed a Notice of Acceptance of Offer of Judgment (Doc. #52) pursuant to Rule 68 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, judgment is hereby ENTERED in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendants, Neuheisel Law Firm, Kate Neuheisel, Jason Davidson, and Ken Jones in the amount of ninety thousand dollars ($90,000.00) inclusive of costs and attorney's fees now accrued. In light of the Rule 68 consent judgment, this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Each party shall bear their costs and attorney's fees from this date
DONE and ORDERED this
r-tk
day of April, 2004.
I?+
R DAVID PROCTOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

clp10 05

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

clp10 05

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter 5

Repeated Debt Collection Calls as an Invasion of Privacy

____________________________________ [Attorney for Plaintiffs]

5.2 Amended Complaint Adding Party

____________________________________ [Attorney for Plaintiffs]

5.3 Amended Complaint Adding FDCPA Claim to Tort Claims

____________________________________ [Attorney for Plaintiffs]

PLEASE SERVE SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH THE COMPLAINT IN THIS CAUSE

5.5 Request for Admissions

______________________________ [Attorney For Plaintiffs]

PLEASE SERVE SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH THE COMPLAINT IN THIS CAUSE

5.6 Document Production Request

____________________________________ [Attorney For Plaintiffs]

PLEASE SERVE SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH THE COMPLAINT IN THIS CAUSE

5.7 Notice of Taking Deposition

PLEASE SERVE SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH THE COMPLAINT IN THIS CAUSE.

5.8 Second Document Production Request

____________________________________ [Attorney for Plaintiffs]

5.9 Third Document Production Request

____________________________________ [Attorney for Plaintiffs]

5.10 Fourth Document Production Request

____________________________________ [Attorney for Plaintiffs]

5.11 Deposition of Collection Agency Employee

0001 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0002 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0003

DEPOSITION OF KENNETH JONES 9:18 a.m. June 17, 2003

Plaintiff's Plaintiff's Plaintiff's Plaintiff's Plaintiff's Plaintiff's

Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit

No. No. No. No. No. No.

19 20 21 22 23 0008 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0009 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0010 1 2 3

20 21 22 23 0015 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0016 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0017 1 2 3 4

23 0022 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0023 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0024 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0027 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0028 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0029 1

19 20 21 22 23 0034 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0035 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0036 1 2 3

22 23 0041 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0042 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0043 1 2 3 4 5 6

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0046 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0047 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0048

any other jobs at Corporate

19 20 21 22 23 0053 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0054 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0055 1 2 3

18 19 20 21 22 23 0060 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0061 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0062 1 2

21 22 23 0067 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0068 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0069 1 2 3 4

A. Q. A. call." Q. A. second didn't didn't sorry.

22 23 0074 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0075 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0076 1 2 3 4 5 6

0088 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0089 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0090 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0093 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0094 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0095 1

20 21 22 23 0100 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0101 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0102 1 2 3 4

21 22 23 0107 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0108 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0109 1 2 3 4 5

0114 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0115 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0116 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

18 19 20 21 22 23 0119 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0120 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0121 1 2

21 22 23 0126 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0127 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0128 1 2 3 4 5

0133 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0134 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0135 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. policy A. Q. you've A. Q. policy of any that I A. Q. A.

18 19 20 21 22 23 0138 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0139 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0140 1 2

19 20 21 22 23 0145 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0146 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0147 1 2 3

22 23 0152 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0153 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0154 1 2 3 4 5 6

0159 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0160 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0161 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

18 19 20 21 22 23 0164 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0165 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0166 1 2

21 22 23 0171 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0172 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0173 1 2 3 4 5

0178 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0179 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0180 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

18 19 20 21 22 23 0183 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0184 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0185 1 2

21 22 23 0190 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0191 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0192 1 2 3 4 5

0197 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0198 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0199 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

18 19 20 21 22 23 0202 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0203 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0204 1 2

20 21 22 23 0209 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0210 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0211 1 2 3

22 23 0216 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0217 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0218 1 2 3 4 5 6