Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Bryant v. Meade & Associates, Inc.

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

January 13, 2017

TERRY BRYANT, Plaintiff,
v.
MEADE & ASSOCIATES, INC., LAW OFFICES OF DONALD R. CONRAD, PLC, DONALD R. CONRAD, and LEGALCOLLECTIONS.COM LLC, Defendants.

          ORDER DENYING LUAI AND ALICE HINNAWIS' MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER (DOC. 99) ANDDENYING ICON MERCHANT SERVICES. INC.'S MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER (DOC. 100) [1]

          AVERN COHN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         I. Introduction

         This is a case under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and corresponding state debt collection statutes. Plaintiff Terry Bryant sued defendants Meade & Associates (Meade), the Law Offices of Donald R. Conrad, Donald R. Conrad, and LegalCollections.com, LLC. Bryant settled with Meade. (Doc. 5). The case then proceeded against the Law Offices of Donald R. Conrad, Donald R. Conrad, and LegalCollections.com (collectively, where appropriate, the Conrad defendants).Eventually, the Court entered a default judgment against the Conrad defendants for failure to comply with discovery and Court orders relating to discovery. (Doc. 28). The Court later granted plaintiffs motion for damages in the amount of $101, 000.00 against the Conrad defendants, jointly and severally. (Doc. 30).

         The Court also granted plaintiffs motion to compel in aid of judgment (Doc. 55) and entered an order compelling discovery from defendants in aid of execution on the judgment. (Doc. 95).

         In attempting to collect on the judgment, plaintiff issued several subpoenas. Before the Court are motions for protective order filed by non-parties Luai and Alice Hinnawis (the Hinnawis') (Doc. 99) and ICON Merchant Services, Inc. (ICON) (Doc. 100) which apparently object to plaintiffs collection efforts. For the reasons that follow, the motions are DENIED.

         II. Background

         Plaintiff has served the following discovery in aid of judgment:

- Subpoena to Comerica Bank issued October 14, 2016
- Interrogatories and Requests to Produce to Comerica Bank (Donald R. Conrad) issued November 1, 2016 Interrogatories and Requests to Produce to Comerica Bank (Law Office of Donald R. Conrad PLC) issued November 1, 2016
- Subpoena to Comerica Bank issued November 30, 2016 (based on subpoena and discovery responses to the above)
- Subpoena to Comerica Bank issued November 30, 2016 (based on subpoena and discovery responses to the above)
- Subpoena to Comerica Bank issued November 30, 2016 (based on subpoena and discovery responses to the above)

         Plaintiffs has also engaged in the following collection ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.