Chapter 8

Fair Debt Collection Practices Act Class Action: Deposition and Class Certification Memo (TX)

Stephen Gardner is an attorney in private practice since 1992 specializing in consumer litigation. His office is at 6060 North Central Expy., Ste. 560, Dallas, Texas 75206, (214) 8002830, Fax: (214) 800-2834, steve@consumerhelper.com. He focuses on consumer class actions and on representing individuals and such organizations as the Center for Auto Safety and the Center for Science in the Public Interest. He received his B.A. in 1972 and J.D. in 1975 from the University of Texas. From 1992-1995, Gardner was the Assistant Dean of Clinical Education and visiting assistant professor of law at Southern Methodist University. He was an assistant attorney general in Texas and New York, from 1982 until 1991, and was involved in major consumer protection initiatives against such companies as AAMCO, Mobil Oil, Kellogg Company, and TCZ Cable. In 1991, Mr. Gardner coordinated efforts of numerous attorneys general and the Federal Trade Commission to investigate and bring law enforcement actions against TRW and other major consumer reporting agencies for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. He became of counsel, National Consumer Law Center, in 2002. His publications include How Green Were My Values: Regulation of Environmental Marketing Claims, Toledo Law Review (1991); See Dick and Jane Sue: A Primer on State Consumer Protection Laws, American Law Institute 1992; Caveat Vendor (editor), State Bar of Texas 1980-1982. He is coauthor of National Consumer Law Center, Practice of Consumer Law and a contributing author of National Consumer Law Centers Consumer Class Actions and Unfair and Deceptive Acts and Practices, and H. Newberg & A. Conte, Newberg On Class Actions (4th ed. 2002). Mr. Gardner is a member of the Board of Directors, Consumers Union of the United States, 1997- 2002 and was a member of the Consumer Advisory Council, Federal Reserve Board, 1986-1989, and was a Consumer Law Fellow, National Consumer Law Center, 1980. The Center for Science in the Public Interest inducted Mr. Gardner into their Nutrition Action Hall of Fame in 1991. He was named to Adweek Magazine's Top Ten Enemies of Advertising in 1991 and received the National Association of Attorneys General's Marvan Award in 1988. Section 8.1 is a memorandum in support of certifying a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act class action seeking statutory damages.1 The collection letters were allegedly sent by an unlicensed collector,2 were confusing about their source, and included false threats. Section 8.2 is the deposition of the corporate representative for the collection agency.

1 2

See National Consumer Law Center, Consumer Class Actions Ch. 9 (5th Ed. 2002). But see National Consumer Law Center, Fair Debt Collection Practices 5.5.8.4 (5th Ed. 2004).

8.1 Memorandum in Support of Class Certification

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS [CONSUMER], a Minnesota resident, on behalf of herself and all other Minnesota residents similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ETAN GENERAL, INC., a Texas corporation, and CREDIT PROTECTION ASSOCIATION, L.P., a Texas domestic limited partnership. Defendants. Case No. Judge MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION I. NATURE OF THE CASE Plaintiff [Consumer] brings this case as a class action against defendants Etan General, Inc. and Credit Protection Association, L.P. for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. 1692 et seq. (hereinafter FDCPA). [Consumer] requests that the practices of defendants be declared to violate the FDCPA and that statutory damages be awarded to her and the class payable by defendants Etan General, Inc. and Credit Protection Association, L.P. Plaintiff moves for certification of a class defined as (i) all Minnesota residents (ii) to whom a letter in the form of Exhibit 1 (attached to the complaint) were sent (iii) in an attempt to collect a debt incurred for personal, family, or household purposes (iv) which were not returned as undelivered by the U.S. Post Office (v) during the period from December 17, 2000 until through December 17, 2001. It is Defendants practice and policy to cause NOTICE to be sent in the form of Exhibit 1 (attached to the complaint) to Minnesota residents which violate the FDCPA by (1) failing to have obtained a Minnesota collector license as required by Minn. Stat. 332.33; (2) confusing the least sophisticated consumer as to whether Exhibit 1 is an official document; (3) threatening to take action that cannot legally be taken or that is not intended to be taken; (4) simulating or falsely representing the documents to be authorized, issued or approved by any court, official, or agency of the United States or any State, or by creating a false impression as to the documents source, authorization, or approval; (5) using false representation or deceptive means to collect or attempt to collect any debt; (6) falsely representing or implying that the

document is legal process; and (7) using unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect a debt. On August 28, 2002, the Third Circuit held that a defendants offer of judgment for full relief, which had been made before the named plaintiff had filed his Motion for Class Certification, mooted the plaintiffs claim and that the district court no longer had federal jurisdiction over the litigation. Colbert v. Dymacol, Inc., F.3d , 2002 WL 1974538, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 17791 (3d Cir., Aug. 28, 2002). In order to avoid any possibility of a similar result here, [Consumer] has filed their Motion for Class Certification at this early stage of this litigation. This memorandum is submitted in support of Plaintiffs Motion for Class Certification. II. REQUIREMENTS OF LOCAL RULE 23.2 Pursuant to Local Rule 23.2 plaintiff [Consumer] states the following: a. This suit is maintainable as a class action as the criteria of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) have been met. b. Specific factual allegations concerning the proposed class include: (1) Defendants NOTICE has been sent to hundreds of Minnesota. In earlier cases defendants have admitted numerosity. Arellano v. Etan Industries, Inc., 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11352 (N.D.Ill., July 20, 1998). By Minute Order of July 29, 1998, Judge Ruben Castillo concluded that the plaintiff has satisfied the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and granted plaintiffs motion for class certification. Epps v. Etan Industries, Inc., No. 97 C 8770 (Docket Entry # 66). Defendants herein have objected to providing responses to [Consumer]s written discovery regarding the number of class members. When this information is obtained, plaintiff will supplement this brief with a more definite statement of numerosity. (2) The class is defined as (i) all Minnesota residents (ii) to whom letters in the form of Exhibit 1 (attached to the complaint) were sent; (iii) in an attempt to collect a debt incurred for personal, family, or household purposes; (iv) which were not returned as undelivered by the U.S. Post Office (v) during the period from December 17, 2000 until December 17, 2001; (3) The common characteristics of the class members are that they reside in Minnesota and received a NOTICE in the form of Exhibit 1 during the period from December 17, 2000 to December 17, 2001. The only individual issues are the identity of the class members. (4) The question of fact that is common to each class member is that they reside in Minnesota and were sent a NOTICE in the form of Exhibit 1. Questions of law that are common to the class are whether defendants mailing of a NOTICE in the form of Exhibit 1 to Minnesota residents violated the FDCPA by (1) failing to have obtained a Minnesota collector license as required by Minn. Stat. 332.33; (2) confusing the least sophisticated consumer as to whether Exhibit 1 is an official document; (3) threatening to take action that cannot legally be taken or that is not

c.

d. e.

f.

g.

intended to be taken; (4) simulating or falsely representing the documents to be authorized, issued or approved by any court, official, or agency of the United States or any State, or by creating a false impression as to the documents source, authorization, or approval; (5) using false representation or deceptive means to collect or attempt to collect any debt; (6) falsely representing or implying that the document is legal process; and (7) using unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect a debt. (5) Questions of law and fact predominate as all class members were subjected to the identical practices of defendants causing collection letters in the form of Exhibit 1 to be mailed to Minnesota residents which violate the FDCPA. A class action is superior to other available methods since class actions are a more efficient and consistent means of trying the legality of a collection letter. The class members are most likely unaware of the violations contained within the collection letters. Additionally, the possible amount recoverable by an individual claim is too small to justify individual claims. [Consumer] has common interests with the class members since she and the class members seek statutory damages and declaratory relief as the result of defendants unlawful collection practices. [Consumer] is a member of the class herself. There is no antagonism between the interests of the named plaintiff and those of the class because [Consumer]s claims are identical to the claims of the class. [Consumer] has arranged for costs of this action to be advanced by her counsel, while she is responsible for her pro rata share. [Consumer] is represented by experienced class counsel, therefore, allowing vigorous prosecution of the class claims. No jurisdictional amount is required for this FDCPA action. Jurisdiction of this Court arises pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1692k(d) and 28 U.S.C. 1331. Individual notice should be sent to each class member by standard U.S. Mail. Plaintiff estimates the cost of notices to be roughly $1-$2 per class member. Plaintiffs counsel will advance the cost of notice with [Consumer] remaining responsible for her pro rata share of the costs. See: Rand v. Monsanto Co., 926 F.2d 596 (7th Cir. 1991). In regard to discovery, Plaintiff has served on Defendants Plaintiffs First Discovery Request. Plaintiff will take the deposition(s) of defendants. The estimated time required for discovery necessary for a class certification hearing is three months. Plaintiffs attorneys fees are contingent upon [Consumer]s success in this litigation. The Court will determine reasonable attorneys fees payable by defendants pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1692k(a)(3) and Rule 23(e). III. PLAINTIFFS CLAIMS A. THE LEAST SOPHISTICATED CONSUMER STANDARD

The most widely used test used for analysis of FDCPA claims is the least sophisticated consumer standard. Taylor v. Perrin Landry, deLaunay and Durand, 103 F.3d 1232, 1236 (5th Cir. 1997). This standard serves the dual purpose of protecting all consumers, including the inexperienced, the untrained and the credulous, from deceptive debt collection practices and protecting debt collectors against liability for bizarre or idiosyncratic consumer interpretations of collection materials. Id. Also, see: Youngblood v. G.C. Services, Ltd., 186 F.Supp.2d 695, 698 (W.D.Tex. 2002) (discussing the various standards without deciding which is appropriate to apply). The basic purpose of the least-sophisticated-consumer standard is to ensure that the FDCPA protects all consumers, the gullible as well as the shrewd. Clomon v. Jackson, 988 F.2d 1314, 1318 (2d Cir. 1993). Also, see: United States v. National Financial Services, Inc., 98 F.3d 131, 135-36 (4th Cir. 1996); Russell v. Equifax A.R.S., 74 F.3d 30, 34 (2d Cir. 1996); Bentley v. Great Lakes Collection Bureau, 6 F.3d 60, 62 (2d Cir. 1993).; Graziano v. Harrison, 950 F.2d 107, 111 (3d Cir. 1991); Swanson v. Southern Oregon Credit Service, Inc., 869 F.2d 1222, 122526 (9th Cir. 1988); Jeter v. Credit Bureau, Inc., 760 F.2d 1168, 1172-75 (11th Cir. 1985). The Seventh Circuit has adopted the same test but renamed it the unsophisticated consumer standard. Gammon v. GC Services Ltd. Partnership, 27 F.3d 1254 (7th Cir. 1994). Comparing the unsophisticated consumer standard to the least sophisticated consumer standard, the Seventh Circuit observed the unsophisticated consumer standard is a distinction without much of a practical difference in application. Avila v. Rubin, 84 F.3d 222, 227 (7th Cir. 1996). Violations of the FDCPA should be evaluated from the perspective of the least sophisticated consumer. B. DEFENDANTS FORM LETTERS VIOLATE THE FDCPA. Defendants practices of causing a NOTICE in the form of Exhibit 1 (attached to the complaint) to be mailed to Minnesota residents violate the FDCPA by (a) confusing the least sophisticated consumer as to whether Exhibit 1 is an official document; (b) threatening to take action that cannot legally be taken or that is not intended to be taken; (c) simulating or falsely representing to be documents authorized, issued or approved by any court, official, or agency of the United States or any State, or by creating a false impression as to their source, authorization, or approval; (d) using false representation or deceptive means to collect or attempt to collect any debt; (e) falsely representing or implying that the document is legal process; (f) using unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect a debt. See: Arrellano v. Etan Industries, Inc., 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20279 (N.D.Ill., Dec. 14, 1998); Epps v. Etan Industries, Inc., 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19120 (N.D.Ill., Nov. 30, 1998). Exhibit 1 is entitled NOTICE and is printed on different colored, scrolled paper. Exhibit 1 states that if the consumer fails to pay by a certain date, we shall recommend to your creditor that CPA be given full authority to take all appropriate action necessary to collect this account. The least sophisticated consumer would be confused and deceived by the title of the collection letter and the presentation of it, in that it was printed on different colored, scrolled paper which violates 15 U.S.C. 1692e(10) and (13). The practice of using collection letters which would confuse or deceive the least sophisticated consumer is a violation of the FDCPA. Defendants Etan General, Inc. and Credit Protection Association, L.P. have thus violated the FDCPA in the same manner with regard to all class members.

Exhibit 1 states that if the consumer fails to pay by a certain date, we shall recommend to your creditor the CPA be given full authority to take all appropriate action necessary to collect this account. Defendants used collection letters which threaten to take action that was not intended to be taken which violates 15 U.S.C. 1692e(5). The practice of using collection letters which threaten to take action that is not intended to be taken is a violation of the FDCPA. Defendants Etan General, Inc. and Credit Protection Association, L.P. have violated the FDCPA in the same manner with regard to all class members. Exhibit 1, entitled NOTICE, appears to have been authorized, issued or approved by a United States or State court, official or agency. Defendants used a NOTICE which simulate or falsely represent to be documents authorized, issued or approved by any court, official, or agency or the United States or any State which violates 15 U.S.C. 1692e(9). The practice of using collection letters which simulate or falsely represent to be documents authorized, issued, or approved by any court, official, or agency of the United States or any State, or which creates a false impression as to its source, authorization, or approval is a violation of the FDCPA. Johnson v. Eaton, 873 F.Supp. 1019, 1027-28 (M.D.La, 1995), affd in part and revd in part re attorneys fees, 80 F.3d 148 (5th Cir. 1996).. Defendants Etan General, Inc. and Credit Protection Association, L.P. have violated the FDCPA in the same manner with regard to all class members. Exhibit 1 appears as though it is an official document and that it has been authorized, issued or approved by a United States or State court, official or agency. It also threatens to take action that cannot legally be taken or that is not intended to be taken. Defendants used false representation or deceptive means to collect or attempt to collect a debt which violates 15 U.S.C. 1692e(10). The least sophisticated consumer would be deceived by the collection letters. The practice of using false representation or deceptive means to collect or attempt to collect a debt is a violation of the FDCPA. Taylor v. Perrin Landry, deLaunay and Durand, supra at 1237. Defendants Etan General, Inc. and Credit Protection Association, L.P. have violated the FDCPA in the same manner with regard to all class members. Exhibit 1 is entitled NOTICE and is printed on different colored, scrolled paper, which causes it to appear as though it is legal process. Defendants used collection letters which falsely represented or implied that the NOTICE was legal process which violates 15 U.S.C. 1692e(13). The least sophisticated consumer would believe that the collection letters were legal process. The practice of using the NOTICE which falsely represent or imply that the document is legal process is a violation of the FDCPA. Boyce v. Attorneys Dispatch Serv., 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1124, *24 (S.D.Ohio, 1999); Diamond v. Corcoran, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22793, *3 - *4 (W.D.Mich, 1993). Defendants Etan General, Inc. and Credit Protection Association, L.P. have violated the FDCPA in the same manner with regard to all class members. Exhibit 1 appears to be an official document, authorized by a United States or State court, official or agency, and legal process. Exhibit 1 also threatens to take action that cannot legally be taken or that is not intended to be taken. Defendants caused to be mailed Exhibit 1 to Minnesota residents without having obtained a Minnesota collector licence as required by Minn. Stat. 332.33. Defendants threatened to take action which could not legally be taken which is a violation of 15 U.S.C. 1692e (5). The practice of threatening to take action which cannot legally be taken is a violation of the FDCPA. Poirier v. Alco Collections, Inc., 107 F.3d 347 (5th Cir. 1997).

Defendants Etan General, Inc. and Credit Protection Association, L.P. have violated the FDCPA in the same manner with regard to all class members. C. NO ISSUES OF INTENT OR RELIANCE EXIST Whether [Consumer] or any other class member was misled is not an element of this cause of action. The question is not whether the plaintiffs were deceived or misled, but rather whether an unsophisticated consumer would have been misled. Beattie v. D.M. Collections, Inc., 754 F.Supp. 383, 392 (D.Del. 1991). Accord, Jeter v. Credit Bureau, Inc., supra at 1175; Swanson v. Southern Oregon Credit Service, Inc., supra at 1225; Graziano v. Harrison, supra at 111; Baker v. G.C. Services Corp., 677 F.2d 775 (9th Cir. 1982). It should also be noted that there is no issue of intent, bad faith or negligence. Because the Act imposes strict liability, a consumer need not show intentional conduct by the debt collector to be entitled to damages. Russell v. Equifax A.R.S., supra at 33. Also, see: Bentley v. Great Lakes Collection Bureau, supra at 62. The FDCPA is a strict liability statute, and proof of one violation is sufficient to support summary judgment for the plaintiff. Cacace v. Lucas, 775 F.Supp. 502, 505 (D.Conn. 1990). D. STANDARD FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION All four criteria of Rule 23(a) and one of the criteria of Rule 23(b) must be met for the case to be certified as a class action. Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 614, 117 S.Ct. 2231, 138 L.Ed.2d 689 (1997). Plaintiff bears the burden of establishing these requirements. Zeidman v. J. Ray McDermott & Co., Inc., 651 F.2d 1030, 1038 (5th Cir. 1981). In determining whether a class will be certified, the question is not whether the plaintiff or plaintiffs have stated a cause of action or will prevail on the merits, but rather whether the requirements of Rule 23 are met. Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156, 178, 94 S. Ct. 2140, 40 L. Ed. 2d 732 (1974) (quoting Miller v. Mackey International, Inc., 452 F.2d 424, 427 (5th Cir. 1971). The merits of the case are not examined and the substantive allegations of the complaint should generally be taken as true. Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, supra. at 177; Blackie v. Barrack, 524 F.2d 891, 901 n. 16 (9th Cir. 1975); McGlothlin v. Connors, 142 F.R.D. 626 (W.D. Va. 1992); In re Carbon Dioxide Antitrust Lit., 149 F.R.D. 229, 232 (M.D.Fla 1993); German v. Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp., 885 F.Supp. 537, 547 (S.D.N.Y. 1995); Heastie v. Community Bank of Greater Peoria, 125 F.R.D. 669, 671 n. 2 (N.D.Ill. 1989); Riordan v. Smith Barney, 113 F.R.D. 60, 62 (N.D.Ill. 1986). Rule 23 must be liberally interpreted and read to favor maintenance of class actions. King v. Kansas City Southern Industries, 519 F.2d 20, 25-26 (7th Cir. 1975). Congress expressly recognized the propriety of a class action under the FDCPA by providing special damage provisions and criteria in 15 U.S.C. 1692k(a) and (b) for FDCPA class action cases. Numerous FDCPA cases have been certified as class actions. Keele v. Wexler, 149 F.3d 589 (7th Cir, 1998); Cope v. Duggins, 2000 U.S. Dist. Lexis 5081 (E.D.La., April 13, 2000); Woodard v. Online Information Services, 191 F.R.D. 502 (E.D.N.C. 2000); Talbott v. GC Services; 191 F.R.D. 99 (W.D.Va. 2000); Swanson v. Mid Am, Inc., 186 F.R.D. 665 (M.D.Fla. 1999); Brink v. First Credit Resources, 185 F.R.D. 567 (D.Ariz. 1999); Irwin v. Mascott, 186 F.Supp.2d 567 (N.D.Cal. 1999); Borcherding-Dittloff v. Transworld Systems, Inc., 185 F.R.D 558 (W.D.Wis. 1999); Ballard v. Equifax Check Services, Inc., 186 F.R.D. 589

(E.D.Cal. 1999); West v. Costen, 558 F.Supp. 564, 572-573 (W.D.Va. 1983); Cheqnet Systems, Inc. V. Montgomery, 911 S.W.2d 956 (Ark. 1995); D_Alauro v. GC Services Ltd, Partnership, 168 F.R.D. 451 (E.D.N.Y. 1996); Stewart v. Slaughter, 165 F.R.D. 696 (M.D.Ga. 1996); Gammon v. GC Services, 162 F.R.D. 313 (N.D.Ill. 1995); Duran v. Bureau of Yuma, Inc., 93 F.R.D. 607 (D.Ariz. 1982). E. THE PROPOSED CLASS MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTIFICATION 1. Rule 23(a)(1) Numerosity Rule 23(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that the class be so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. Zeidman v. J. Ray McDermott & Co., Inc., 651 F. 2d 1030, 1038 (5th Cir. 1981); Gay v. Waiters and Dairy Luchmens Union, 549 F.2d. 1330 (9th Cir. 1977). However, [i]mpracticable does not mean impossible. Rabidoux v. Celani, 987 F.2d 931, 935 (2d Cir. 1993). When the class is large, numbers alone are dispositive . . . . Riordan v. Smith Barney, 113 F.R.D. 60, 62 (N.D.Ill. 1986). Where the class numbers 25 or more, joinder is usually impracticable. Cypress v. Newport News General & Nonsectarian Hosp. Assn, 375 F.2d 648, 653 (4th Cir. 1967) (18 sufficient); Armstead v. Pingree, 629 F. Supp. 273, 279 (M.D.Fla. 1986) (25 sufficient); Beasley v. Blatt, 1994 WL 362185 (N.D.Ill. 1994)(24 sufficient); Swanson v. American Consumer Industries, 415 F.2d 1326, 1333 (7th Cir. 1969) (40 sufficient); Riordan v. Smith Barney, supra, 113 F.R.D. 60, 62 (N.D.Ill. 1986) (10-29 sufficient); Sala v. National Railroad Passenger Corp., 120 F.R.D. 494, 497 (E.D.Pa. 1988) (40-50 sufficient); Scholes v. Stone, McGuire & Benjamin, 143 F.R.D. 181, 184 (N.D.Ill. 1992) (about 70). A class action may proceed upon estimates as to the size of the proposed class. In re Alcoholic Beverages Litigation, 95 F.R.D. 321 (E.D.N.Y. 1982); Lewis v. Gross, 663 F.Supp. 1164, 1169 (E.D.N.Y. 1986). The court may make common sense assumptions in order to find support for numerosity. Evans v. United States Pipe & Foundry, 696 F.2d 925, 930 (11th Cir. 1983). [T]he court may assume sufficient numerousness where reasonable to do so in absence of a contrary showing by defendant, since discovery is not essential in most cases in order to reach a class determination . . . Where the exact size of the class is unknown, but it is general knowledge or common sense that it is large, the court will take judicial notice of this fact and will assume joinder is impracticable. 2 Newberg on Class Actions (3d ed. 1992), 7.22.A. Numerosity is satisfied here since defendants caused to be mailed form debt collection letters to Minnesota residents. Such form letters are typically used to contact large numbers of persons. In the present action, numerosity may be inferred from defendants standard practices. A NOTICE in the form of Exhibit 1 (attached to the complaint) has been sent to hundreds of people addresses in the State of Minnesota. Defendants have engaged in this practice for years. In Arellano v. Etan Industries, Inc., 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11352, *4 (N.D.Ill., July 20, 1998), defendants conceded numerosity. By Minute Order of July 29, 1998, Judge Ruben Castillo concluded that the plaintiff has satisfied the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and granted plaintiffs motion for class certification. Epps v. Etan Industries, Inc., No. 97 C 8770 (Docket Entry # 66). Defendants have changed their tactics in opposing class certification. Rather than conceding numerosity, defendants have now objected to providing responses to [Consumer]s written discovery regarding the number of class members. These objections are frivolous. Plaintiff is entitled to learn the number of potential class

members before the class is certified. When this information is obtained from defendants, plaintiff will supplement this brief with a more definite statement of numerosity. Thus, plaintiff has satisfied the numerosity requirement of Rule 23(a)(1). 2. Rule 23(a)(2) Commonality Rule 23(a)(2) requires that there be a common question of law or fact and that resolution of common questions affect all or a substantial number of the class members. Jenkins v. Raymark Industries, Inc., 782 F. 2d 468, 472 (5th Cir. 1986); See also Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp, 150 F.3d. 1011 (9th Cir. 1998). A common nucleus of operative fact is usually enough to satisfy the commonality requirement of Rule 23(a)(2). Rosario v. Livaditis, 963 F.2d 1013, 1018 (7th Cir. 1992). A common nuclei of fact is present where the defendant has engaged in similar conduct, i.e.- sending a form collection letter to the class members. Keele v. Wexler, 149 F.3d 589, 594 (7th Cir. 1998). Not all factual or legal questions raised in the litigation need be common so long as at least one issue is common to all class members. Cope v. Duggins, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5081, *9 (E.D.La, April 14, 2000); Baby Neal for and by Kanter v. Casey, 43 F.3d 48, 56-57 (3d Cir. 1994). A sufficient nexus is established if the claims or defenses of the class and the class representatives arise from the same event or pattern or practice and are based on the same legal theory. Kornburg v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc., 741 F.2d 1332, 1337 (11th Cir. 1984); See also Keele v. Wexler, supra. Defendants standard practice and policy was the mailing of a NOTICE in the form of Exhibit 1 to Minnesota residents which violate the FDCPA by (1) failing to have obtained a Minnesota collector license as required by Minn. Stat. 332.33; (2) confusing the least sophisticated consumer as to whether Exhibit 1 is an official document; (3) threatening to take action that cannot legally be taken or that is not intended to be taken; (4) simulating or falsely representing the documents to be authorized, issued or approved by any court, official, or agency of the United States or any State, or by creating a false impression as to the documents source, authorization, or approval; (5) using false representation or deceptive means to collect or attempt to collect any debt; (6) falsely representing or implying that the document is legal process; and (7) using unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect a debt. Each of the alleged violations of the FDCPA arise from these uniform practices. Thus, the form NOTICE and legal issues arising therefrom are identical to each class member. To establish commonality, it is sufficient that Plaintiff allege that all class members received the same collection letter. Swanson v. Mid Am, Inc., 186 F.R.D. 665, 668 (M.D.Fla. 1999). It is also important to note that there are no questions in this case concerning the validity of the underlying debt. McCarthy v. First City Bank, 970 F.2d 45 (5th Cir. 1992) (FDCPA action was not contingent on the validity of the underlying debt); Baker v. G.C. Services Corp., 677 F.2d 775 (9th Cir. 1982) (same). 3. Rule 23(a)(3) Typicality The Rule requires that the claims of the named plaintiff be typical of the claims of the class. Jenkins v. Raymark Industries, Inc, supra at 472. A plaintiffs claim is typical if it arises from the same event or practice or course of conduct that gives rise to the claims of other class members and his or her claims are based on

the same legal theory. The typicality requirement may be satisfied even if there are factual distinctions between the claims of the named plaintiffs and those of other class members. Thus, similarity of legal theory may control even in the face of differences of fact. De La Fuente v. Stokely-Van Camp, Inc., 713 F.2d 225, 232 (7th Cir. 1983) (citation omitted); see also, Appleyard v. Wallace, 754 F.2d 955, 958 (11th Cir. 1985); Rossini v. Ogilvy & Mather, Inc., 798 F.2d 590, 598-600 (2d Cir. 1986); Rosario v. Livaditis, 963 F.2d 1013, 1018 (7th Cir. 1992). In the instant case, typicality is inherent in the class definition, i.e., each of the class members was subjected to the same violations as the named plaintiff. All class members claims arise from the same practices of defendants Etan General, Inc. and Credit Protection Association, L.P. which gave rise to the claims of [Consumer]; i.e. each class member was mailed a NOTICE in the form of Exhibit 1 which violates the FDCPA. 4. Rule 23(a)(4) Adequacy of Representation The Fifth Circuit has explained that there are two criteria in determining the adequacy of representation under Rule 23(a)(4): (1) The named representatives must have a common interest with the unnamed members of the class, and there must be an absence of conflict or antagonism between the interests of the named plaintiffs and the other members of the proposed class, and (2) It must appear that the representative parties, through their attorneys, will vigorously prosecute the class claims. Gonzales v. Cassidy, 474 F.2d 67, 72 (5th Cir. 1974); Also see: In re Catfish Antitrust Litigation, 826 F.Supp. 1019, 1037 (N.D. Miss. 1993); Gibbs v. Delta Drilling Co., 104 F.R.D. 59, 74 (N.D. Tex. 1984). With regard to the first factor, [Consumer] understands her responsibilities as class representatives (Declaration of [Consumer]), and her interests are coincident with the general interests of the class. [Consumer] and the class members seek statutory damages and declaratory relief as the result of defendants unlawful collection practices. Given the identical nature of the claims between [Consumer] and the class members, there is no potential for conflicting interests in this action. There is no antagonism between the interests of the named plaintiff and those of the class. With regard to the second factor, [Consumer] is represented by experienced class counsel whose qualifications are set forth in Declaration of Peter F. Barry, Declaration of Stephen Gardner, and Declaration of O. Randolph Bragg. The Declaration of O. Randolph Bragg shows that Plaintiffs counsel, O. Randolph Bragg, is qualified to conduct class action litigation. Swanson v. Mid Am, Inc., 186 F.R.D. 665, 668 (M.D.Fla. 1999). Mr. Braggs ability to serve as counsel in class actions and consumer suits has been recognized in other courts. BorcherdingDittloff v. Transworld Systems, Inc., 185 F.R.D. 558, 563-64 (W.D.Wis. 1999). See also: Brink v. First Credit Resources, 185 F.R.D. 567, 571 (D.Ariz. 1999); Van Vels v. Premier Athletic Center of Plainfield, Inc., 182 F.R.D. 500, 511 (W.D.Mich. 1998). 5. Rule 23(b)(3) Common Questions of Law or Fact Predominate

10

Rule 23(b)(3) requires that the questions of law or fact common to all members of the class predominate over questions pertaining to individual members. In re Plywood Anti-Trust Litigation, 76 F.R.D. 570, 582 (E.D.La. 1976). This criterion is normally satisfied when there is an essential common factual link between all class members and the defendants for which the law provides a remedy. Valentino v. Carter-Wallace, Inc., 97 F.3d 1227, (9th Cir. 1996). In this case, the common nucleus of operative fact is that all class members, by definition, were subjected to defendants practices of sending a NOTICE in the form of Exhibit 1 which violate the FDCPA. The U.S. Supreme Court stated: Predominance is a test readily met in certain cases alleging consumer . . . fraud. . . . Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 117 S. Ct. 2231, 2249, 2250, 138 L. Ed. 2d 689 (1997) (citations omitted). Where defendants have standardized practices that impact the defined class as a whole, common issues of fact or law have been found to predominate over individual questions. Walton v. Franklin Collection Agency, Inc., 190 F.R.D. 404 (N.D.Miss. 2000); Cope v. Duggins, supra; In re Catfish Antitrust Litig., 826 F. Supp. 1019 (N.D.Miss. 1993). Here, the only individual issue is the identification of the consumers who were subject to defendants collection attempts, a matter capable of ministerial determination from the defendants records. This is not the kind of problem that is a barrier to class certification. Heastie v. Community Bank of Greater Peoria, supra at 678. In this case it is clear that both the factual issues and the legal issues of the class predominate over any individual issues. 6. Rule 23(B)(3) A Class Action is Superior to Other Available Methods to Resolve This Controversy Rule 23(b)(3) also requires that a class action be superior to other available methods for fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy. Jenkins v. Raymark Industries, Inc., supra at 472. Efficiency is the primary focus in determining whether the class action is the superior method for resolving the controversy presented. Gete v. I.N.S., 121 F.3d 1285, 1299 (9th Cir. 1997); Neely v. Ethicon, Inc., 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15599, *38 (E.D.Tex. Aug. 16, 2001). The Court is required to determine the best available method for resolving the controversy in keeping with judicial integrity, convenience, and economy. Scholes v. Stone, McGuire & Benjamin, supra at 189; Hurwitz v. R.B. Jones Corp., 76 F.R.D. 149 (W.D.Mo. 1977). It is proper for a court, in deciding the best available method, to consider the . . . inability of the poor or uninformed to enforce their rights, and the improbability that large numbers of class members would possess the initiative to litigate individually. Haynes v. Logan Furniture Mart, Inc., 503 F.2d 1161, 1165 (7th Cir. 1974) In this case there is no better method available for the adjudication of the claims which might be brought by each individual debtor subjected to defendants practice. Zinberg v. Washington Bancorp, Inc., 138 F.R.D. 397 (D.N.J. 1990). Class actions are a more efficient and consistent means of trying the legality of a collection letter. Irwin v. Mascott, 186 F.Supp.2d 567 (N.D.Cal. 1999); Ballard v. Equifax Check Services, Inc., 186 F.R.D. 589, 600 (E.D.Cal. 1999); D_Alauro v. GC Services Ltd. Partnership, 168 F.R.D. 451 (E.D.N.Y. 1996); also see Newberg on Class Actions, 21.14 (3d ed. Dec. 1992). The efficacy of consumer class actions is recognized particularly where the individuals

11

claim is small. Further, the U.S. Supreme Court has recently held: While the text of Rule 23(b)(3) does not exclude from certification cases in which individual damages run high, the Advisory Committee had dominantly in mind the vindication of the rights of groups of people who individually would be without effective strength to bring their opponents into court at all. Kaplan, Predatory Note 497. As concisely recalled in a recent Seventh Circuit opinion: The policy at the very core of the class action mechanism is to overcome the problems that small recoveries do not provide the incentive for any individual to bring a solo action prosecuting his or rights. A class action solves this problem by aggregating the relatively paltry potential recoveries into something worth someones (usually an attorneys) labor. Mace v. Van Ru Credit Corp., 109 F.3d 338, 344 (1997). Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor, supra at 117 S.Ct. at 2246. Class certification of an FDCPA action will provide an efficient and appropriate resolution of the controversy. Keele v. Wexler, supra; Irwin v. Mascott, supra; BorcherdingDittloff v. Transworld Systems, Inc., supra; Ballard v. Equifax Check Services, Inc., supra; Brink v. First Credit Resources, supra; Cheqnet Systems, Inc. v. Montgomery, supra. IV. CONCLUSION The proposed class meets the requirements of Rules 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3). Plaintiff [Consumer] respectfully requests that the Court certify this action as a class action. ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF [Consumer]

12

8.2 Deposition of Representative of Debt Collection Agency (PDF format)

13

0001

1 2 3 4 5 6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION [CONSUMER], Minnesota resident, on behalf of herself and of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, ) ) ) ) CIVIL ACTION ) ) NO. ) ) 3:01-CV-2658-D ) ) ) ) ) ) )

7 vs. 8 9 10 11 Defendants. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ETAN GENERAL, INC., a Texas Corporation, and CREDIT PROTECTION ASSOCIATION, L.P., a Texas Domestic Limited Partnership,

****************************************************** ORAL DEPOSITION OF ETAN GENERAL, INC., And CREDIT PROTECTION ASSOCIATION, L.P., BY AND THROUGH THEIR DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE DIANE EVANS April 16th, 2003 ****************************************************** ANSWERS AND DEPOSITION of ETAN GENERAL, INC., and CREDIT PROTECTION ASSOCIATION, L.P., BY AND THROUGH THEIR DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE DIANE EVANS, taken at the instance of the Plaintiffs, on the 16th day of April, AD, 2003, in the above styled and numbered cause at the offices of Stephen Gardner, 6060

0002 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Mr. Keith Wier DAW & RAY A Professional Corporation 5718 Westheimer, Suite 1750 Houston, Texas 77057 Mr. Stephen Gardner LAW OFFICES OF STEPHEN GARDNER 6060 N. Central Expressway, Suite 560 Dallas, Texas 75206 And Mr. Peter F. Barry (Not Present) THE BARRY LAW OFFICE, LTD. 342 County Road D East St. Paul, Minnesota 55117 And Mr. O. Randolph Bragg (Not Present) HORWITZ, HORWITZ & ASSOICATES 25 East Washington Street, Suite 900 Chicago, Illinois 60602 APPEARING FOR THE DEFENDANTS: N. Central Expressway, Suite 560 in Dallas, Dallas County, Texas, before Jerry L. Callaway, RDR, a Certified Shorthand Reporter in and for the State of Texas, pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the provisions stated on the record.

A P P E A R A N C E S

APPEARING FOR THE PLAINTIFFS:

0003 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 DIANE EVANS, having been first duly sworn, testified as follows: EXAMINATION BY MR. GARDNER: Q. Good morning. A. Good morning. Q. And I say that despite the fact that I've already met you and talked to you for some time. I'm Steve Gardner, and you understand that I am taking your deposition as a representative of the two defendants in the lawsuit that is reflected in the deposition notice that I'm handing you in Exhibit 1, correct? A. Yes, I do. Q. Have you had your deposition taken before? A. Yes. Q. You have probably heard the spiel I'm fixing to give you, but lawyers talk a lot, and we talk in long sentences and eventually finish. And I'll ask you to try to make sure I've actually finished my question before you give the answer you know you are already going to give. Okay? A. Okay. Q. And be sure to give me an audible rather than nodding -- you are welcome to nod, you can gesture, I don't care, but please give me a yes or a no to make

0004 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 sure that we have a good record. Okay? A. Yes. Q. "Okay" is also okay, but an "uh-huh" and a "huh-uh" doesn't always get transcribed perfectly, although with Mr. Callaway I am sure it will. My understanding, Ms. Evans, is that you are produced as the corporate representative to testify for both the named defendants in this case; is that correct? A. Correct. Q. Okay. Have you reviewed Deposition Exhibit 1, which is the notice of deposition? A. Yes, I have. Q. Now, as I am sure you know, last, I think, Friday we got an objection to that deposition faxed to us by defendants' counsel, the lovely Mr. Wier, that contained a number of objections to the scope of our deposition. Do you know about that Exhibit 2 there? A. Yes, I do. Q. Nonetheless, did you review the subject matters that we wanted to take a deposition on as reflected in number 1? A. Yes. Q. Are there any areas in that group, which it starts -- it's a long one, starts page 2, and goes

0005 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 through page 7, are there any areas of the deposition subject matters on which you are not competent to testify? A. Yes. MR. WIER: Object as to form, but go ahead. Q. (BY MR. GARDNER) Looking -- I will reask it. Focusing your attention on page 2 of Exhibit 1, are there any subject matters set forth on pages 2 through 7 on which you cannot testify on behalf of the two defendants? A. Yes. Q. What are they? A. The exact relationship between CPA and Etan. Q. Anything else? Go ahead and look, flip through it and tell me if there are others. MR. WIER: Take your time and read it, read through it, and then answer his question. A. But we are only looking at this page. Q. (BY MR. GARDNER) No, I was saying looking at 2 through 7, just list them, if you would, tell me the page and tell me what you can't talk about, and I am not going to bother you about them. I will bother Keith later. You know what, this is an exhibit, just mark an X next to the ones --

0006 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. I am okay to do that? Q. Yes. It would help me if you would do it next to the bullet, just because I will be more likely to see it. You are checking the ones you can't testify about, correct? A. Correct. Q. Okay. (Pause.) Q. (BY MR. GARDNER) Now, you have looked through, now, and marked, and I am just going to read off the areas that you have marked that you can't testify to. Okay? A. Okay. Q. On page 2, the relationship between CPA and Etan. A. Correct. Q. On page 3, the calculation of the net worth of CPA. A. Correct. Q. And the calculation of the net worth of Etan. A. Correct. Q. On page 4, any insurance policy covering CPA and/or Etan for the violations of law alleged in this lawsuit. A. Correct.

0007 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. On page 5, the name, position, home address and telephone number, business address and telephone number, should say, of all witnesses the defendants intend to call or may call and testify at trial, and it goes on, correct? A. Correct. Q. And the third bullet down, the name, address, title, and job description of each officer, et cetera. A. Correct. Q. Are you comfortable if I don't read the whole thing? A. Yeah, that's fine. You missed one here. Q. Oh, thank you. Towards the bottom of 5, the net worth of each defendant and how it was computed. On page 6 the name, address, et cetera, for each of defendants' insurance carriers, et cetera? A. Right. Q. And that's it? A. Yes. Q. Okey-doke. I gave you ahead of time some other documents we may or may not use, but I just wanted to see if you had seen them and, if so, make sure you could identify them. Exhibit 3 is the Defendants' Responses to our Requests For Production from sometime ago?

0008 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Yes. Q. Have you seen those before? A. Yes, I have. Q. Exhibit 4 is, I will tell you, used to be Exhibit 1 to the complaint filed in this lawsuit; but that is a copy, is it not, of the letter that this lawsuit is based on? A. Correct. Q. Exhibit 5 are Defendants' Answers and -- let me try that again, are Defendants' Objections and Answers to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories. Have you seen that before? A. Yes. Q. Number 6 are Defendants' Objections and Answers to Plaintiffs' Requests for Admissions, have you seen that before? A. Yes. Q. And now I am going to start with the exhibits that Mr. Wier faxed to me yesterday and that y'all have produced assembled with staples or binder clips and ask you to identify each one of them. I may have more questions, but I want to get them identified for the record now. What is Exhibit 7? A. That is our insurance.

0009 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. For clarity, there are two defendants. When you say "our," do you mean both of them? A. No, CPA. Q. Okay. Who do you work for? A. Credit Protection -Q. CPA? A. -- Associates, yes. Q. Okay. What type of insurance? A. Professional liability, errors and omissions insurance. Q. Mr. Wier is nodding, so I guess you got it right. Exhibit 8, what is that? A. The Declarations of Professional Liability Errors and Omissions Insurance. Q. You have already said you can't testify to insurance matters, correct? A. Well, correct, but I can because it's sitting in front of me. I don't know it. Q. You are familiar generally with this stuff? A. Somewhat. Q. Okay. Exhibit 9 is a fax cover letter from Sue Gilbert. First, who is Sue Gilbert, do you know? A. She is our compliance persons. Q. "Our" being CPA? A. CPA's.

0010 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [Consumer], 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the plaintiff in this case; is that correct? A. To the best of my knowledge. Q. We asked for the -- to produce the backup, I think, for the plaintiff, and since y'all are producing this, I am working under that assumption. Do you have any reason to question it? A. No. MR. GARDNER: Is it, Keith? I mean, if she can -MR. WIER: I think we had said off the record and the witness is just trying to be precise and careful because she is under oath. I mean, we as lawyers through discovery have determined that [Consumer's former name] is now the plaintiff [Consumer]. I am not sure that this witness personally knows that. When the Q. I think you said it, but when you are saying "CPA" and I am saying "CPA," we mean the Defendant Credit Protection Association, LP, correct? A. Correct. Q. Okay. What is the rest -- what does Exhibit 9 reflect? A. It is a printout of the account for [Consumer's former name] that was turned over for collections, and then the history on the account, and the notes. Q. And [Consumer's former name] is now known as

0011 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 known 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 by either a married or unmarried name? MR. GARDNER: Do you know, is it a married name? MR. WIER: I believe that's right. It's in her deposition. MR. GARDNER: And I forgot, I am sorry to say, if she ever reads this. Q. (BY MR. GARDNER) So what is Exhibit 10? A. It's a duplicate of 9. Q. Well, it's not a complete duplicate? A. Not a complete, but it is the -- a printout of the master file, the history, and the notes. Q. Run at two different times, two different dates, correct? I see a date run in Exhibit 9. This is the second page which I Bates numbered, but I don't -- because we just got it. The second page of Exhibit 9 has a date at the bottom 8/9/2002, correct? A. Correct. account came to them, it came under the name of [Consumer's former name]. MR. GARDNER: As long as the corporation knows. MR. WIER: Yes, that's -Q. (BY MR. GARDNER) Let's assume, if that's okay, that [Consumers former name] is the plaintiff who is now

0012 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. As do the following three pages, correct? A. Correct. Q. And Exhibit 10 is only four pages dated 4/14/2003, correct? A. Correct. Q. But the first page of Exhibit 10 is the same screen, as it were, as the second page of Exhibit 9; is that right? A. Correct. Q. Okay. Then we'll flip over, and clearly the second page of Exhibit 10 is not the same as the third page of Exhibit 9. Can you find -A. Yes. Q. The second page -- I am sorry to be this way, I wish we did have numbers. The second page of Exhibit 10 is the same as what is the fourth page of Exhibit 9, just run on a different date; is that correct? A. Correct. Q. And where can we find the third page of Exhibit 10, if at all, in Exhibit 9? A. The third page of Exhibit 9. Q. Is the third page of Exhibit 10, different dates? A. Correct. Q. Are there any actual differences between the

0013 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 two? Looking at them with an untrained eye, they appear to be -- at least this third page appears to be the same -A. Correct. Q. -- except for the date it was run and the fact that somebody drew a box around some figures in Exhibit 9. A. Correct. Q. There is no difference otherwise? A. No. Q. Is that the same for the other two pages of Exhibit 10, or do they differ from their counterparts in Exhibit 9? A. Except for the date, it's the same. The same, except for the date it's the same. MR. WIER: I don't know whether it causes you any consternation, but I can explain. MR. GARDNER: It just causes me no consternation, a little confusion, but mostly just curiosity. MR. WIER: I can either tell you off the record or I can explain, whatever you prefer. MR. GARDNER: Is there any substantive reason for that? MR. WIER: No.

0014 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. GARDNER: Tell me on, please. MR. WIER: When we met yesterday, we had this rerun again, and we -- it was already assembled through our written discovery responses and run originally for that. And then it was just rerun because I wasn't sure whether I had a copy or not, so they reran it for me, and it ended up getting in the exhibit stack. MR. GARDNER: Okay. Thank you. Q. (BY MR. GARDNER) Exhibit 11, what is it? A. It is our Minnesota license. Q. Well, let me ask you to look through it, because it appears to be more than the license there. I will tell you there is like a check, there is a surety bond. I want to make sure -A. It's everything that pertains to the licensing in Minnesota. Q. Look through Exhibit 12 and tell me what it is, please. A. This is our training for our agents on the FDCPA and scripts and monitoring forms. Q. Exhibit 13 appears to be the Certificate of Incorporation for Etan; is that what it is? A. Yes. Q. And Exhibit 14 appears to be the Agreement of

0015 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Limited Partnership for CCP, LP? A. CPA? Q. That's what I meant. A. Yes. Q. CPA, LP? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Skipping back to Exhibit 12, just for clarity, you said FDCPA, and I would encourage you to keep using that, but by that you mean the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, correct? A. Correct. Q. And this is compliance materials, I think you said, right? A. Correct, for our agents. Q. I am sorry? A. For our agents. Q. Is it taken from another document, or is this a document that exists by itself? Is this from a manual is what I am asking, or is this just something you hand people? A. I believe it's from a manual, but I'm not sure. Q. I am going to be asking you some questions as to objections in Exhibit 2, so I am giving you Exhibit 2 to look at. You don't have to, but I am going to be

0016 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 looking at it, so you are welcome to. A. Okay. Q. Just fidgeting just to keep stuff out of the way. You're -- the Exhibit 2, which is the defendants' objection to this deposition and to the documents requested, isn't numbered at the bottom, at least not in my copy. So I am going to just tell you to flip down, I think it is six pages, I believe, to -you'll see a Roman II -- well, you are actually where I wanted you to be. That's good. In the objection and response to request for production 5, the very end this states that "CPA will produce the number of persons with Minnesota addresses who were sent communications in the form of Exhibit 1 that were returned as undelivered from December 17, 1999, through and including December 17, 2000." Do you see that? A. Yes, I do. Q. Did y'all produce it? I didn't see it. Is it in the materials y'all have produced? A. No, it's not. Q. Do you know the number? A. Let me make sure I am clear. This is the number of returned mail?

0017 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. It appears to be, yes. A. Okay. It's approximately 200. Q. I think that's elsewhere in there, but that's out of how many that were sent to Minnesota residents? A. Correct. Q. I am asking, how many were sent to Minnesota residents? A. Oh, around 7700. Q. Looking down at the last line, same page, of the objection to request 7, there is a sentence, "Representatives of CPA do not have any telephone contact, the debtors of this particular client." Do you see that? A. Yes, I do. Q. There should be a "with" before the debtors; is that right? A. Correct. Q. And this was repeated in several other objections. Could you explain to me what that means, if you know? A. We do not make outbound calls to debtors for this client. Q. You do for other clients, correct? A. No. Q. Y'all are written only?

0018 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Correct. Q. If someone wants to contact you to discuss the case, how do they do that other than by writing? A. This particular client, all calls are returned to them. They are referred back to the original client. Q. Well, let me show you Exhibit 4, which is the Exhibit 1 from the complaint. I don't see a phone number for -- for y'all on there, correct? A. Correct. Q. The only phone number is for this particular client, which is Blockbuster Video. A. Correct. Q. And you have said "this client" before. You mean Blockbuster; is that correct? A. Correct. Q. Okay. You keep calling it "this client," or it would help if you would say "Blockbuster." A. Okay. Q. I always think of questions in a deposition as good if they stand alone and they make sense. A. Okay. Q. I try to ask questions that way; I don't always succeed. A. Okay.

0019 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. And I am not telling you how to use it; I am just asking. But if someone wanted to contact you, how would they do that? A. They would contact the store, and they could refer them to our call center. Q. Do you have records of telephone contacts by any Minnesota debtors? A. I am -- can't answer that. Q. Would there be a way to determine that? A. Yes. Q. How? A. We would -- we could go through the history of the debtors to determine if there was a note on the account that the call was received. Q. But you would have to look at the individual call history? A. Yes. Q. Is there any way you could do a search of the computer database on which that call history resides to find out? A. Yes. Q. I mean without looking at each one, could you look at a field or look for something? A. Yes. Q. Let me ask you to flip down to -- several

0020 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 pages down to the response to request 15, the last part of that objection says, "CPA will produce licenses for the years 1999 through 2001 issued by the Minnesota Department of Commerce." Do you see that? A. Yes, I do. Q. Is Exhibit 11 the production of those three years of licenses? A. Appears to be. Q. Does it have all three years' worth, I am sorry? MR. WIER: It's in there somewhere. A. Yes, it is. Q. (BY MR. GARDNER) Okay. The next request number 16 after the objection states that CPA will produce a copy of the plaintiffs' account summary. And that is what you have already identified as Exhibit 9 and then partly Exhibit 10; is that correct? A. Partly 9, all of 10. Q. Better answer. Sorry for my question. Also in 17 it refers to production of the account summary. That's the same 9 and 10, right? A. Correct. Q. In the response to 18, it says "CPA will produce a copy of its application for a license in the state of Minnesota." That is contained within Exhibit

0021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 11, correct? A. Correct. Q. And in response to 21, it states that CPA will produce documentation evidencing its net worth. That I didn't see. Have y'all produced that? A. No. Q. Okay. Do you -MR. WIER: Let me just state, I thought that that had already been produced. Do you know? I know I have disclosed the number to Mr. Barry. Have you -- to your knowledge, have you seen a document with that, because we intended to produce that, for CPA? THE WITNESS: It was -MR. GARDNER: And I will tell you, to my knowledge, no, Keith, but that doesn't prove that I haven't seen it, much less that Pete Barry hasn't seen it. MR. WIER: I am going to put that on my list. Q. (BY MR. GARDNER) Do you know what -- I am sorry. Go ahead. Ms. Evans, do you know what the net worth of CPA is? A. No. Q. I think that was one of the bullets you

0022 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 pointed out, in fact, right? A. Correct. Q. Okay. MR. WIER: Just for the record, so it's clear, we did agree to produce that, so I will produce it. We need to, after this deposition concludes, see what time frame you want, i.e., do you want net worth currently or net worth back when this letter was generated or both, and we can talk about that, but -MR. GARDNER: Let's discuss it. I would actually have to think about it. I am not sure which -- where that one percent kicks in. I think it's net worth at time of judgment, but I don't know. MR. WIER: I believe you are correct on that. MR. GARDNER: Off the record for a second. (Discussion off the record.) Q. (BY MR. GARDNER) Exhibit 9 is the -- the file and related materials on the plaintiff that we have already discussed, right? A. Correct. Q. Because this is the only copy we've got right now, we will have to kind of leave it where I can see it as well.

0023 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Q. page. That's fine. And I am just going to run through page by

Let me ask you to look at the second page. Would you tell me what that second page is? A. That is the master file that outlines the debtor's name, address, when it was submitted to us, the original and current amount due, the current status, how we received the account, what the telephone number is, driver's license number, the hold date, the number of letters sent, if it was reported to the credit bureau. It's just a status. Q. That's -- that is different from the next page; is that correct? A. Correct. Q. Okay. I am going to ask you to in the white space in the middle there, either with your pen or with my fancy purple one, write just a two- or three-word description of what it is you have just said, master file or something, just so I can say look at that page, please. A. (Witness writing.) Q. I have found the copy Keith faxed to me, so I will be able to look at it. Okay. Circle what this master file page

0024 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 shows is the current balance on this account, please? And if you would write "current" right next to it, just so we have that. A. (Witness writing.) Q. You didn't know handwriting would be part of this test, did you? Yours is much nicer than mine. You have nothing to be ashamed of. Can you tell us why there is a zero balance reflected? A. I have to go to this page and it will tell me. Q. "This page" is the third page of Exhibit 9, correct? A. Yes, which is the history page. Q. Would you write that on it? A. (Witness writing.) It has a zero balance because we terminated collection efforts. Q. Why was that? A. Due to the lawsuit. Q. Now, you said the master file had the letter numbers that were sent. It looks like it's really on the history page. Is that correct? A. It shows the total number of letters. This shows the actual letters that were sent, the history shows the actual letters that were sent. Q. Where does the master file show the number of

0025 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 letters? A. Right in this middle where it says "Number of letters sent." Q. That will do. Would you circle just that whole thing, number of letters sent, five? A. Okay. (Witness writing.) Q. And the history shows y'all's internal numbers of those letters, correct? A. That's correct. Q. It also shows the dates the letters were sent, correct? A. Correct. Q. Okay. Tell us what the next page down, the, I think, fourth page of Exhibit 9 is, please? A. That's our notes page. Q. What does this notes page reflect? A. Well, it would be any information that was entered on the account. This particular one is just indicating that they cleared it, that there is a lawsuit pending, and Michael Lore is our attorney. Q. Mr. Wier is not Michael Lore. Is Michael Lore with Mr. Wier's firm, or is he with someone else? A. No, he is with us. In turn Michael Lore turned it over to Keith Wier. Q. Mr. Lore is in house with --

0026 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. He is -- he contracts with us directly. Q. Okey-doke. Now, look to the next page, if you would, this page, and I think the -- let's see, five pages following are various letters that were -- that recreated letters created from your system, correct? A. Correct. Q. But these are what y'all believe to be the letters that were sent to the plaintiff; is that right? A. Correct. Q. And when I say "recreated," it's because things like some town, state, and the address, correct? A. Correct. Q. Do y'all retain either some form of hard copy or even electronic copy of the actual letter sent on collection accounts? A. No, we do not. Q. So these were recreated for purposes of producing? A. Correct. Q. But as far as you know, they are it, right? A. Yes. Q. Now, these don't reflect a letterhead or anything. But it does come on CCP letterhead? A. CPA? Q. Yeah, I am sorry. I don't know why, CPA, it's

0027 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 not a cunning plan on my part. CPA letterhead; is that right? A. Correct. Q. Okay. Further down in that Exhibit 9 is what looks to be a CPA letterhead form; is that what that is? A. Yes, it is. Q. Would you write "letterhead" across the middle of that just so we have that identified? The page has a 170 circled; is that correct? A. Yes. Q. Now, the next page down with the 380 circled up at the top, what is that? A. That is letterhead for the fifth letter that was sent. Q. The 170, the one page back one, that is the letterhead that would have been on letters 1 through 4 that went to the plaintiff? A. Correct. Q. And then the letterhead circled 380 is on the fifth letter that went to her, right? A. Correct. Q. Okay. Flipping back to that, the first letter in Exhibit 10 to the plaintiff has a number about two-thirds of the way down on the right circled 0001.

0028 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Do you see that? A. Yes, I do. Q. Is that the form letter 1 that went to her? A. Yes, it is. Q. And that's identified on the history page as 0001 sent on 9/4/2000; is that correct? A. Correct. Q. And I am not going to make you do this for each one of them, but that column on the history page is going to show us the letter number and those dates, the corresponding dates that your files say it was sent? A. Correct. Q. And y'all are certain as can be that this was the letter that was sent; is that correct? A. Yes. Q. Okay. In letter, I am going to call it one, if that's okay? A. Yes. Q. I'll bet y'all do. A. Yes. Q. Okay. This is typically the first letter that goes out to folks; is that right? A. Correct. Q. For Blockbuster at any rate?

0029 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Yes. Q. This says that Blockbuster is willing to provide another opportunity to settle before further collection activity is started. Do you see that? A. Yes. Q. What further collection activity was to be started after Exhibit 1? A. More contacts. Q. Another letter? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And this reflects the total amount due in this case was ten bucks, correct? A. In the sample. Q. Well, that's why I am trying to clarify it. In the master file it shows an amount of $15.72. A. Correct. Q. What is that for? A. That's for extended viewing fees for [Consumer]. Q. And how can you tell by looking at the file that the amount that she owed Blockbuster was $15.72 rather than the $10 reflected on letter one? A. Because if you look under the original submitted and you look at the service amount, it has $15.72.

0030 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. And S-E-R-V, A-M-T, service amount? A. Yes. Q. What does that mean? A. That is the extended viewing fee. Q. And do y'all do other collections for Blockbusters other than extended viewing fee? A. Yes. Q. What else? A. Product. Q. You mean they kept something? A. Yeah, tape, game. Q. Something that was rented that wasn't returned? A. Correct. Q. Or extended viewing fee is if I don't get it back in the slot by noon on Sunday morning or something, I get hit with another five bucks or something; is that correct? A. Correct. Q. And the plaintiff kept her video, according to Blockbuster, for a few days, or one or more videos for a few days; is that correct? A. Correct. Q. Then why does Exhibit 1 have a $10 extended viewing fee?

0031 1 2 3 4 the 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 one she actually got is going to be different in specifics, such as it would have her actual address? A. Exactly. Q. Rather than Some Town, U.S.A.? A. Exactly. Q. In this case the extended viewing fee is just a default amount somebody put in or what? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Who is J. W. Preston? A. He is an alias. Q. It's not Jennifer Garner, is it? A. No. Q. Okay. Alias of whom? A. I guess I don't know that. Q. Well, -A. I mean of basically several people. Q. Okay. J. W. Preston is an alias and, therefore, not a human. A. Correct. Q. Resides only within the database, correct? A. Correct. A. Because this was just a sample that was made for this case, and they did not make the sample off this actual account. Q. Okay. So it has [Consumers former name] there, but

0032 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. But does not -- is not the assumed name of any specific person; is that correct? A. Correct. Q. Okay. And it -- why not use a real name, a real human's name? A. Because when the debtors contact us, they address it to J. W. Preston, and there is no way that one person could handle all that information. Q. Any other reason? A. No. Q. And I know that the letters, at least 1 through 4, are all from this cyber human J. W. Preston, right? MR. WIER: Object to form. A. Right. Q. (BY MR. GARDNER) To respond to his objections, the -- all these letters are from the fictitious J. W. Preston, correct? A. Correct. Q. Okay. Now, turning to the next letter, which has circled 1602, is that form 1602? A. Yes. Q. This is the number 2 letter that went, correct? A. Yes.

0033 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. And it states that Blockbuster has informed us that no payment arrangement was made. How did Blockbuster inform CPA that no payment arrangement was made? A. They sent us no data that reflected that. Q. Okay. So if you don't hear from them that they received it, you send out this letter, correct? A. Correct. Q. But y'all do not require Blockbuster affirmatively to contact CPA to say we did not receive payment or arrangement, correct? A. Correct. Q. You assume from the fact that you haven't heard from them that Blockbuster did not get money or a payout, correct? A. Correct. Q. The second paragraph says that "CPA is a professional collection agency." Do you see that? A. Yes. Q. How is that distinguished from an amateur collection agency? MR. WIER: Objection, form. Q. (BY MR. GARDNER) What in the world does "professional" mean in that context? A. That we are legitimate.

0034 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. And it says it's authorized to take all appropriate steps to collect the debt. Do you see that? A. Yes. Q. Authorized by whom? A. By Blockbuster and the FDCPA. Q. And what appropriate steps do Blockbuster and the FDCPA authorize the credit collection agency to take to collect this 15-buck debt? MR. WIER: Object to form, but you may answer. A. Whatever is allowable under the FDCPA, additional contacts. Q. (BY MR. GARDNER) More letters, right? A. Correct. Q. You are not going to call? A. Correct. Q. You are not going to visit, right? A. Correct. Q. You are just going to write more letters. A. Correct. Q. Do you think it's possible that people who receive this are going to think that something is going to happen beyond another letter or two or three? MR. WIER: Objection, form, but you may

0035 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 answer. A. I can't comment on that. I don't know what would be in their minds. Q. (BY MR. GARDNER) Did you have a hand in writing these letters. A. Yes. Q. Okay. So when you -- when the letter said that you are authorized to take all appropriate steps to collect this debt, what was the intention of CPA to convey to the recipient? A. That there would be more contacts. Q. Was there a reason that CPA did not specify that those contacts would be letters? A. No. Q. Was there a reason that CPA did not specify that those contacts -- that the contacts would be limited to additional letters? A. No. Q. But when you wrote it, you were attempting to convey information to the recipient, right? A. Yes. Q. But you have no idea what the recipient would read into the statement that you were authorized to take all appropriate steps to collect this debt? A. Can you repeat that?

0036 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. I will try. I asked you earlier about what do you think people are going to think when they get this, and you said you didn't know. And I just want to clarify in a broader statement that despite the fact that you were trying to convey information to people, you cannot testify to what CPA believed people would take from the statement that it was authorized to take all appropriate steps to collect this debt? MR. WIER: Objection to form, but you may answer. Q. (BY MR. GARDNER) He is entitled to object. If you don't understand, ask me. A. I realize that. You are going have to ask it. It's so long that I am losing -Q. I know. I will truncate it. Can either defendant testify to what recipients of this letter would have reason to believe was meant by "authorized to take all appropriate steps to collect this debt"? A. No. Q. Let me ask you to flip to the next page, which is circled as 1003 that I take to be the third in the series of letters? A. Yes. Q. And for this client, are the five letters that

0037 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the plaintiff got the same five letters in the same order that other people would get if they didn't cough up in response to the earliest letter? MR. WIER: Objection, form, but you may answer. A. Not necessarily. Q. (BY MR. GARDNER) Who makes a decision as to what letter goes when? A. My group. Q. When you get in one of these accounts, does someone actually review it and say I'm going to send letter 1003 first? A. No, that's driven by a strategy. Q. And the strategy is what? A. It's a set of tests that basically, depending on which conditions they meet, determines which letter is sent. Q. And what are those tests? A. Balance, the state in which the debtor resides, if it has product or not, if it -- if there has been a address change, if there has been a partial payment, if there has been any activity on the account. Q. And are those individually reviewed, or is that something that, in essence, the computer decides based on what's input into the file?

0038 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 but the 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 plaintiff got these letters because of certain factors as to her account; other people might have gotten different letters in a different order; is that correct? A. Correct. Q. Okay. But other people would have gotten these letters as well, correct? A. If they met the same conditions. Q. Now, flipping back to 1602, does the "2" designate this is the second letter to go to a person? A. The computer decides based on the debtor information and the strategy. Q. It's just a series of what I know others would call algorithms, but just y'all tell the computer what to think, humans do that. A. Correct. Q. And the computer, whom I will call J. W. Preston, says, based on that, this letter goes to this person? MR. WIER: Object to the form, but you may answer. A. Correct. Q. (BY MR. GARDNER) So the plaintiff, I am calling her that not to be impersonal just so I don't have to shift between [Consumer] and [Consumer's former name],

0039 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Yes. Q. 16 designates that it's one form of that second letter? A. Correct. Q. Flipping now to 1003, is that the same thing, is it a 10, letter number 10, but it's the third letter that goes? A. Yes. Q. And I am going to restate that, because I think you know, but I want the record to be clear. The last digit of these form letters indicates the order in which they are sent, correct? A. Correct. Q. And the first -- is it the first two digits -A. Yes. Q. -- indicate the form and content of the letter in the order it was sent; is that correct? A. Correct. Q. So is it possible that I would see a letter in a different case, 1002 that was the same as letter 1003 and it became number 2? A. No. Q. No, because it says it's the third time, right? Okay. But do these letters, can they be shifted around, the form of letters, can they be sent

0040 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 in different orders? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Now looking at the third letter, 1003, this states, this is the third time we've contacted you, which would be a given. It refers to the overdue balance of ten bucks, but that's the same as you have already said, just a number that was slotted in to produce these letters. A. Correct. Q. Then it says, "A review of our records reveals that you have," do you see that? A. Yes. Q. Okay. There are three things, one, "refused to pay your outstanding debt." What in the records shows a refusal to pay an outstanding debt? A. Nonpayment. Q. So the mere act that they haven't paid allows CPA to conclude that they have refused to pay; is that your position? A. Yes. Q. It states that "they have repeatedly disregarded our," your, "past notices." Do you see that? A. Yes. Q. And on what do you base that?

0041 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. No payment or contact from them. Q. So if they read it, disagreed with it, but didn't have a way to contact you by phone and, therefore, didn't call, that would be disregarding it, according to CPA? MR. WIER: Objection to form, but you may answer. A. Can you repeat it? Q. (BY MR. GARDNER) Y'all are drawing from the fact that they didn't pay up or respond in writing a repeated disregard of the notices; is that correct? A. Yes. Q. My question is, is that always the case? People may read the notice and pay a lot of attention to it but not respond for a different reason. They haven't disregarded it; they just haven't obeyed it; is that correct? MR. WIER: Objection to form, but you may answer. A. I suppose. Q. (BY MR. GARDNER) And the fourth bullet is that they violated terms of the membership agreement. A. The third bullet? Q. I call it a bullet. The third point in letter 3 says that reviewing your records reveals that they

0042 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 have violated the terms of the membership agreement. A. Correct. Q. Where in your records does it show they violated terms of the membership agreement? A. Well, for the mere fact that it's come to us for collections is a violation of their member agreement. Q. That assumes Blockbuster had it right; is that correct? A. Yes. Q. But your records do not show what the membership agreement for that person was, correct? A. We know what the standard membership agreement with Blockbuster is. MR. GARDNER: Object, responsiveness. Q. (BY MR. GARDNER) Your -- your records don't have the membership agreement that this person signed; is that correct? A. Correct. MR. WIER: Objection to form. Q. (BY MR. GARDNER) And your records don't reflect the terms of that person's membership agreement, correct? A. Due to the fact that we have the standard membership agreement and we know what that contains,

0043 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 then, yes, we would know what this person had. Q. How do you know they signed it? A. I suppose I don't. Q. Letter 4, which is 1004, this starts out, "Blockbuster informs us that payment has not been received." How did Blockbuster inform CPA that the plaintiff had not -- that they had not received payment from them, the plaintiff? A. It was not in the files that they send us for updating accounts. Q. They didn't affirmatively inform you, correct; they just didn't tell you it had been paid? A. Correct. Q. Okay. The next sentence says, "Unless you settle this account promptly, we will forward our records to Blockbuster indicating your lack of cooperation and recommend to them that no further credit be extended to you." Did CPA forward its records to Blockbuster? MR. WIER: Objection, form, and I will -I will clarify if you like. MR. GARDNER: Please. I thought I was reading. MR. WIER: Well, do you mean with this

0044 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 particular account or just in general? MR. GARDNER: I am sorry, okay. Q. (BY MR. GARDNER) As to the plaintiff, did CPA forward its records to Blockbuster? A. Our standard procedure is to do so. I'd have to check. Q. Wouldn't that be reflected in the history? A. No. Q. Why not? A. It's not a history record. Q. Oh, okay. So there is some aspect of the plaintiff's account that is not produced today. A. It's not maintained. Q. Well, how would you determine whether or not you had forwarded your records on the plaintiff to Blockbuster? A. Well, I would have to assume that it did because of our standard procedures. Q. And your standard procedure is to do what exactly? A. Is to let Blockbuster know that there are accounts that are not satisfied. Q. And in what form? A. And -Q. I am sorry, go ahead.

0045 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Electronically. Q. Is it by e-mail or just a big batch of electronic information? A. It's a batch of information that we sync up. Q. In the same way that you get information from them saying, yeah, we got money from XYZ person; you send information back to them saying we never heard anything from these folks? MR. WIER: Objection, form, but you can answer. A. Yes, at some point in time. Q. (BY MR. GARDNER) Okay. Did you understand my question? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And what is it precisely that you presume as to the plaintiff CPA sent to Blockbuster in electronic form, but what information is it? A. Account number and amount. Q. And basically saying we never heard anything from this person? A. Correct. Q. Okay. You don't know that it was done, but you presume it was done? A. Correct. Q. When is it done in the chain of events, after

0046 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the fourth letter, before the fifth letter? A. Actually, it's after the fifth letter. Q. How long after the fifth letter? A. I believe 30 days. Q. And the information forwarded basically is an account number and a dollar amount? A. And possibly a name. Q. And a name, but just basically, these are the people who didn't respond or whatever? A. Correct. Q. Okay. Anything else included in the information forwarded to Blockbuster? A. Not to my knowledge. Q. Okay. So the information forwarded to Blockbuster does not, in fact, indicate lack of cooperation; is that correct? MR. WIER: Objection, form. But you can answer. A. I suppose that's an interpretation. Q. (BY MR. GARDNER) It also says that you will recommend to Blockbuster that no further credit be extended. From what you have told me, that's not part of what you communicate to Blockbuster. Is that correct? A. It's part of the normal procedure. It's an

0047 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 assumed that they will not rent any longer if there is a balance outstanding. Q. But y'all don't send them something saying as to this group of people we recommend that no further credit be extended to them? A. No, it's done in conjunction. Q. Well, do you do it affirmatively or just assume they are not gonna is what I am asking? A. I am sorry, can you repeat it? Q. Yeah. Do you actually send something electronically or otherwise to Blockbuster on this account or any other account, for that matter, that says these people -- in essence, because these people have not responded to us we recommend to you that no further credit be extended to these people? A. The file that we send to them does not start or have a header or a page that says we don't -- we recommend that you do not rent to them. It is an assumed part of our business. Q. The next sentence says, "Be advised that adverse credit information can remain in their records for several years." Who are "they" in the "their records"? A. Blockbuster. Q. How do you know that that is a fact?

0048 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Because we understand how their POS system works. Q. Point of sale? A. Yes. Q. And the adverse credit information to which you refer is what? A. The outstanding debt. Q. The fact that they owe the, in this case, $15.72? A. Correct. Q. Is there any other -- was there any other intent on the part of CPA to imply, for instance, that there would be a report to a credit bureau? A. No. Q. Now, next page, number 0505, this is the fifth letter, and it's the same as Exhibit 4, correct? Exhibit 4 is the actual letter that is reflected in the recreated form as Exhibit 0505 -- as document 0505 in Exhibit 9, correct? A. Yes, there is one difference. Q. Well, I was fixing to look, but why don't you just tell me what the difference is? A. This black portion down here is -Q. If you would, I am going to ask you to -because I want it more noticeable, either -- with a

0049 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 colored marker on this one, so we can -A. (Indicating.) Q. You have just highlighted in pink in the original Exhibit 9 this black portion. Now, what is that? A. That is what we utilized to remove "President" on the form. Q. Okay. Let me ask you to flip down a couple of pages to that notice form that has a circle "380" that we had already discussed. A. Yes. Q. That's the form, correct? A. Correct. Q. And the black mark on letter five that you have just highlighted, you are saying that y'all are using that to remove the word "President" from this preprinted form; is that what it is? A. Correct. Q. That was not in use at the time CPA sent the letter to the plaintiff, correct? A. Correct. Q. When did y'all put that blackout? A. As soon as it was brought to our attention. Q. By what? A. This lawsuit.

0050 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. Okay. These letters all have bar codes on them, I think. A. Uh-huh. Q. Yes? A. Yes. Q. And they all have the same bar code on them, it appears, judging from the numbers; is that correct? At least in these reproduced ones, they all have -A. I believe so, but there is bar codes at the top and at the bottom, so I am not sure what you are referring to. Q. Well, I am referring to the one, the actual bar code, that has some fancy post office code names that is not technically a bar code, I don't think. I am going to circle on Exhibit 5 in pink up in the upper right a bar code. Do you see that? A. Yes, I do. Q. Now, flipping back through the other exhibits, they all have at the same location the same bar code; is that correct? A. Correct. Q. What is that? A. That is a bar code that is scanned if the account is returned to us as return mail so that we can update our database.

0051 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. Is it used for anything else by either y'all or Blockbuster? A. It is the debtor's account number. Q. Does Blockbuster use that if they get a check from the debtor? A. I do not believe so. Q. And the other codes that you were referring to are the ones that I am just going to highlight also by drawing a marker line through the two. I believe those are just post office codes; is that correct? A. They are called post net bar codes. Q. Then they are bar codes. I stand corrected. I've seen it referred to as something else, but those bar codes are -- that shows her ZIP plus nine is four, correct? A. Correct. Q. Or just zip if it had it. That's nothing to do with y'all; that's just something the post office likes? A. Correct. Q. Okay. Now, who is R. J. Simpson on either one of them? Let's look at Exhibit 4 just because it's the actual letter. A. It's an alias. Q. Of whom?

0052 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Sharonda Green. Q. And who is Sharonda Green? A. She is one of our agents in the call center. Q. Is there a reason that R. J. Simpson is the alias of one human whereas, who is that, J. W. Preston is a group alias? A. In the -- just in the state of Minnesota, because they required that we do at night, we set up as Sharonda Green registered. Q. So in Minnesota, and we will look at that, but in Minnesota Ms. Green is licensed as a debt collector under the alias R. J. Simpson? A. Yes. Q. Now, when these go out, does -- let me back up. Are these letters generated automatically by the computer absent indication that payment or payoff arrangements were received? A. Yes. Q. So Exhibit 1, y'all tell the computer to do it, but it decides what letter it's going to send based on the factors and sends it out, correct? A. Correct. Q. You don't hear anything, and letter number 2 goes out how many days later?

0053 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Well, it's going to depend on the strategy, but the most common is 30 days. Q. Around 30? A. Yes. Q. Give or take, the strategy being in some instances you want to give more time, in some instances less? A. Correct. Q. Okay. And then letter three is slightly less than a month letter; in this case letter four is again slightly less than a month later? A. Yes. Q. And then letter five is about four weeks later than that. A. Correct. Q. Not quite, but about. And these are all determined by the strategy criteria that y'all input, and the computer sends the letter out, correct? A. Yes. Q. Does anyone, I can't believe they do, but let me ask, does anyone actually look at each one of these letters and compare it to the account before it goes out? A. Not on a normal basis. Q. That's what I mean. Do you know actually

0054 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 have -- once you've got it set up and the money doesn't come in, these are generated and sent out and an individual having already set up the criteria and an individual doesn't review each letter individually before it goes out. A. Correct. Q. Okay. Neither Ms. Green nor anyone else, correct? A. Correct. Q. Okay. Now, Ms. Green -- neither Ms. Green nor R. J. Simpson are president as far as you know of anything, correct? A. Correct. Q. So she is certainly not president of Credit Association Protection, LP, correct? A. Correct. Q. Never was? A. No. Q. Okay. Why did y'all say so to the debtor, to this plaintiff and to apparently in the state of Minnesota alone over 7,000 additional people? MR. WIER: Objection, form, but you can answer. A. I believe it was just an oversight. Q. (BY MR. GARDNER) What do you mean "an

0055 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 oversight"? A. Well, there was no intention or purpose of doing that. It was -- we were not aware that it was a requirement in the state of Minnesota. Q. What, truth? A. Correct. Q. (BY MR. WIER) Truth was not a requirement in the state of Minnesota? MR. WIER: Objection, form. Q. (BY MR. GARDNER) She's not the president. It was not true to say that she was the president; isn't that right? A. There was no thought process for deception put in that. It was truly an oversight. It is on all of our other letters. We have been approved by other states with that information, and it was just oversight. Q. Which states have approved you with that information? A. Wisconsin. Q. Has approved this form; is that what you are saying? A. Correct. Q. Knowing -- y'all having told them that the person represented by this alias is not, in fact, the

0056 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 president of Credit Protection Association? MR. WIER: Objection, form, but you may answer. A. I don't know if that question was asked by them. Q. (BY MR. GARDNER) How -- in what manner did the state of Wisconsin approve this Exhibit 4, the form? A. It was part of our licensing. We had to send all of our forms and letters, and it was reviewed and approved before we could get licensed. Q. And was it also with the R. J. Simpson in it? A. Yes. Q. As president? A. Correct. Q. In Minnesota -- or Wisconsin, I was confused, the two are right next to each other, I think. In Wisconsin, if a letter goes to a Wisconsin resident, is R. J. Simpson invariably Ms. Green? A. No. Q. Because only in Minnesota is she the only DB -- assumed name for that, correct? A. Right. Q. So when y'all sent this in as part of your submission to the state of Wisconsin, you didn't inform

0057 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 them that R. J. Simpson was not a real human being? A. I am not sure. I would have to check it. Q. And you didn't inform them that R. J. Simpson or the person doing business as R. J. Simpson was not, in fact, the president of Credit Protection Association, correct? MR. WIER: Objection, form, but you can answer. A. I cannot, I can't answer that. Q. (BY MR. GARDNER) Well, you knew what you had submitted, but you just don't know if in that submission you told the state of Wisconsin that this person was not, in fact, president? A. No, I don't know. Q. Okay. MR. GARDNER: I'll ask for it later, Keith, but since you volunteered Wisconsin, I am going to want to see that? MR. WIER: Okay. MR. GARDNER: But it will be my problem. I always hate at depositions if somebody said I'd like that. I never ask the deponent. I consider that unfair. Q. (BY MR. GARDNER) But be that as it may, you no longer identify the fictitious R. J. Simpson as the

0058 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 president of CPA, correct? A. Correct. Q. Anywhere or is that just a Minnesota only thing? A. Nowhere. Q. Okay. So does this mean that there is a blob under this, is that what -A. Yes. Q. And the reason there is a blob is y'all had a bunch of these and didn't feel like throwing them out? A. Yes. Q. A bunch of the form, the paper that it's printed on. A. Correct. Q. And is there just -- is it fancy paper? Why -- why not just have the computer generate all this other stuff? Is there a reason? A. Cost. Q. Just cheaper to have the other preprinted? A. Correct. Q. Okay. I think you have identified everything in Exhibit 9, except the last page that I think is merely the fax confirmation page. Is that what that is? A. Correct.

0059 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. break? MR. WIER: Sure. (Recess.) Q. (BY MR. GARDNER) Looking at Exhibit 11, you've already identified these as the materials in connection with your license, or CPA's license with the state of Minnesota as a debt collector, correct? A. Correct. Q. Let's just start flipping through it. If you would, identify them page by page. What is page 1? A. I am really not familiar with this. I am going have to just review each one and see if it's identified. I don't know it. So I'll look. This is -Q. Well, I mean, you really don't know this stuff? A. I am not involved with the licensing. Q. Okay. Well, I'll tell you what, then, since you are going to be guessing, in essence, an educated guess, I will just ask you specific questions, and with that knowledge that it's educated guess -- if you do know, just tell me, if you think, if you believe -- if you can interpret it, fine, and if you don't know, Okay. MR. GARDNER: Do you want to take a

0060 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that's okay. A. Okay. Q. I'll yell at him later, but I am not going yell at you now. But page 1 appears to be the current license for -- not current, but the license for the year 2001 through 2002; is that your read also? A. Yes. Q. Okay. This next page appears to be the license for 2000 and 2001, correct? A. Correct. Q. And not surprisingly, the third page is the license for the year from '99 to 2000, correct? A. Correct. Q. The next page is a check from CPA to the department; is that payment for the license renewal? A. I believe so. Q. Says so up at the top, right? A. Correct. Q. The next page is headed "Collection Agency Surety Bond"; is that correct? A. Yes. Q. That appears to be the surety bond posted with the state of Minnesota by CPA, LP, correct? A. Correct. Q. And the second page down with the number

0061 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 018618 in the upper right -A. Yes. Q. -- is a power of attorney that I think accompanies that bond; is that correct, as far as you can tell? A. To the best of my knowledge. Q. Okay. Now we get to a list, a new thing that is a printout with the name "Minnesota Department of Commerce," or parts thereof, there appears to be a hole punch -A. Correct. Q. -- on it, that says "Collection agency renewal for Credit Protection Association." Do you see that? A. Yes. Q. And this is numbered at the bottom, three pages, correct? A. Correct. Q. Do you know what this is? A. This is the list of our agents that would take in-bound phone calls. Q. And President Simpson, Ms. Green, is one of the agents listed; is that correct? MR. WIER: Objection to form, but she can answer. A. Correct.

0062 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. (BY MR. GARDNER) Ms. Green is one of the agents listed on page 1, correct? A. Correct. Q. And this is Ms. Green who called herself President Simpson in the letter to the plaintiff and others? MR. WIER: Objection, form, but she may answer. Q. (BY MR. GARDNER) Well, you look confused, so I am going to let form stand aside. Exhibit 4 identifies Ms. Green as president, R. J. Simpson, correct? That's not correct. R. J. Simpson is an alias of Ms. Green, correct? A. Correct. Q. Okay. And Ms. Green, according to what you have submitted here in this exhibit, these pages you are looking at, was identified as an agent for CPA, correct? A. Correct. Q. This is for what period, do you know? A. Well, it's dated 5/3/01, so I would assume it would have to be for... Q. It wouldn't have been before May 3rd of 2001, correct?

0063 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Correct. Q. Okay. Now what is this for? A. It's just identifying the agents that will take in-bound phone calls, collection phone calls. Q. And this allows y'all to obtain licenses for these agents; is that correct? A. Correct. Q. Now some of these are deleted, I presume because they no longer work there; is that correct? A. Correct. Q. But the third page where the May 3, 2001, date is, reflects 16 licenses; is that correct? A. Yes. Q. Whose signature is that at the bottom there? A. Nathan A. Levine. Q. Who is that? A. He's the owner. Q. Of CPA? A. I am not sure what his exact title would be with CPA. I would call him the owner of CPA. Q. You would call him what, Mr. Levine? A. No, I called him Nate. Q. Nate. Okay. Well, Nate's the honcho of CPA? A. Correct. Q. The next page down is another surety bond for

0064 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2001 to 2002; is that correct? A. Yes. Q. That's just an unexecuted copy of the surety bond that you already identified earlier in this document, I think, isn't it? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And the next page is another check to the Department of Commerce, correct? A. Yes. Q. And the next page down with the due date 5/15/2000, do you see that? A. Yes. Q. That's another printout, in this case two pages, from the Minnesota Department of Commerce, correct? A. Correct. Q. Reflecting the issuance of debt collector licenses to engage in debt collection in the state of Minnesota to employees of CPA, correct? A. Correct. Q. That would have been, as far as you can tell, from May 2000 to 2001? A. Correct. Q. Okay. And it looks like Ms. Green is not on that list; is that correct?

0065 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. That is correct? Q. She was on the 2001 to 2002 list, correct? A. Yes. Q. Do the defendants have any evidence that as of the date Exhibit 4 was sent on December 12th, 2000, Sharonda Denise Green was licensed to collect debts in the state of Minnesota? MR. WIER: Object to form. But you can answer based on your personal knowledge. A. I don't -- my personal knowledge is I don't know. Q. (BY MR. GARDNER) Well, from what you have presented to me, it looks like she wasn't. Do you have any reason to believe that she was licensed when Exhibit 4 went out for the state of Minnesota? A. To the best of my knowledge, no. Q. And as I think I had mentioned, I am really asking the defendants. As you sit here today, can either of the defendants give any information as to whether Ms. Green was licensed to collect debts in the state of Minnesota? A. Not that I know of. Q. In leafing through this, and I may have missed it, I didn't see any indication that Ms. Green had registered the alias or that anyone had registered the

0066 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 alias R. J. Simpson as a debt collector in the state of Minnesota. Did that occur and I just missed it, or what? A. If it's not in here, then that would be the only thing I would know. I'd have to go back to the office and find out if there was additional information about alias registration. Q. Well, look through it and tell me if it's in there or not. This is not another one of my trick questions. I don't see that it's there. I may have missed it. MR. GARDNER: If it's there, Keith, and you can show us, that's great, too. MR. WIER: Which -- when you started these -- this line of questioning, you were focusing on certain years, and then the last question you asked just as a broad question. MR. GARDNER: Yeah, is there a d/b/a for -MR. WIER: Go ahead. MR. GARDNER: I am sorry. MR. WIER: Tell me what you want I guess is what I am trying to say. Q. (BY MR. GARDNER) Has Ms. Green ever had an alias registration or a notification to the state of

0067 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Minnesota that she collects debts in Minnesota using the name R. J. Simpson? A. Yes. Q. Okay. You're looking at something. A. No. Q. Okay. A. I just... Q. Let's do it -- how do you know that, tell me -- you said yes, she has. A. Yes. Q. Okay. Explain. A. I've seen the paperwork where it was -- where she was registered. Q. Is the paperwork produced to us? A. Not that I see in here. Q. Okay. Do you know that -- what was the paperwork you've seen? A. What we needed to present to Minnesota to license it. Q. License her to collect under this alias? A. Yes. Q. This alias being R. J. Simpson, right? A. Correct. Q. Do you know when that was filed? A. Not the exact date.

0068 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. Do you remember what year? A. I believe it was 2002. Q. So it was not -- she was not licensed to conduct collection business under this alias in the last millennium; is that correct? A. In the last millennium? Q. 2000 -MR. WIER: I was trying not to object to that. MR. GARDNER: It was for my own amusement. Q. (BY MR. GARDNER) In the years 2000 preceding, she did not have an alias on file. A. May have, but I am not aware of it. I can only testify to what I know. Q. Okay. You can testify that Exhibit 11 doesn't contain any evidence of the alias filing for Ms. Green, correct? A. That's correct. Q. Nor does any of the other documents that y'all have produced, correct? A. Correct. Q. But you have seen a document that reflects that she did -- or CPA on her behalf did make that filing, correct?

0069 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Correct. Q. Your memory is that it was made in the year 2002, correct? A. Correct. Q. Is there a reason we didn't get that, or -other than inadvertence as far as you know? A. I don't know, because I didn't compile this. MR. GARDNER: Can we get that? Q. (BY MR. GARDNER) I mean, do you know where it is? Can you locate it? A. The copy of what I have seen? Q. Yeah. A. Could we get it faxed here? MR. WIER: Let me -- let me confer with her -MR. GARDNER: I'll let y'all talk, but -MR. WIER: -- about that. Q. (BY MR. GARDNER) Let me ask you a couple of more questions about it, and then I hope we can see it. How big an "it" is it? Is it a big thick pile of documents? Is it two pages, what? A. I believe it's just a page or two. Q. When did you see it? A. In the last couple days. Q. In a nonaccusatory way, why don't we have it,

0070 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 do you know? Did it just not get to us? Do you know? A. It was -- it was just presented to me yesterday at the end of the day, and so that's the first I knew about it was after I had met with Keith. And so it didn't get in with the information. Q. Do not -- I am sure he has told you this, I don't want to know anything about what you and Keith have talked about, what you and any other lawyer have talked about. A. Correct. Q. But what did you look at, other than that apparently, to prepare for your deposition today? What other documents did you review? A. I reviewed the -- where our letters had been approved by the state of Wisconsin, and that document. Q. Anything else? A. No. Q. Did you review any of the various -A. Oh, yes, all of this. Q. All or most all? A. Yes. Q. Did you actually review every one of these exhibits? You were quite familiar with them. A. Yes, I did. Q. But other than these exhibits, the Wisconsin

0071 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 thing and the alias form, you didn't review anything -A. Correct. Q. -- as far as you can recall? A. Correct. Q. Okay. Other than Mr. Wier or counsel or employees of counsel, who did you discuss your testimony today with? A. Sue Gilbert, our compliance person. Q. Who is the boss of whom? Is she your boss, you her boss, what? A. No, actually, she reports directly to Mr. Levine. Q. Nate? A. Yes. Q. As do you, then? A. Correct. Q. Okay. Thus Nate? A. Correct. Q. What did you and Ms. Gilbert talk about? MR. WIER: I am going to object to that as being party communications in the litigation process, that being privileged, and instruct the witness not to answer that. Q. (BY MR. GARDNER) Based on instruction of counsel, are you going to refuse to answer what you and

0072 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Ms. Gilbert discussed in preparation for your testimony today? A. I feel like that's what I have been asked to do, so that's what I'll do. Q. So yes? I like to get that "yes." A. Yes. Q. Okay. MR. GARDNER: Can you tell me why, Keith? I always get to ask who they've talked with, not you. MR. WIER: You could ask who they talked with. MR. GARDNER: I get to talk -MR. WIER: You don't get to ask what they talked about because it's in conjunction with -- I mean, I'll be glad to visit with you and, you know, go pull the rule book if -- I am not saying that I am necessarily right when I say pull the rule book, but my understanding is that, you know, party communications made in conjunction with defending the lawsuit, those were privileged communications and don't have to be disclosed. MR. GARDNER: Okay. Q. (BY MR. GARDNER) Why did you talk to Ms. Gilbert? A. Because I wanted to make sure I had all the

0073 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 facts. Q. And some of the facts to which you are testifying today you obtained from Ms. Gilbert? A. Correct. Q. You got information from her. Was there anything she told you that made you realize that your knowledge was incorrect, did she change your knowledge? She added to your knowledge? A. Isn't that the same as asking what the context of what we talked about? Q. That's his problem, not yours. And, no, I am just asking -- I am not asking for what it is, because he isn't going to let you, but I am asking if you just changed your mind -- so it's clear, then he is going to object to something, -MR. WIER: Let me state this and say, I am trying to let you go right up to the edge without -but I want to make sure that I am not busting the privilege by doing that. So if I let her answer that question because I don't think you are going necessarily into the substance, but rather you are asking her, you know, did anything change your mind, I'll allow her to answer that as long as you stipulate that I am not waiving the remainder of the privilege by letting her answer that question.

0074 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. GARDNER: It's an exception on privilege, I don't think, so -- and I will stipulate to that, meaning if I squeeze some information out of you and I don't get later to say, well, you waived any other stuff. Q. (BY MR. GARDNER) I am just trying to wrap up ends, and I don't know this, but did she tell you anything that caused you to change your mind about your understanding of the facts of this matter? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And what she told you in conjunction with his instruction you ain't gonna tell me, right? A. Correct. Q. Okay. MR. WIER: Just like I said with regard to other subjects, if we visit later and you show me some case law or we agree that you can go into this, then we'll -- she's here in Dallas, you are here in Dallas, we will reproduce her. She probably doesn't -MR. GARDNER: Or we will just notice up Ms. Gilbert and ask her what she told her. THE WITNESS: Easy for him to say. MR. WIER: Yeah, and/or whatever. Q. (BY MR. GARDNER) How many times have you been deposed before?

0075 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Many. Q. I thought so. Why? Are you the kind of like the spokesperson every time y'all get sued? A. Yes. Q. I am trying to make this a nonintimidating experience despite the fact that it is, but you seem more at ease than the average bear. I know I tell clients that I have been deposed and I testify a lot, and it's far easier to be me asking you the questions than you answering them. It is much tougher. Okay. Leafing down through this document, Exhibit 11, there is a letter from the Minnesota Department of Commerce dated May 29 -- May 22, 1999. I think you've gone past it. It's about halfway in. A. There we go. Q. Do you know why they sent that other than the fact that it was just sent the wrong -- your check was in the wrong amount? A. That's what it says here, so I suppose that's the only reason. Q. Under that letter, and I am really using that more as a bookmark to get to the next three pages, it looks as though these are pages -- the next three pages are out of order, because we got a page 3, page 1, and

0076 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 page 2. A. Correct. Q. Are those all one document? A. Yes. Q. That were just multiple -- faxed and then ordered out of order, correct? A. For whatever reason, they are out of order. Q. Well, the fax header at the top indicates that page 3 came before page 1. A. Oh, okay. Q. Oh, that's my fax header. I am sorry. That's the one I got from Keith. I thought it was on yours. A. Oh. Q. This is another renewal form; is that correct? A. Correct. Q. For the period apparently '99 to 2000; is that correct? A. Yes. Q. Again for '99 to 2000, I don't see Ms. Green on that list. Is she? A. Does not appear to be. Q. Look down to about five pages from the end of that Exhibit 11, please. MR. WIER: Let her see what page you are on since I don't -- I should have had these Bates

0077 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 stamped, but I just didn't get time quite frankly. MR. GARDNER: Well, I was going to Bates mine and the same answer. THE WITNESS: Okay. Q. (BY MR. GARDNER) This is an April 20, 1999, letter that is kind of computer signed Sue Gilbert. Do you see that? A. Yes. Q. And written on it on the first page is sent via e-mail to your office. Do you see that? A. Yes. Q. Do you know who wrote that? A. Sue. Q. And who was she telling this to? A. That I don't know. Q. Okay. But it's a letter to Minnesota saying "we need to add the following collectors for our license renewal," correct? A. Correct. Q. This would be for '99 to 2000, correct? A. Yes. Q. And Ms. Green, is she on that? A. Does not appear to be. Q. Okay. When did she start with CPA? A. Sharonda, I don't know.

0078 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. Well, was she employed in 1999 in a different role or what? A. I really don't know. Q. Okay. How long -- do you know how long she has been doing debt collection work for CPA? A. No. Q. Okay. Close that and look at 12, please. 12 you have said are collection policies. They appear to be from different sources, just because they are different in layout and stuff. Are they -- you said you didn't know if they are all from one manual; is that correct? A. Correct. Q. Then just go through it, starting at the first page and describe for us what each of these is. The first page is labeled "Monitoring Call Guidelines." Do you see that? A. Yes. Q. What is that? A. It is the different -- this is speculation on my part. Q. Have you ever seen this page before? A. Not before. We put it together for this case. Q. And you don't know the source of it? A. It comes from our call center manager.

0079 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. And what is your -- is that Ms. Gilbert? A. No. Q. Okay. Who is your call center manager? A. Eve Hamilton. Q. Okay. What did she tell you about it, if she did? A. We asked for training materials that they utilized, and this is what we she produced. Q. Okay. Look at all of them. Do you have any knowledge that you can testify to the content of any of this, Exhibit 12? A. Not other than just -- -Q. Flip through it all before you answer, though, please. (Pause.) A. Okay. Now what was your question again? Q. (BY MR. GARDNER) Are you familiar with any of those documents, any of the documents in Exhibit 12? A. No. Q. I have a couple of questions that I am hoping you can help me with nonetheless. It uses CSR. A. Yes. Q. What is that? A. Our agents. Q. What does it stand for?

0080 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Customer service rep. Q. Page 5 of the materials, lower in the bottom, it's not the fifth page, but it's the one that's numbered at the bottom right, is a quiz on FDCPA. To whom is that given? A. To the CSRs. Q. Do they have to pass it to do something or what? A. To get on the phone. Q. Is a debt counseling service covered under the FDCPA? A. I am not -- I don't know. Q. The next page under the quiz is labeled "In-bound Training." You have not -- you are not familiar with this, correct? A. Correct. Q. Do you know what it is? Can you tell from looking at it -A. This is how to handle in-bound calls according to the call center. Q. These are procedures -A. Yes. Q. -- that the CSRs are to use? A. That's what it appears to be. Q. The last two pages are training module and

0081 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 assurance module, or quality assurance module. Do you see those? A. Yes. Q. Do you know what they are? A. Not really. Q. Do you know what a module is within this context? A. No. Q. That would make two or arguably three or four of us. Now I am going to follow through with my threat and ask you questions from the deposition notice. You are welcome to track along because I am going to go right through them. What is the relationship between Etan and Blockbuster Video, Inc.? A. There is no relationship. Q. What is the relationship between CPA and Blockbuster Video, Inc.? A. We do their past due collections. Q. As you have already described for us? A. Yes. Q. Does anyone else do it? A. No. Q. How long has CPA done it? A. Since '93.

0082 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. Is there an affiliation, board of directors, or anything like that between Blockbuster and CPA? A. No. Q. In other words, does anyone at Blockbuster have any, other than the collection agreement, contact with CPA? A. No. Q. And vice versa, does anyone at CPA sit on the board or otherwise have contact with Blockbuster? A. No. Q. What is the relationship between CPA and the plaintiff? A. That it was turned over to us for collections. Q. As you have already described? A. Correct. Q. Anything else you want to add to that? A. No. Q. What is the relationship between Etan and the named plaintiff? A. There is none. Q. The next one's kind of broad, the business and practices of CPA, so I just ask you more generally. What is the business of CPA? A. Collection of past due accounts. Q. For a variety of customers?

0083 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Of clients. Q. Clients? A. Yes. Q. Is there any other business that CPA does other than debt collection? A. CPA, no. Q. Is that as distinguished from some other entity? You said CPA, no; you mean Etan does? A. No. Q. Okay. What are -- you have largely testified to this already, but what is the nature and extent, probably speaking, of collection activities by CPA? A. That basically we receive the accounts and we send out a series of letters over a period of time. Q. Neither for Blockbuster nor other clients do you generate outbound telephone? A. Correct. Q. Or personal contact? A. Correct. Q. Your entire contact is the use of these form letters, correct? A. Correct. Q. Unless someone does contact you? A. That's correct. Q. How often does that happen?

0084 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. For this particular client or -Q. I don't care. A. -- or for all clients? Q. Well, for this particular client and for all clients. A. A guesstimate would be less than a half a percent for this client, and less than about three percent for the other, three to five percent on our other clients. Q. What is the nature and extent of collection activities by Etan? A. None. Q. Have you produced today all communications, written or oral, between CPA and the plaintiff? A. Samples thereof. MR. WIER: And let me just also object. I am probably stating the obvious, but we can't really produce oral communications, but just to be safe. I mean, she has described them. MR. GARDNER: That's fine. Let me rephrase it. Q. (BY MR. GARDNER) Have you produced today all written communications between CPA and the plaintiff? A. Samples of them, yes. Q. Well, these are the ones that we have already

0085 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 talked about. A. Yes. Q. But there are no others that exist as far as you know that you have not produced? A. Correct. Q. Okay. Were there oral communications between CPA and the plaintiff? A. Not according to the records. Q. And if there were communications, they would be reflected in the records. A. Yes. Q. Where in the record? A. In the history. Q. The history is Exhibit 9. I am going to show you my copy just because I happen to have it, but it would just -- this -- her history gives a bunch of letters, correct? A. Correct. Q. I forgot to ask you, do you know why the letter numbers are squared off there in this printout? A. No. Q. But if there were oral contacts, they would be reflected in the history? A. Correct. Q. Okay. So we can presume from that that there

0086 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 were not oral contacts, correct? A. Not on that account. Q. Yes. And we have the reproduced copies of all written contacts between CPA and the plaintiff. A. Yes. Q. Did CPA receive communications, written or oral, from the plaintiff? A. According to the records, no. Q. Did Etan have any communication with the plaintiff? A. No. Q. Does CPA have procedures in place to distinguish between debts for personal, family, or household purposes and debts for business purposes? A. No. Q. Does Etan have similar procedures in place? A. No. Q. How much money did CPA collect by using Exhibit 1? MR. WIER: Object to form, but you can answer. A. I am not sure if you are talking about from the beginning of time. MR. WIER: Wait, where is Exhibit 1, or --

0087 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. GARDNER: I am sorry, that's a bad thing, Exhibit 1 to the complaint, Exhibit 4. MR. WIER: Okay. So in this case do you mean with regard to [Consumers former name]'s account? MR. GARDNER: No, but I will rephrase, Keith. MR. WIER: Okay. Q. (BY MR. GARDNER) From January 1 of 2000 to the present -- let me stop there. Y'all still use the letter in the form of Exhibit 4, except that "president" is blacked out, correct? A. Correct. Q. From January 1 of 2000, or that's an approximate date, I'll take February 1, but for the year 2000 to the present, how much -- how many collections have occurred after this -- the letter in this form was sent to debtors? A. I don't know. Q. How can we determine that? A. I can get it out of our system. Q. Because is -- I feel like Who Wants to Be a Millionaire, but is this your final letter? A. In some cases. Q. Okay. This was for the plaintiff here,

0088 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 correct? A. Yes. Q. What did CPA do after this letter with respect to this account, Exhibit 4? A. We expired it. Q. Meaning? A. That we stopped collection activities. Q. Certainly you wiped it out after the lawsuit was filed, but between the time Exhibit 4 was sent and the lawsuit was filed, -A. Uh-huh. Q. -- what, if anything, did CPA do on the account? A. We placed it in an expired status. Q. As of when, if you -- the letter is dated 12/20/2000. A. You could tell if you had looked at the history. Q. No, you could tell. A. Oh, okay, I can tell. Q. I don't want to make the assumption, but I am again showing you my copy of the history page of Exhibit 9. A. Okay. So on 1/1 -- 1/11/2001 it went to an expired status.

0089 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 That's what "E-X-P" stands for in that column? Yes. The same column where the letters are, right? Correct. MR. WIER: What was the date you said, I am sorry? THE WITNESS: 1/11/2001. MR. WIER: That's what I thought. Q. (BY MR. GARDNER) That's because you did not get a response to this letter? A. Correct. Q. More to the point you didn't get notified by Blockbuster that they had received a response? A. Correct. Q. Now, at the time Exhibit 4 went, you stated that if they didn't send something by January 8th you were going to recommend to Blockbuster that CPA be given full authority to take all appropriate action necessary to collect the account. Do you see that on 4? A. Yes. Q. Did CPA recommend anything to Blockbuster prior to closing this account? A. It's part of our collection strategy with Blockbuster, yes. Q. A. Q. A.

0090 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. What did you recommend they do with respect to this account? A. That they revoke rental rights. Q. And in what form did you make that recommendation with respect to this account? A. Electronically, I suppose. Again, it's a standard -Q. Did you actually -A. -- policy. Q. -- tell them we haven't heard anything, we are expiring it, we recommend that you revoke rental rights? A. In the file? Q. Yes. A. There is not a header page that says -- or verbiage in the file that says that, no. Q. You just send a file saying we are expiring the account? A. Yes, that these are noncollectible accounts, basically. Q. Okay. Does the file say anything else? A. No. Q. Now, what is -- after -- is there a letter that follows Exhibit 4, which is the fifth letter in this instance, in other -- with respect to other

0091 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 debtors? A. Possibly. Q. Okay. Is there one that -- this one, the computer closed it out three weeks later, so, right? A. Uh-huh. Q. "Uh-huh" is yes? A. Yes, I am sorry. Q. Okay. What additional action necessary to collect the account did CPA take after sending Exhibit 4? A. Other than revoking rental rights or -- that would be it. Q. What authority to take appropriate action necessary to collect this account did CPA request that Blockbuster give to it after sending Exhibit 4? A. Can you repeat that? I'm sorry. MR. GARDNER: I liked it so, this time I'll ask Jerry to read it back. THE WITNESS: Okay. (The pending question was read.) A. Nothing specific on this account. Q. (BY MR. GARDNER) After sending the final letter in a series of letters, does -- rephrase that. Exhibit 4 is the fifth letter in a series, and with respect to this plaintiff and with

0092 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 respect to other folks, this may be the final letter before you expire the account; is that correct? A. Correct. Q. Has CPA ever requested that Blockbuster give it full authority to take all appropriate action necessary to collect this account, after sending Exhibit 4 prior to expiring the account, for anybody? A. Yes. Q. And what is that? A. It was at the -- when we set up the account originally, it was agreed that if it got to this point that Blockbuster gave us authority. Q. To do what? A. To do what is our next step in our strategy. Q. And with respect to Exhibit 4, this plaintiff and others similarly situated, what was your next step in your strategy? A. It expired. Q. Was there any other steps that you contemplated y'all would take? A. Not to my knowledge. Q. So other than stopping collection efforts, were there additional steps that CPA was authorized to take either in advance or sought authorization to take after sending Exhibit 4?

0093 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Not to my knowledge. Q. Would you agree with me that expiring a collection account is not going to result in payment? MR. WIER: Objection, form, but she can answer. Q. (BY MR. GARDNER) You look confused. Do you understand my question? A. Will you repeat it? Q. You say "expiring," and I am using that, but basically you are stopping all collection efforts, correct? A. Correct. Q. And you are not going to have anything more to do with that account, correct? A. Unless Blockbuster instructs us to do something. Q. And you didn't with respect to the plaintiff, correct? A. Correct. Q. And others who also receive a letter like Exhibit 4, correct? A. Not necessarily. Q. Okay. But in some instances this was the final letter? A. Correct.

0094 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. And you closed the account. A. Correct. Q. Took no further steps. A. Correct. Q. Is there any conceivable situation in which closing an account will collect the account? A. Not the act of closing it itself. Q. Is there anything else y'all did after sending this letter, Exhibit 4, other than closing the account and telling Blockbuster you were going to? A. Not other than indicating that there was a lawsuit pending on this account. Q. Yeah, later on after you closed it. A. Correct. Q. But prior to closing it, nothing? A. Correct. Q. Okay. And I started down that trail when you told me about the amount of monies collected by CPA as a result of using Exhibit 4, and I honestly forget what your answer was. Was it you said you could find out? A. Yeah, I can find out. Q. Okay. But you don't know now? A. Not for the period of time you are asking for. Q. Can you give me any period of time, how much in a month, in a year, whatever?

0095 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. If I remember correctly, to the best of my knowledge, over I think it was a period of two years, it was around a hundred thousand dollars. Q. And what two years? A. I believe that would have been the time frame that y'all were originally asking for, so it would have been probably 2000 -- I think it was '99 through 2001. Q. How do you know that that came in? Is that information back from Blockbuster you get? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And you send out a series of letters because -- you send out letter two because letter one didn't work, right? A. Correct. Q. Okay. And three because two didn't work, right? A. Correct. Q. Okay. Did Etan collect any money as a result of using Exhibit 1? A. No. Q. Can you tell me the number of names and addresses of letters in the form of Exhibit 1 which were returned as undelivered from December 20, 1999, through and including December 20, 2000? A. It was approximately 200, but I cannot give

0096 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 you the names and addresses off the top of my head. Q. Y'all have that, -A. Yes. Q. -- but you are just -- okay. But you don't have it today? A. Correct. Q. And is that for Minnesota only? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And I asked you earlier what was the universe there, and I think you said about 7700? A. Correct. Q. Meaning you sent out about 77 to 7900 letters, 200 of which came back? A. Approximately, yes. Q. Okay. To Minnesota residents in that period? A. Correct. Q. Has CPA changed in any material way the amount of collection or the type of collection in Minnesota it does on behalf of Blockbuster? A. No. Q. In other words, should those numbers be about the same, or are they increasing, do you know? A. It should be about the same. Q. And the dollars, too? A. Yes.

0097 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. What can you tell me about the procedures that CPA maintains that are reasonably adapted to prevent violations of the FDCPA? A. We have a -- someone that is in charge of compliance, and we -- in contract with a outside counsel that advises us and reviews all of our correspondence. Q. Is that the guy whose name cropped up earlier? A. Michael Lore. Q. Thank you. Anything else? A. Well, we are a member of the ACA, so we receive all of their correspondence that includes any changes in law, state or federal. Q. Does CPA contend that in this lawsuit there were procedures in place that were reasonably adapted to prevent violation of the FDCPA? A. Yes. Q. And what are those? MR. WIER: Objection, form, but she can answer. A. The same I just gave you. Q. (BY MR. GARDNER) Okay. You know, I am assuming every time I ask you a question about Etan and what it does is debt collection you are going to say no, but just forgive me, I am going to ask them each

0098 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 time. A. Okay. Q. Does Etan have procedures reasonably adapted to prevent violation of FDCPA? A. No. Q. You have already told me that you don't have knowledge about insurance policies covering CPA and/or Etan for violations of the law alleged in this lawsuit, correct? A. Correct. Q. Now we have the policies, correct? A. Yes. Q. And you have identified them. A. Yes. Q. But other than that they exist, do you have knowledge about those policies? A. No. Q. What is the form, amount, and method of compensation of CPA by Blockbuster Video? MR. WIER: Let me lodge an objection here, and we -- I'll be happy, as I said with other things, to visit with you about this later and reserve the right to reconsider. But I am going to let the witness answer certain questions, but I have been instructed that we don't believe that some of the

0099 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 specific details about the compensation with Blockbuster is relevant. And I am going to instruct the client not to go against the client's wishes in that regard. We have not -- and just for the record, I think it's clear, but we have not produced a copy of the contract with Blockbuster, and we are going to -that's one of the few areas where we are going to stand on our objection, subject to reconsideration. Q. (BY MR. GARDNER) Based on that, are you not going to tell me? MR. WIER: Yeah, that's what I am trying to say, I wasn't very clear. A. No. Q. (BY MR. GARDNER) Yes, you refuse to answer based on the instruction of counsel, correct? A. Yes. MR. GARDNER: Off the record for a second. (Discussion off the record.) Q. (BY MR. GARDNER) Yes or no, do you know the form, amount, and/or method of compensation of CPA by Blockbuster? A. Yes. Q. And is that to which you will not testify

0100 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 based on the instruction of counsel, correct? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Earlier I asked you for it and you said you wouldn't, but I need to know that you do know you could testify, and you won't, correct? A. Correct. Q. Okay. Is Etan compensated by Blockbuster? A. No. Q. Have y'all produced each document known to either defendant related to the collection accounts -account or accounts of the plaintiff? A. Yes. Q. Have you already described for me the chronology of events by which and the circumstances under which this alleged debt was referred to y'all? A. Yes. Q. Have you already described each communication or attempted communication between either defendant with the plaintiff or any other person made in connection with the collection of her account? A. Yes, in regards to CPA. Q. Or Etan? A. There was none with Etan. Q. I know, but, therefore, you have described it. A. Okay.

0101 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. GARDNER: second. (Discussion off the record.) Q. (BY MR. GARDNER) Do you know what exhibits the defendants may introduce at the trial of this matter? A. No. Q. What is the location and owner of the device that printed the letters represented by Exhibit 4? A. 13355 Noel Road, Dallas, Texas 75240. Q. It's CPA? A. It's CPA. Q. It's not in house? A. Correct. Q. By whom? A. By a staff of operators. Q. Look at the bottom of 5. A. Uh-huh. Q. The creditor on whose behalf y'all are seeking to collect this debt is Blockbuster, correct? A. Correct. Q. There is a contract that you are not going to tell me about, correct? A. Correct. Q. Who is the creditor's -- Blockbuster's liaison Off the record for a

0102 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 with either defendant; who do you deal with at Blockbuster? A. Who do we deal with at Blockbuster? Q. Yeah. A. We have a lot of people that we deal with. Do you want a list of all of them? Q. Who's the decision maker at Blockbuster that CPA and/or Etan deal with? Does Etan have any direct contact with Blockbuster? A. Etan does not. Q. Okay. Who does CPA -- who's your account-to person at Blockbuster? A. Actually, we are a little bit in a transition period right now, and we don't have a key contact. Q. Okay. What do you refer to that person -- is that your client, you call that person the client? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Who has the client been at Blockbuster? A. Trevor Lang. Q. And where is Mr. Lang? Is he still there? A. No. Q. He's left? A. Yes. Q. And right now the client, the main contact person ain't there.

0103 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Hasn't been settled yet. Q. Okay. Was Mr. Lang the client when you sent Exhibit 4 to the plaintiff? A. Probably not. Q. Who would that have been? A. My best guesstimate would be Bruce Goodwin. Q. Have you already -- I asked you earlier about procedures reasonably adapted to avoid violation of the FDCPA. This is a broader question. In addition to those procedures, are there any other procedures that either defendant used to avoid violations of the FDCPA? A. Not to my knowledge. Q. Does Exhibit 11 reflect all efforts by defendants to become registered debt collectors with the state of Minnesota for the periods '99 through at least 2002? A. To the best of my knowledge. Q. Etan was not a licensed collector at any time with the state of Minnesota; is that correct? A. That's correct. Q. Do defendants deny that Exhibit 4 was sent to plaintiff is entitled "Notice" in large print on different colored scrolled paper? MR. WIER: Objection to form, but you can answer.

0104 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. (BY MR. GARDNER) Let me break that down. Is it entitled "Notice," yes? A. Yes. Q. Is "Notice" -- the word "Notice" in large print? A. Yes. Q. Is this notice printed on different colored paper? A. Yes. Q. Is this notice printed on scrolled paper? A. No. Q. What is scrolled paper? A. I guess I am not sure, but I would not consider this scrolled paper. MR. GARDNER: Let's go off the record for a second. (Discussion off the record.) Q. (BY MR. GARDNER) Was Sharonda Green licensed to collect debts within the state of Minnesota using an alias at the time Exhibit 4 was sent to plaintiff? MR. WIER: Objection, form, but you may answer. A. I am not sure. Q. (BY MR. GARDNER) Do the defendants have any legal or factual basis to deny that fact?

0105 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. WIER: I am going to object to form, but you can answer to the extent that you know. A. I don't know. Q. (BY MR. GARDNER) Do defendants have any legal or factual basis to deny that Sharonda Green has never been employed as a president of either defendant? MR. WIER: Objection, form. She can answer. A. You are going to have to rephrase that or something. I am not -Q. (BY MR. GARDNER) I can't. A. Okay. Q. I'll say it again, though. A. Say it again. Q. Do defendants have any legal or factual basis to deny that Sharonda Green has never been employed as a president of either defendant? A. I don't know. MR. WIER: Objection, form, but you can answer. Q. (BY MR. GARDNER) Has Sharonda Green been employed as a president of either defendant? A. No. Q. Was Etan licensed as a debt collector by the state of Minnesota on December 20, 2000?

0106 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. No. Q. Was Etan licensed to collect debts in the state of Minnesota at any address during the period December 20, '99, through December 20, 2000? A. No. Q. There are three addresses starting at the bottom of page 6 of the notice: 1318 Solutions Center, 500 Rockaway Avenue, and a P. O. Box in Cincinnati. Do you know what those addresses are? A. I have no idea. Q. Exhibit 4, says "1" here, but Exhibit 4 was sent to more than 5,000 Minnesota residents, correct? A. During that time frame. Q. During any time frame. A. Correct. Q. And specifically during that time frame, -A. Correct. Q. -- from the '99 to 2000 period, Exhibit 4 was sent to more than 5,000 Minnesota residents, right? A. To the best of my knowledge, yes. MR. GARDNER: I think I am done, but let me look. Let's take a break, and let you have one. MR. WIER: Okay. (Recess for 24 minutes.) Q. (BY MR. GARDNER) While we were off we

0107 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 obtained a couple of additional exhibits. Let me just ask you to identify them, and I think we will be done. Exhibit 15 is from the state of Wisconsin. It's a three-page document. Is that the approval by the state of Wisconsin of what we have been calling Exhibit 4 that you referred to earlier in your testimony? A. Yes. Q. Is there any other documentation reflecting any ruling by Wisconsin or other state on that letter? A. No. Q. And Exhibit 16 is a cover letter from Ms. Gilbert and two debt collector licenses, one of them from -- for, rather, Ms. Green. The license is -for Ms. Green has an expiration date of 2002. The letter is dated June 13th of 2001, correct? A. Yes. Q. And on those two letters, the alias is J. W. Preston for Rochelle Pierce and R. J. Simpson for Sharonda Green are reflected; is that correct? A. Correct. Q. Prior to June 13 of 2001, has CPA advised the state of Minnesota of either of those two aliases? MR. WIER: Object to form, but you may answer. A. Not to my knowledge.

0108 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. (BY MR. GARDNER) Prior to June 13th of 2001, had CPA asked the state of Minnesota to add either of these aliases as indicated? A. Not to my knowledge. MR. GARDNER: Pass the witness. MR. WIER: We will reserve our questions until the time of trial. (Discussion off the record.) MR. GARDNER: I ask to go back on the record to clarify that Keith had already offered to reproduce this witness if we need to ask additional questions relating to documents that were not produced based on the objections, correct? MR. WIER: That is correct. MR. GARDNER: Thank you.

0109 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHANGES AND SIGNATURE PAGE LINE CHANGE REASON ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________

0110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Given under my hand and seal of office this _____ day of _______________, 2003. ________________________________ NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR THE STATE OF ___________________ CHANGES AND SIGNATURE (Cont'd) PAGE LINE CHANGE REASON ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ I, DIANE EVANS, have read the foregoing deposition and hereby affix my signature that same is true and correct, except as noted above. ________________________________ DIANE EVANS THE STATE OF __________ ) COUNTY OF __________ ) Before me, ____________________, on this day personally appeared DIANE EVANS, known to me (or proved to me under oath or through ___________________ (description of identify card or other document) to be the person whose name is subscribed to the foregoing instrument and acknowledged to me that they executed the same for the purposes and consideration therein expressed.

0111 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COUNTY OF DALLAS ) STATE OF TEXAS ) I, Jerry L. Callaway, RDR, certified shorthand reporter in and for the State of Texas, do hereby certify that the facts as stated by me in the caption hereto are true; that there came before me the aforementioned named person, who was by me duly sworn to testify the truth concerning the matters in controversy in this cause; and that the examination was reduced to writing by computer transcription under my supervision; that the deposition is a true record of the testimony given by the witness. 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 further that I am not a relative or employee of any attorney or counsel employed by the parties hereto, or financially interested in the action. Given under my hand and seal of office on this, the 1st day of May, A.D., 2003. _______________________________ Jerry L. Callaway, RDR, CSR 948 Expiration Date: 12/31/2004 2725 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 200 Dallas, Texas 75219 (214) 855-5300

0112 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Ex # 9 10 11 12 3 13 14 15 16 17 18 7 19 20 21 22 23 24 11 25 12 Training for agents on the FDCPA and 14 18 CPA's Minnesota License 14 10 8 Credit Protection Association's Insurance Declarations of Professional Liability Errors and Omissions Insurance Fax cover letter from Sue Gilbert Printout of the master file, the history, and the notes 8 9 24 12 4 5 Defendants' Responses to our Requests For Production Exhibit 1 to the Complaint Defendants' Objections and Answers to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories Defendants' Objections and Answers to Plaintiffs' Requests for Admissions 7 8 8 23 4 9 1 2 Description Deposition Notice Defendants' Objections to Notice of Deposition 3 4 Pg 12 18 Ln 1. 2. 3. 4. I N D E X Appearances The Witness: DIANE EVANS Examination by MR. GARDNER Signature Page Reporter's Certificate E X H I B I T S 2 3 109 111

14

9 10

9 11

21 15

0113 1 2 3 4 15 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 16 Approval by the state of Wisconsin of Exhibit 4 Letter dated 6/13/2001 to State of Minnesota from Sue Gilbert with Pierce and Green's debt collector licenses attached 107 107 3 11 13 14 scripts and monitoring forms Certificate of Incorporation for Etan Agreement of Limited Partnership for CPA, LP 14 14 22 25