De Alba v. Velocity Investments, LLC

I. INTRODUCTION

18 Pending before the Court are Rocio De Alba’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion to Compel 19 Defendants’ Discovery Responses and Velocity Investments, LLC (“Velocity”) and 20 Mandarich Law Group, LLP’s (“Mandarich”) (collectively, “Defendants”) Motion to 21 Compel Deposition Testimony. (Doc. Nos. 22, 23.) The Court has reviewed the entirety of 22 Plaintiff and Defendant’s (collectively, “Parties”) moving papers and supporting exhibits. 23 Having done so, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Plaintiff’s Motion 24 and OVERRULES Defendants’ objections to Requests for Admission (“RFAs”) Nos. 1 25 and and Requests for Production of Documents (“RFP”) No. and SUSTAINS 26 Defendants’ objections to RFAs Nos. 3 and 4. Further, the Court DENIES Defendant’s 27 Motion in its entirety. The Court explains its rulings below. 28 II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY This is an action arising under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) and California’s equivalent statute, the Rosenthal Act. (Doc. No. 5.) Plaintiff brings two claims against Defendants for violations of (1) the FDCPA pursuant to 15 U.S.C. section 1692; and (2) the…