UNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT

MIDDLEDISTRICTOFFLORIDA
.ORLANDODIVISION
. JES
Plaintiff,
CASENO: 6:10-cv-
v.
CITIMORTGAGEand
CENTRALCREDITSERVICES,
Defendants.
__________________________ I
CITIMORTGAGEIS
ANSWERSANDOBJECTIONS
TOFIRSTSETOFINTERROGATORIES
Pursuant to FederalRule ofCivilProcedure 33, DefendantCitiMortgage (Citi) submits
these answers and objections to the First Set of Interrogatories Nos. 1-25 served by JeSllS
Tacoronte(Plaintiff). Citireserves the rightto supplement,amend, orcorrectall orany partof
this response as permitted under theFederalRules ofCivil Procedure and the right to objectto
theadmissibilityofanyevidencerelatedtothisresponse.
G E N E R I ~ OBJECTIONS
1. Citi objects to the interrogatories to the extent that they seek information or the
productionoridentificationofdocumentsnotinthepossession,custodyorcontrolofCiti
within the meaning of the Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure or the Federal Rules of
Evidence on the grounds that said interrogatories are overbroad, unreasonable, unduly
burdensome,improperandthattheirscopeisnotlimitedtoinformationknownto Citi.
2. Chi objects to the interrogatories to the extent that they seek information or the
identification and production of documents that constitute, contain or represent
confidential, trade secret, orotherproprietaryand commercially sensitive informationof
{TP687578;3}
Citi. Citi will produce such documents only upon entry of an appropriate protective
order.
3. CHi objects to the interrogatories to the extent that they seek information or the
production or identification ofdocuments protected bythe attorney-client privilege, by
theworkproductprivilege,orbyanyotherprivilege.
4. Citi submitsthese responseswithout concedingthe relevanceormaterialityofthe subject
matterofanydocumentorinformationwhichmaybeproduced01' identified,andwithout
prejudice to Citi's right to object to furtherdiscovery or to objectto the admissibilityof
anyproofonthesubjectmatterofanydiscoveryofanydocument. Citireservestheright
to change orto supplementanyresponse that maysubsequentlyappearto be incomplete
or incorrect. CHi reserves the right to object at such later time that any document
producedorresponsegiven hereunderis protectedbythe attorney-clientprivilege, oras
attorney work product or trial preparation material, and that the production orresponse
wasinadvertent
5. In responding to the interrogatories, CHi has conducted a reasonable inquiry of those
persons mostlikelyto possess informationresponsivetheretoand areasonablesearchof
records where information interrogatory ed would most likely be maintained. To the
extent plaintiffs seek to require Citi to respond further, Citi objects on the grounds that
the interrogatories are, to said extent, overbroad, unduly burdensome, unreasonable and
oppressive.
6. Chi will make any documents identified in response to any interrogatory available for
inspection and copying at atime mutually convenient to the parties and theirrespective
counsel. Byagreeingto produce responsive documentS, Citidoes notacknowledge that
suchdocumentsexist.
{TP687578;31 2
7. Tothe extent the interrogatories seekto imposeuponCiti anyduties01' requirements in
excess of those specified in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, local rules, or
applicablelaw,Citiobjectstosame.
8. Citiobjectstoeachinterrogatoryto theextentitisrepetitiveand/orsubstantiallyoverlaps
with other interrogatories. When a response is equally responsive to more than one
interrogatory,CHi willrespondonlyonce.
9. Eachoftheforegoing generalobjectionsis expresslyincorporatedbyreferenceintoeach
ofthespecificresponsesofCititotheinterrogatories.
ANSWERSAND SPECIFICOUJECTIONS
INTERROGATORY NO.1: Please state the full name, present address, employer, title,
and occupation of all persons providing information and documents responsive to these
interrogatories.
ANSWER: Subject to andwithout waiving theforegoing general objections, Citi objects to
this interrogatory because it expressly calls for information concerning employee contact
information. Citi further.objeets to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks information for the
purpose ofcontacting its employees concerning matters within the scope oftheir employment
with Chi, on the grounds that such contacts would be improper, unduly burdensome, and in
contraventionoflegalandethicalrestrictionson thecontactorattemptedcontactbycounsel with
a represented party, entity, employee oragent. Signeris l ~ V \ O Sf}- ;"""" and canbe
contactedthroughcounsel.
INTERROGATORYNO.2: Pleaseidentifyallindividualsknown to you oryourattorney
who arewitnesses to theevents descdbed in Plaintiffs complaintor to any event which is
the subjectofany defense you have raised to this lawsuit. Foreach such person, please
providea briefsummaryoffacts to whicheachmight01' could testify. Also for eachsuch
person,pleasestatethefollowing:
(a) Please state whether each such person is affiliated with, or related to, or
employed by anyparty(oritsagents,servants,officers, oremployees) to this
lawsuit;
(TP68757&;3} 3
(b) If anyofthe personssolistedini'esponse to thisinterrogatorydonotfit the
characterization in subpart A above, please describe the nature of theh'
involvementinthislawsuit;
(c) Please explain and describe yourunderstandingoftheir knowledge ofsuch
facts.
ANSWER: Citi has not identified any witnesses, but reserves the right to supplement this
response. CitialsorefersPlaintifftoCiti'sInitialDisclosures.
INTEUROGATORYNO.3:Pleaseidentifyeachemployeeornon-employeeexpertwitness
you believemayhaveformedanyopinionorconsultedwith you aboutthefactsorbasisof
thislawsuitoranydefense01'allegationyouhaveraisedinthislawsuit.
ANSWER: CHi has notidentifiedanyexpertwitnesses.
INTERROGATORYNO.4:Pleaseidentify allindividuals known to youoryourattorney
whoarenotwitnesses,butwho you havereason tobelievehavelmowledgepertinenttothe
events atissues as alleged in the complaint, andprovidea briefsummary of the'facts to
whicheachsuchpersoncouldtestify.Foreachperson,pleasestatethefollowing:
(a) Please state whether each such person is affiliated with, or related to, or
employedbyanyparty(or its agents,servants,officers,oremployees) to this
lawsuit;
(b) If anyofthepersonsso listedin responseto thisinterrogatorydo notfit the
characterization in subpart A above, please describe the nature of their
involvementin th,slawsuit;
(c) Please explain anddescribe your understanding oftheir knowledge ofsuch
facts.
ANSWER: Citi refers Plaintiff to its Initial Disclosures and to all documents provided in
Citi'sresponsetoPlaintiffsrequestforproductionofdocuments.
INTERROGATORY NO.5: Please state whether any of the individuals listed in the
answers to the preceding interrogatories have given any statement(s) to you and, ifso,
please identify the individual giving the statement, identify the individual to wbom the
statement was given, the date of the statement, and whether or not the statement was
written orrecorded and,ifitwas writtenorrecorded,identify theindividualpresentlyin
possessionofit.
ANSWER: Chidoesnothaveanysuchstatement').
INTERROGATORY NO.6: Please provide the date, time, and method thatthe Plaintiff
providedpermissionfortheDefendanttocallPlaintiffscellphone,ifany.
OnmCT: Citi objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it invades the attorney-client,
work-product privileges, orinformation protected by the Gramm-Leach-BlileySafeguards Rule
{TP687578;31 4
and enforced by the Federal Trade Commission. 12 U.S.C. 1811 el seq.; 16 C.F.R. 313 et
seq. Subject to said objections, Citi states that its regularly kept business records do not reflect
any attempts to communicate with Plaintiff regarding any alleged debt within the time-frame
alleged by the Plaintiff in his complaint. To the extent this interrogatory is intended to relate to
calls that may have been made prior to the time-frame alleged in the complaint, Citi objects to
the interrogatory as irrelevant, vague, overly broad and unduly burdensome and not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
INTERROGATORY NO.7: Please list, explain, and describe documents )mown to you 01'
believed by you to exist concerning the communications and events described in Plaintiffs
complaint or concerning any event which is the subject of any defense you have raised to
this lawsuit.
OBJECTIONS AND ANSWER: Citi objects to this request to the extent that it invades the
attol'l1ey-client, work-product privileges, or information protected by the
Safeguards Rule and enforced by the Federal Trade Commission. 12 U.S.C. 1811 et seq.; 16
C.F.R. 313 et seq. Citi further 0 bjects on the basis that the interrogatory is irrelevant, vague,
overly broad and unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence. Subject to said objections, and to the extent that they exist in Citi's cllstody
or control, Chi refers Plaintiff to documents attached to the request for production as Bates Nos.
CMI-2 000027-000072, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 33 and 34.
INTERROGATORY NO.8: Please list each exhibit which you may attempt to introduce as
evidence at the trial of this case, or which has been used or referred to by any expert
witness on your behalf.
ANSWER: Citi has not determined which exhibits may be introduced as evidence.
INTERROGATORY NO.9: For each paragraph of Plaintiffs complaint which you deny
the allegations, please explain and describe any facts which you believe may support each
denial.
ANSWER: Citi states that Citi's regularly kept business records do not reflect any calls to
Plaintiff within the time frame alleged in the complaint; Plaintiff is not a consumer or borrower
{TP687578;4} 5
within themeaningoftheFloridaConsumerCollectionPracticesAct01' theFairDebtCollection
Practices Act; and Citi is not a debt collector within the meaning ofthe FairDebtCollection
PracticesAct.
INTERROGATORYNO.10: Haveyoueverbeeninvolvedinanyotherlegalaction,either
as a Defendant 01' a Plaintiff where allegations were raised concerning violations ofthe
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Florida
Consumer Collection Practices Act, and/or the Fair Credit Reporting Act? If so, please
state:
(a) Thedateandplaceeachsuchaction wasfiled identifying the otherpartyor
parties involved, the d o l ~ e t number ofsuch actions, and the names of the
attorneysrepresentingeachparty;
(b) A descdptionofthenatureofeachsuchaction;and
(c) Theresultofeachsuchaction,whethertherewasanappealandtheresultof
the appeal, and whether such case was reported and the name, volume
number,andpagecitationofthereport.
OBJECT: Citi objects to the interrogatory as irrelevant, vague, overlybroad and unduly
burdensomeandnotreasonablycalculatedtolead to thediscoveryofadmissibleevidence.
INTERROGATORY NO. 11: Please explain and describe any complaints orreprimands
you have had about any individual who engaged in any communication with Plaintiff,
regardlessofthenatureofthecomplaint(s)orreprimand(s).
OBJECT: Citi objects to this interrogatory to the extent it invades the attorney-client or
work-product privileges. CHi further objects to this interrogatory because it is overly broad,
unduly burdensome and not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Notwithstanding this objection, and subject to same, CHi states that its regularly kept business
records do not reflect communication by "any individual" with the Plaintiffwithin the alleged
time-frameinthecomplaint,andthusCitihas no informationresponsiveto thisinterrogatory.
INTERROGATORY NO. 12: Please pl'ovide the manufacturer or program name ofthe
autodialerorpredictsdialerreferencediuexhibit"A".
ANSWEU: CHi objects to this interrogatory as no exhibit "A" was attached to the
interrogatories. Citi further objects to this Interrogatory as it seeks private, confidential, trade
secretandproprietarydocumentsthatarenotsubjecttodisclosure.
ITP687578;3} 6
INTERROGATORY NO. 13: Please explain with detail what "Dialer Attmptll and "Mach
Left Script MesH means.
ANSWER: Citi objects to the interrogatory as irrelevant, vague, overly broad and unduly
burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
INTERROGATORY NO. 14: Please list, describe, and explain in detail each item imposed
upon any alleged account of the Plaintiff on which you were attempting to collect, the
amount of each charge imposed, the date of each charge imposed, the nature of each charge
imposed, and the legal basis fol' each charge imposed which in any way added to the
amount allegedly due by Plaintiff.
ANSWER: Citi objects to this interrogatory as it is not a "debt collector. II CHi also objects to
this request to the extent that it invades the attorney-client, work-product privileges, or
information protected by the Gl'amm-Leach-Bliley Safeguards Rule and enforced by the Federal
Trade Commission. 12 U.S.C. 1811 et seq.; 16 CF.R. 313 et seq. CHi objects to the
interrogatory as irrelevant, vague, overly broad and unduly burdensome and not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
INTERROGATORY NO. 15: Please list, describe, and explain the legal basis you believe
you had for the attempted collection of auy alleged debt from the Plaintiff.
ANSWER: Citi objects to this interrogatory as it is not a "debt collector." Citi further objects
to this interrogatory to the extent that it seeks private, confidential, trade secret and proprietary
documents that are not subject to disclosure. Citi further objects as the interrogatory is
irrelevant, vague, overly broad and unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to
the discovery of admissible evidence.
INTERROGATORY NO. 16: Please list, describe, and explain the terms of any agreement
or contract you had with any alleged original creditor andlor any other debt collector.
ANSWER: Citi objects to this interrogatory as it is not a "debt collector." Citi also objects to
this interrogatory because it is overly broad, unduly burdensome and not likely to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence. Chi further objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it
{TP687578;3 ) 7
seeks private, confidential, trade secret and proprietary documents that are not subject to
disclosure.
INTERROGATORY NO. 17: Please list, describe, and explain your policies and
proceduresto comply with theTelephone ConsumerProtectionAct, FairDebtCollection
Practices Act, the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act, andlor the Fair Credit
ReportingAct.
ANSWER: Citi objects to this interrogatory because it is overlybroad, unduly burdensome
andnotlikelytoleadtothediscoveryofadmissibleevidence,andseeksthediscoveryofprivate,
confidential,tradesecret,andproprietaryinformation.
INTERROGATORYNO. 18: Pleaselist, describe,andexplaineachandeveryinstancein
which you violated any portion of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, Fair Debt
CollectionPractices Act, the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act, andlor the Fair
CreditReportingActwithregardstoPlaintifffl'omJune2006tothepresent.
ANSWER: Citi objects to this interrogatory because it is overly broad, undulyburdensome,
notlikelytoleadto thediscoveryofadmissibleevidence,andcallsforalegalconclusion.
INTERROGATORYNO. 19: Please list, describe,andexplaineachandevery instancein
which you violated any portion of your own policies and procedures with regards to
PlaintifffromJune2006tothepresent.
ANSWER: Citi objects to this interrogatory because it isoverlybroad, undulyburdensome
and not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Citi also objects to this
interrogatory to the extent that it seeks private, confidential, trade secret and proprietary
documentsthatare notsubjecttodisclosure.
INTERROGATORY NO. 20: Please provide an audio copy ofthe Virtual Message and
ScriptMessagereferredtoin exhibitIIA.lt
ANSWER:
CHi objects to this interrogatory as no exhibit "A" was attached to the
interrogatories. Citi also objects as this interrogatory seems to seekthe production ofevidence
ratherthanan answerandsoitisnotaproperinterrogatory.
INTERROGATORY NO. 21: Please provide the training program Citi provides its
employeesinregardstocircumventingtheTCPA,FDCPA,FCCPA,andtheFCRA.
{TP687578;3}
8
ANSWER: Citi objects to this interrogatory because to it is overly broad, unduly burdensome
and not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and seeks the discovery of
proprietary information.
INTERROGATORY NO. 22: Please show bow Citi and tile original creditor complied with
FL. Stat. 559.715.
ANSWER: Citi objects to this interrogatory because its reference to the statute is vague, and
use of the term "original creditor" is not defined. Citi further objects in that the interrogatory
seeks a legal opinion, is overly broad, unduly burdensome and not likely to lead to the discovery
of admissible evidence, and seeks the discovery of proprietary information.
INTERROGATORY NO. 23: Please provide a list of outbound phone calls made to tbe
following pllone llumber .-- and from September 2006 thru
present.
ANSWER: Citi objects to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks information about a
consumer not a patty to this action. Citi also objects on the basis that the interrogatory invades
the attorney-client, work-product privileges, 01' information protected by the Gramm-Leach-
Bliley Safeguards Rule and enforced by the Federal Trade Commission. 12 U.S.C. 1811 et
seq.; 16 C.F.R. 313 et seq. Subject to said objections, Citi states that its regularly kept business
records do not reflect outbound calls to ,'. - . - - --14 and,
4 within the frame
alleged by the Plaintiff in his complaint. To the extent this interrogatory is intended to relate to
calls that may have been made prior to the alleged in the complaint, Citi objects to
information as ilTelevant, vague, overly broad and unduly burdensome and not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to, and without waiver of said
objections, and to the extent that they exist in Citi's possession, custody, 01' control, Citi refers
Plaintiff to the responsive, relevant, documents attached to request for production
as Bates No. CMI-2 000027-000072, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 33 and 34.
{TP687578;4 } 9
INTERROGATORY NO. 24: Please provide a detailed explanation of all the codes
l'eferencedintheattachedexhibit.
ANSWER: Citi objects to this interrogatory as no exhibit "A" was attached to the
interrogatories.
INTERROGATORY NO. 25: Please provide the system or process Citi uses in order to
identify thedifference betweenhomephones, cell phones, andphones ontheNational Do
NotCalllistinordcl'tocomplywithFederalLaws.
ANSWER: Citi objects to thisIntel1'0gatory as it seeksprivate,confidential, trade secretand
pl'Oprietary information that is not subject to disclosure, Citi further objects to information as
irrelevant, vague, overlybroadandundulyburdensomeand not reasonablycalculated tolead to
thediscoveryofadmissibleevidence.

By:
Printname: Kev,\,
Title: i3u5\Q es'7 QpecQ,horJS
STATEOF MVnDIUl.\
COUNTYOF OJ\UV\{7
Theforegoinginstrumentwassworn to andsubscribed beforemethis dayofMarch,2011,
by )tv\\W1 ,as ftz Ov)A1't0'ist for CITIMORTGAGE.
He/Sheis:
o personallyknowntome; or
% producedadriver'slicenseissuedbythe M\tO\l(\ of Highway. Safety and
MotorVehiclesasidentification;01'
o produced thefollowingidentification: __--:==::---.----______
.. WHITNEY A.
NotaryPublic- Notary
StateofMissouri
St.CharlesCounty
Commission#09910070 . (Print,Typeor tampCommissionedNameof
MyCOmmisSionExpiresDecember16,2013
NotaryPublic)
ITP687578;3} 10