Big Business, Big Bullies

My friends, here is a sample of a letter I sent to a debt collection company’s attorney today.

It will probably not change their behavior, but it was cathartic for me.

[The attorney responded with a denial that he called “and/or” a “conjunctive”. Please read his response at the end.]

November 17, 2021

VIA EMAIL ONLY AT Jed.Komisin@Troutman.com; James.Trefil@Troutman.com; Miranda.James@Troutman.com; and DMitchell@RoseLawFirm.com

Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders LLP

Troutman Pepper Building, 1001 Haxall Point

Richmond, Virginia 23219

Dear Counsel,

   Mr. Komisin and Ms. James had a conversation with me by telephone today. Ms. James remained silent except to say a greeting.

    The conversation was supposed to be a good faith effort to meet and confer about our differences of opinion about my first set of responses to requests for admissions, requests for production of documents and interrogatories propounded by Portfolio Recovery Associates, Inc. (“PRA”)

   The conversation struck me as another charade by PRA.

    PRA allotted one hour to go through the motions of trying to resolve our differences without court intervention.

    We did not achieve much and are therefore destined to use the valuable resource of the Court’s time.

    PRA demanded that I make my supplemented responses to it by November 24, 2021.

    At first PRA was going to extend the time to December 1, 2021, but only if I agreed to extend PRA’s time to respond to the first set of requests I propounded until December 10, 2021.

    I explained that I have literally given PRA 100 times the responses and disclosures than it has given to me. I am still waiting on a decision from the Court as to whether or not to compel PRA to supplement its initial disclosures.

    PRA can afford to pay attorneys to do its work. I am an individual, not an attorney and PRA is abusing the process to demand a burdensome amount of work.

    My main concerns:

    PRA continues to make statements that I owe a debt to PRA. For example, on page 6 of the letter sent by Mr. Komisin on November 8, 2021, Mr. Komisin wrote: “As you owed a debt to PRA, this legal theory is factually untrue.”

    Mr. Komisin said his client will not retract this statement.

    As laid out in the proposed second amended and supplemented complaint, PRA already admitted it concluded its investigation and the amount of debt owed by me to PRA is “$0.00”.

    These litigation declarations falsely accusing me of debt are a direct violation of the FDCPA.

     Second, PRA used a common but meaningless term in several of its requests. “And/or” is not a word.

     Mr. Komisin explained that using “and/or” is a way to ask a “conjunctive” question without using two questions.

      Conjunctive questions and requests are disallowed in discovery.

     Also, PRA uses the word “communications” to include “attempted communications”. This ambiguation creates confusion.

     Many of the requests and interrogatories that used the words “all” and “any” were overbroad and meant to oppress and harass. In the letter, the words “all” and “any” were removed from the interrogatories.

     I am asking PRA to remove the words “all” and “any” from the discovery propounded unless there is a likelihood of a finite response. For example, it is appropriate to ask for “all written communications received by Plaintiff from PRA.” It is not appropriate to ask for a list of all people with any information about anything averred to in the complaint.

    It is disturbing that PRA is asking for the contact information for two of Plaintiff’s former significant others. Especially since PRA submitted an exhibit that is an appellate court decision affirming a restraining order obtained by one of the men based on Hammett sending an email to three of his girlfriends that asked for information about the custody battle that was being waged against Hammett.

    Considering that Hammett divorced [name retracted] two decades ago, before the alleged debt to Capital One Bank was incurred in 2001, it is unlikely [name retracted] can add any facts of probative value regarding collection activities in 2020 and the effect of those collection activities on Laura Hammett’s mental health.

    I am asking PRA to limit contacts to people who can add facts of probative value, and where the witness will not lose time in excess of the value their testimony adds.

    I am asking PRA to retract any allegation of a debt, past or present, from Plaintiff to PRA.

    I am asking PRA to remove “and/or” from any discovery requests.

    I am asking that PRA make its responses to the discovery requests I propounded before or on the same day as I make any further responses, excepting the following:

    I will make supplements of requests that do not violate the foregoing concerns by November 24, 2021.

    I will bring the documents I agreed to produce that are likely to have probative value to Rose Law Firm for copying and allow PRA to pick up boxes of mostly litigation documents that I doubt PRA will even look at, with the understanding that a copy service will pick up and return the documents within a reasonable time. We did not agree to a time on the phone, but I consider one week long enough for a copy service to do the job. This production will occur by November 24, 2021.

   In closing, it was upsetting to have a man bully me and continue to insist I owe money to PRA, and to threaten to ask for sanctions if I refuse to comply with absurd requests that would take years of full time work to comply with.

Very Truly Yours,

/s/ Laura Hammett

*************************************************

“Ms. Hammett,

While the majority of your letter and email do not require a response, I did want to make clear that I did not ‘explain that using “and/or” is a way to ask a “conjunctive” question without using two questions.’  I stated using ‘and/or’ is clear and appropriate as one request.  And that breaking up the request is possible, but unnecessary, and creates needless repetition.

Regards,

Jed”

*********************************************

That reminds me of a joke I made up many years ago:

“Do you know what a ‘Freudian Slip’ is?”

Answer:

“A Freudian Slip is when you are at Thanksgiving dinner and you mean to say to your oldest sister ‘please pass the salt’, and accidentally say ‘thanks for ruining my life you bitch’ instead.”

I distinctly heard the word “conjunctive”. There was a follow-up sentence that did not use fancy lawyer language. My take away was as I wrote.

Regardless, “and/or” is not a word.

For example, what would a response to this interrogatory be?

Identify any facts that support our contention that you are anxious and/or have problems with anger.

So, now if you say “I take Clonazepam”, does that mean you take Clonazepam for anxiety, anxiety and problems with anger or only problems with anger?

In defense of Jed, he does not use “and/or” often. Writing “and/or” is a tic for some attorneys, like William Z. White.

The common usage of “and/or” in the legal profession is a sad indication of the demise of literacy.