# Meet-and-Confer Correspondence — California Debt-Buyer Cases

Specific M&C templates for the most common California
debt-buyer discovery disputes. Layer onto the general
meet-and-confer framework in `ca-discovery`.

> **NOT LEGAL ADVICE.** Adapt to your specific case.

## California M&C requirements — quick reference

| Discovery type | M&C statute | Motion-to-compel deadline |
|---|---|---|
| RFPs (further responses) | CCP § 2031.310(b)(2) | 45 days from service of responses |
| Interrogatories (further) | CCP § 2030.300(b) | 45 days from service of responses |
| RFAs (further / withdrawal) | CCP § 2033.290(b) | 45 days from service of responses |
| Depositions | CCP § 2025.480(b) | 60 days from completion of deposition |

**The 45-day deadline to file a motion to compel further
responses to RFPs, interrogatories, and RFAs is hard.**
CCP § 2031.310(c): the motion must be filed **within 45 days
after service of the response** or any supplemental response.
The parties may stipulate to extend, but absent stipulation,
the deadline is absolute.

## Template 1: Chain of title — "not in possession, custody,
or control" objection (RFPs)

```
[Date]

Via Electronic Mail and USPS First Class Mail

[Plaintiff's Counsel Name]
[Firm Name]
[Address]

Re:  Meet and Confer — Defendant's First Set of Requests for
     Production, Case No. [Case No.], [Court]
     [Plaintiff] v. [Defendant]

Counsel:

I write to meet and confer under CCP § 2031.310(b)(2)
regarding Plaintiff's Responses to Defendant's First Set of
Requests for Production of Documents and Things, served
[date].

The following responses are deficient and require
supplementation:

1.  RFP No. 1 (cardholder agreement). Plaintiff objected
    on grounds of "not in possession, custody, or control."

    Under CCP § 2031.230, if the responding party objects
    to a request on the ground that items are not in its
    possession, custody, or control, the responding party
    must state this fact and "describe any information or
    records known or believed by that party to be in the
    possession, custody, or control of another party."

    Plaintiff's Complaint, at paragraph [N], alleges that
    Plaintiff "acquired" the Account from [Original
    Creditor] through an assignment. A party claiming
    ownership of a contract cannot simultaneously disclaim
    possession of the contract document.

    Moreover, "possession, custody, or control" under
    California law includes the right to obtain documents.
    Plaintiff's bulk sale agreement with [Original Creditor]
    or with the intermediate debt buyer typically includes
    a right to access underlying account documents. If so,
    Plaintiff has "control."

    I request that Plaintiff supplement its response by
    [date 14 days hence] by either (a) producing the
    cardholder agreement, or (b) stating under oath, with
    specifics, why it does not have and cannot obtain the
    agreement, and identifying the person at [Original
    Creditor] who would have the agreement.

2.  RFP No. 3 (Bills of Sale). Plaintiff objected on
    grounds of "trade secret / confidential business
    information."

    I am prepared to discuss a stipulated protective order
    under CCP § 2031.060(c) to address legitimate
    confidentiality concerns. Please identify the specific
    confidential information at issue and the protective
    order scope Plaintiff would accept. Absent agreement on
    a protective order within 14 days, I will file a motion
    to compel.

3.  RFP No. 4 (Assignment Schedules). Plaintiff produced
    a schedule with all rows other than Defendant's row
    redacted.

    The redaction is overbroad. The schedule's structural
    elements — headers, column labels, dates, page numbers,
    and signature blocks — are not confidential and must
    remain visible to establish the document's authenticity
    under Cal. Evid. Code § 1271. A heavily redacted
    document prevents verification of when the schedule
    was created and whether it was created in the ordinary
    course of business.

    I request that Plaintiff produce the schedule with only
    the other accounts' identifying information (account
    number, debtor name, balance) redacted, leaving all
    structural elements visible. A protective order is
    available for any genuinely confidential information.

Please respond by [date 14 days hence]. If I do not receive
a response or supplemental production, I will be required to
file a motion to compel under CCP § 2031.310.

Respectfully,
[Defendant's Name], pro se [or counsel name]
[Address / Phone / Email]
```

## Template 2: CDCLA licensing — failure to produce

```
[Date]

[Plaintiff's Counsel]

Re: Meet and Confer — RFP No. 13 (DFPI License),
    Case No. [Case No.]

Counsel:

Regarding RFP No. 13 (Plaintiff's DFPI license under Cal.
Fin. Code, § 100002), Plaintiff objected on grounds of
[relevance / burden].

This request is directly relevant to Defendant's [Nth]
Affirmative Defense: that Plaintiff lacks a valid DFPI
license and therefore lacks the legal authority to collect
debts or maintain this action in California. Plaintiff's
license status as of the date of filing is a threshold
legal issue.

A DFPI license is a public-record matter — it is not
privileged, confidential, or burdensome to produce. The
DFPI database is publicly searchable; any license
documentation is in Plaintiff's own files.

I request that Plaintiff supplement by [date]:

  (a) Producing its DFPI license certificate(s) covering
      the period from [date acquired ACCOUNT] to present;
      or

  (b) Stating affirmatively that Plaintiff has not obtained
      a DFPI license, in which case Defendant will seek
      adjudication of the CDCLA defense on an expedited
      basis.

[Defendant's name / counsel]
```

## Template 3: Monthly statements — "burden" objection

```
[Date]

[Plaintiff's Counsel]

Re: Meet and Confer — RFP No. 2 (Monthly Statements),
    Case No. [Case No.]

Counsel:

Regarding RFP No. 2 (Monthly statements for 48 months
before charge-off), Plaintiff objected on grounds of
"undue burden and oppression."

The objection lacks the required specificity. Under CCP
§ 2031.060(b)(1), the court weighs burden against the
likely benefit, taking into account the amount in
controversy, the importance of the issues, and the resources
of the parties. A bare "burden" assertion is insufficient.

To evaluate the proportionality claim, I need:

- The number of monthly statements potentially responsive
  (typically 48 for a 4-year pre-charge-off period)
- The format in which they are maintained (paper, scanned
  PDF, electronic data export)
- The estimated time and cost of production

Please provide this information within 14 days so we can
evaluate the proportionality issue. If genuine burden exists,
I am willing to negotiate a limited production (e.g.,
the 12 months immediately preceding charge-off, or every
fourth statement). But a flat "burden" assertion is
insufficient to resist production of materials that go to
the heart of Plaintiff's claimed balance.

[Defendant's name / counsel]
```

## Template 4: Interrogatory objections

```
[Date]

[Plaintiff's Counsel]

Re: Meet and Confer — Interrogatory Responses,
    Case No. [Case No.]

Counsel:

I write regarding Plaintiff's Responses to Defendant's
First Set of Specially Prepared Interrogatories under
CCP § 2030.300(b).

The following responses are deficient:

1.  Interrogatory No. 11 (chain of title). Plaintiff
    responded: "Plaintiff is not presently able to
    provide the complete chain of title." This is an
    evasion, not an answer.

    CCP § 2030.220(a) requires a response that is "as
    complete and straightforward as the information
    reasonably available to the responding party permits."
    If Plaintiff does not know the chain of title, Plaintiff
    should say so — but that concession is devastating to
    Plaintiff's case because Cal. Civ. Code, § 1788.58
    requires the complaint to allege the chain of title.

    Please supplement with a complete answer to
    Interrogatory No. 11 within 14 days.

2.  Interrogatory No. 2 (DFPI license). Plaintiff objected
    on grounds of "relevance." The license status is central
    to Defendant's CDCLA affirmative defense. Supplement
    within 14 days.

3.  Interrogatory No. 18 (balance breakdown). Plaintiff
    responded with a single total figure without the
    itemized breakdown required. FDBPA § 1788.52 requires
    Plaintiff to maintain an itemization; provide it.

I am available for a call on [dates]. Please confirm a time
within 7 days. If I do not receive a response, I will
proceed to file the motion to compel.

[Defendant's name / counsel]
```

## Template 5: Post-telephone-call follow-up

After any M&C phone call, immediately send a written
summary to preserve the record:

```
[Date]

[Plaintiff's Counsel]

Re: Follow-up — Meet and Confer Call, [Date],
    Case No. [Case No.]

Counsel:

Thank you for the call today, [date] at [time], lasting
approximately [N] minutes.

To confirm our discussion:

1.  RFP No. 1 (cardholder agreement). You stated [opposing
    party's position]. I responded that [your position].
    Current status: [agreed to supplement by [date] /
    at impasse / deferred pending court order].

2.  RFP No. 3 (Bills of Sale). [Same format.]

3.  RFP No. 4 (Assignment Schedule). [Same format.]

4.  DFPI license (RFP No. 13). [Same format.]

If any aspect of this summary is inaccurate, please notify
me within 3 business days. Otherwise, I will rely on this
summary in any subsequent motion practice.

[Defendant's name / counsel]
```

## What "good faith" requires in California

CCP § 2031.310(b)(2) requires "a reasonable and good faith
attempt at informal resolution."

Good faith means:
- Specifically identifying each disputed response
- Stating the legal basis for defendant's position
- Giving plaintiff a reasonable opportunity to respond
  (at least 7–14 days)
- Attempting a phone call if written communications fail

Good faith does NOT mean:
- Indefinite delay
- Agreement to unreasonable timelines
- Abandoning legitimate discovery

## What to do when the opposing party doesn't respond

1. Send a follow-up letter or email referencing the original
   meet-and-confer and the deadline
2. If no response within 7 days: send one more brief reminder
   noting the 45-day motion-to-compel deadline
3. File the motion to compel before the 45-day deadline —
   do NOT let the deadline pass waiting for a response
4. The motion certification should recite: dates of M&C
   letters, method of service, lack of response

A non-responsive opposing party makes the motion stronger
and supports an award of sanctions under CCP § 2031.310(h).

## 45-day deadline — calculating strictly

The 45-day window runs from the date the responses are
**served** on defendant — not from the date received.
CCP § 2031.310(c).

If responses are served by mail: CCP § 1013 adds 5 calendar
days to the response period, but the 45-day motion-to-compel
period runs from the service date, not receipt date.

**Practice**: Calendar the 45-day deadline immediately upon
receiving responses. Do not wait for negotiations to conclude;
file before the deadline (with the negotiations continuing
in parallel if productive).

## Cross-references

- `ca-discovery` SKILL — California discovery framework
- `references/rfp-debt-buyer.md` — RFPs the M&C addresses
- `references/interrogatories-debt-buyer.md` — interrogatories
- `references/rfa-debt-buyer.md` — RFAs
- `references/examples/example-motion-to-compel.md` —
  example motion this M&C supports