# Meet-and-Confer Correspondence — Debt-Buyer Cases (Oregon) Specific meet-and-confer templates for the most common debt-buyer discovery disputes. Layer onto the general meet- and-confer framework in `or-discovery/references/meet-and- confer.md`. > **NOT LEGAL ADVICE.** Adapt to your specific case. ## Why these matter ORCP 46 A requires good-faith meet-and-confer before a motion to compel. Local SLRs (Multnomah 5.045, Washington Co 5.046) require specific certification. In debt-buyer cases, the common discovery disputes are: 1. Plaintiff's "not in possession" objection to chain-of- title documents 2. Plaintiff's redacted assignment schedule 3. Plaintiff's "burden" objection to monthly statements 4. Plaintiff's "privilege" assertion without log 5. Plaintiff's failure to produce validation-notice records ## Template 1: Chain of title — "not in possession" objection ``` To: [Opposing counsel] Subject: Meet and Confer — Discovery Disputes, Case No. 25CV12345 Counsel: I am writing to meet and confer under ORCP 46 A and Multnomah SLR 5.045 regarding Plaintiff's responses to Defendant's First Requests for Production, served [date]. Specifically: 1. RFP No. 1 (cardholder agreement). Plaintiff objected on grounds of "not in possession, custody, or control." I disagree. ORCP 36 B(1) defines "possession, custody, or control" to include the legal right to obtain. The cardholder agreement is a document that Plaintiff's predecessor in interest (Bank of America, by way of the chain of debt-buyer transfers) had the right to obtain under the bulk sale agreement that Plaintiff has, in turn, acquired. Plaintiff therefore has "control" of the cardholder agreement. Moreover, Plaintiff's Complaint, at paragraph 4, alleges that Plaintiff "acquired" the account from Bank of America. That allegation places the cardholder agreement within Plaintiff's contemplated scope of ownership. Plaintiff cannot simultaneously claim ownership of the account and disclaim control over the foundational document evidencing it. I request that Plaintiff supplement its response by [date 14 days hence] and produce the cardholder agreement, including all signature pages, incorporated terms and conditions, and electronic acceptance records. 2. RFP No. 3 (Bill of Sale). Plaintiff objected on grounds of "trade secret." A protective order under ORCP 36 C is available to address any genuine trade-secret concerns. I propose that we negotiate a stipulated protective order limiting the scope of disclosure. Please identify the specific trade-secret concern and the protective-order scope Plaintiff would accept. 3. RFP No. 4 (Assignment Schedule). Plaintiff produced a schedule with every row other than the Defendant's row redacted. The redaction is overbroad. ORCP 36 B(1) requires production with the document's structure intact — the redaction here makes it impossible to verify the schedule's authenticity or whether the schedule existed at the time of the alleged transfer. Plaintiff should produce the unredacted Assignment Schedule, with row- level redaction of OTHER accounts' identifying information (account number, party name, balance), but leaving the schedule's structural elements (header, footer, dates, signatures, sequence numbers) visible. Alternatively, Plaintiff may produce the schedule in full subject to a protective order. I am available for a phone call on [proposed dates and times]. Please let me know a time that works for you. If we cannot resolve these by [date 14 days hence], I will be required to move to compel under ORCP 46 A and seek the fees and costs of that motion under ORCP 46 A(4)(a). Best, [Name][, pro se] [Phone] ``` ## Template 2: Monthly statements — "burden" objection ``` To: [Opposing counsel] Subject: Meet and Confer — Discovery, Case No. 25CV12345 Counsel: Regarding RFP No. 2 (Monthly statements for the 60-month period preceding charge-off), Plaintiff objected on grounds of "undue burden." The objection is not specific. Under ORCP 36 B(1), proportionality is a balancing test. To evaluate burden, I need: - The number of monthly statements potentially responsive (typically 60 for a 5-year statement period) - The format in which they are maintained (paper, scanned PDF, digital data export) - The estimated time and cost of production Please provide this information so we can evaluate the proportionality. If the burden is genuine and disproportionate, I am willing to negotiate a sampled or time-limited production (e.g., the 12 months immediately preceding charge-off, or every fourth statement). But a flat "burden" assertion without quantification is insufficient. I request a response within 14 days, by [date]. If you do not supplement, I will move to compel. Best, [Name] ``` ## Template 3: Privilege log ``` To: [Opposing counsel] Subject: Meet and Confer — Privilege Log, Case No. 25CV12345 Counsel: Regarding RFP Nos. 7, 8, and 11, Plaintiff asserted "attorney-client privilege" and "work product" without providing a privilege log. ORCP 36 B(2) requires the producing party to "describe the nature of the documents, communications, or things not produced or disclosed — and do so in a manner that, without revealing information itself privileged or protected, will enable other parties to assess the claim." Please provide a privilege log within 14 days, by [date], identifying for each withheld document: - Document author and recipient(s) - Date - General subject matter - Specific privilege asserted (attorney-client / work product / other) - Basis for the privilege (whether and how the document falls within the privilege) A bare assertion of "privilege" without a log is insufficient and supports motion to compel. Best, [Name] ``` ## Template 4: ORS 697 registration — failure to produce ``` To: [Opposing counsel] Subject: Meet and Confer — ORS 697 Discovery, Case No. 25CV12345 Counsel: Regarding RFP No. 12 (Plaintiff's registration with the Oregon DCBS under ORS 697.015), Plaintiff [objected on grounds of irrelevance / failed to respond]. This document is directly relevant to Defendant's First Affirmative Defense (Plaintiff is an unregistered collection agency and lacks capacity to maintain this action under ORS 697.105). Plaintiff's registration status is a threshold legal issue. I request that Plaintiff supplement within 14 days by: (a) Producing all DCBS registration documents covering the period from [date Plaintiff acquired the Account] to the present, or (b) Stating affirmatively that Plaintiff is not registered with DCBS. If Plaintiff fails to supplement, I will move to compel and seek summary judgment on the lack-of-capacity defense under ORCP 47. Best, [Name] ``` ## Template 5: Telephone call follow-up After any meet-and-confer phone call, immediately send a written summary: ``` To: [Opposing counsel] Subject: Re: Meet and Confer — [date] Phone Call Counsel: Thank you for the call today, [date] at [time], lasting approximately [duration] minutes. To confirm what we discussed: 1. RFP No. 1 (cardholder agreement). You stated [opposing party's position]. I disagree because [your reasons]. [Resolution status: agreed to supplement / remain at impasse / agreed to defer pending court order]. 2. RFP No. 3 (Bill of Sale). [Same format.] 3. RFP No. 4 (Assignment Schedule). [Same format.] If I have mis-recorded any aspect of our call, please let me know within 3 business days. Otherwise, I will rely on this summary in any subsequent motion practice. Best, [Name] ``` The opposing party's silence is tacit confirmation. The record now supports a clean meet-and-confer certification. ## What to do when the opposing party doesn't respond If your meet-and-confer email gets no response within 7 days: 1. Send a follow-up email referencing the original date and substance 2. If no response within another 7 days, the meet-and-confer is effectively complete (attempt + no response = inability to resolve) 3. File the motion to compel; the certification will recite the dates and the lack of response A non-responsive opposing party makes the motion stronger. ## Pattern: opposing party's "we're producing soon" stall Some opposing parties offer "we'll supplement in [time]" and then don't. Counter: 1. Confirm the timeline in writing: "Thank you. Please confirm that you will produce by [date]." 2. Calendar the date 3. If the date passes without supplementation, the meet- and-confer is complete; file the motion Don't agree to open-ended supplementation timelines. ## What "good faith" requires The "good faith" requirement of ORCP 46 A means: - Reasonable effort to understand opposing's position - Reasonable effort to propose alternative resolutions - Reasonable patience (allow 7–14 days for written response; follow-up calls are encouraged) It does NOT require: - Indefinite delay - Repeated requests when opposing has clearly indicated refusal - Agreement to unreasonable conditions ## Cross-references - `or-discovery/references/meet-and-confer.md` — general meet-and-confer framework - `references/rfp-debt-buyer.md` — RFPs the M&C addresses - `or-discovery` SKILL — motion to compel mechanics - `or-multcc/references/multnomah-slr.md` — SLR 5.045 certification requirements - `or-wccc/references/washington-county-slr.md` — SLR 5.046