# Meet and Confer — Debt-Buyer Deficiency Patterns

Use with `meet-and-confer.md` (general template). This reference
adds **pattern language** for the recurring deficiencies seen in
debt-buyer discovery responses: bill-of-sale redactions, account-
stated-vs-written-contract confusion, chain-of-title gaps, and
ER 803(a)(6) foundation evasions.

The goal is to make each deficiency specific enough that the
court can see exactly what is missing and why — and to preserve
that record for a motion to compel.

## When to use this reference

- The plaintiff is a debt buyer (Velocity, LVNV, Portfolio
  Recovery, Midland, Cavalry, JH Portfolio, etc.) or a law firm
  representing one
- The case involves consumer credit-card or installment debt
- Plaintiff's discovery responses fall into one or more of the
  patterns below

## Pattern A — Bill of Sale redacted / schedule-less

**Typical deficient response**: Plaintiff produces a generic
"bill of sale" or "assignment and bill of sale" between the
original creditor and the debt buyer, with account-identifying
schedules redacted or missing entirely, and argues the produced
document is sufficient to establish chain of title.

**Why it's deficient**:
- Without the schedule, the document does not identify the
  specific account at issue — it's just a generic bulk-sale
  agreement
- *Bank of America v. Hubert*, 153 Wn.2d 102 (2004) requires an
  assignee to plead and prove it owns the specific account
- ER 803(a)(6) business-records foundation under *Fisons*, 122
  Wn.2d 299 (1993) requires a witness with knowledge of the
  records' creation — a redacted schedule breaks that chain

**Meet-and-confer paragraph**:

> RFP No. [X] — Bill of Sale. Plaintiff produced a generic
> [date] bill of sale between [original creditor] and
> [plaintiff] with the account-identifying schedule redacted
> or omitted. The produced document does not identify the
> specific account at issue in this case and is therefore
> insufficient to establish chain of title under *Bank of
> America v. Hubert*, 153 Wn.2d 102 (2004). Please produce
> (a) the complete bill of sale including all schedules,
> exhibits, and attachments identifying the account by number
> or by original-creditor identifier; or (b) a sworn declaration
> from a custodian at [original creditor] with personal
> knowledge, authenticating the schedule excerpt that
> identifies this specific account. Redacting the schedule
> and asserting the bill of sale as complete production is
> not a sufficient response.

## Pattern B — Account stated vs. written contract confusion

**Typical deficient response**: The complaint pleads the account
as "account stated" (3-year SOL under RCW 4.16.080(3)) in some
paragraphs and as "written contract" (6-year SOL under RCW
4.16.040 and *Discover Bank v. Bridges*) in others; discovery
responses refuse to clarify which theory plaintiff actually
relies on, often objecting as a "contention interrogatory."

**Why it's deficient**:
- The SOL depends on which theory is invoked; plaintiff cannot
  plead both and refuse to pick
- *Discover Bank v. Bridges*, 154 Wn. App. 722 (2010) makes
  credit-card claims written-contract claims for SOL purposes —
  but plaintiff doesn't get to switch between theories after
  discovery closes
- "Contention interrogatory" is not a blanket objection; the
  rule allows these and they become compellable when the case
  reaches a point where plaintiff must commit (CR 33(c))

**Meet-and-confer paragraph**:

> IROG No. [X] — Legal theory. Plaintiff's Complaint alleges
> both "account stated" (¶ [X]) and "written contract" (¶ [Y]).
> The two theories carry different statutes of limitations:
> 3 years under RCW 4.16.080(3) versus 6 years under RCW
> 4.16.040 and *Discover Bank v. Bridges*, 154 Wn. App. 722
> (2010). Plaintiff's response stating that the interrogatory
> is a "contention interrogatory" is not a valid objection.
> CR 33(c) expressly permits contention interrogatories, and
> Plaintiff's theory at trial cannot be reserved through
> discovery. Please identify which theory Plaintiff intends
> to prove at trial and serve an amended, verified response.

## Pattern C — Chain-of-title gaps

**Typical deficient response**: Discovery responses list some
assignors in the chain but skip one or more intermediate
transfers; often asserts "the chain is a matter of public
record" or "documents speak for themselves."

**Why it's deficient**:
- Each link in the chain must be documented (or disclaimed)
- *Bain v. Metropolitan Mortgage Group*, 175 Wn.2d 83 (2012)
  establishes that the party enforcing must hold the actual
  instrument — parallel reasoning in consumer-debt cases
- UCC § 9-406 requires notice of assignment; absence of notice
  is independently actionable
- "Documents speak for themselves" is not a response to an
  interrogatory — the interrogatory seeks identification and
  verification, which documents alone don't provide

**Meet-and-confer paragraph**:

> IROG No. [X] — Chain of title. Plaintiff identified [first
> assignor] and [plaintiff] but did not identify any
> intermediate holder of the account between [date of origin]
> and [date of assignment to plaintiff]. Please identify by
> name, date of transfer, and consideration paid (or, if
> confidential, in a manner that preserves confidentiality
> while disclosing the fact of transfer) each holder of the
> account in the chain. If Plaintiff contends no intermediate
> holders exist, please state that expressly and serve a
> verified response to that effect.

## Pattern D — ER 803(a)(6) foundation evasion

**Typical deficient response**: Plaintiff refuses to produce the
original creditor's records custodian, offers a "robo-affidavit"
from a debt-buyer employee instead, and claims the debt-buyer
employee can authenticate the records because the debt-buyer has
"integrated" the records into its own files.

**Why it's deficient**:
- *Fisons*, 122 Wn.2d 299 (1993) requires personal knowledge of
  recordkeeping practices
- *State v. Iverson*, 126 Wn. App. 329 (2005) — records received
  from a third party need authentication by the recipient **or**
  a witness with knowledge of the third-party's practices; mere
  receipt-and-integration is not enough when the substantive
  content (balance, account history) comes from the third party
- The identity of the custodian is discoverable; the employee's
  title, role, and access records are discoverable

**Meet-and-confer paragraph**:

> IROG No. [X] / RFP No. [Y] — Records custodian. Plaintiff has
> offered an affidavit from [employee name] of [plaintiff] as
> the sole authenticating witness for the account records
> received from [original creditor]. Under *Washington State
> Physicians Ins. Exch. & Ass'n v. Fisons Corp.*, 122 Wn.2d 299
> (1993) and *State v. Iverson*, 126 Wn. App. 329 (2005), a
> debt-buyer employee cannot authenticate the original
> creditor's records without personal knowledge of the original
> creditor's recordkeeping practices. Please produce (a) the
> identity, title, and role of the original creditor's records
> custodian; and (b) any records-transfer affidavit or
> certification executed at the time the account was sold.
> Absent these, Plaintiff cannot lay the ER 803(a)(6)
> foundation at trial.

## Pattern E — "Expired" validation rights

**Typical deficient response**: Plaintiff's collection letters
tell the consumer the right to dispute has "expired" after 30
days; discovery responses refuse to explain the basis for this
statement, objecting as a "contention interrogatory."

**Why it's deficient**:
- The statutory dispute right under § 1692g does not "expire" in
  the sense that disputes after 30 days are void — the 30-day
  window triggers a specific verification requirement, but a
  consumer can dispute at any time
- *Camacho v. Bridgeport Fin., Inc.*, 430 F.3d 1078 (9th Cir.
  2005) — misrepresenting validation rights violates §§ 1692e
  and 1692g
- The factual basis for template language in collection letters
  is **not** a contention interrogatory — it's a request for
  the historical decision of the author to use the language

**Meet-and-confer paragraph**:

> IROG No. [X] — "Expired" language. Plaintiff's collection
> letter of [date] states that Defendant's right to request
> validation "expired" on [date]. The interrogatory asks the
> factual basis for that statement — what event, what rule,
> what statute. This is not a "contention interrogatory" under
> CR 33(c); it is a request for the historical basis of
> specific template language Plaintiff adopted and sent.
> Please identify (a) the statutory or regulatory basis for
> the "expired" representation, and (b) the person or
> department who approved the language. See *Hernandez v.
> Williams, Zinman & Parham PC*, 829 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir.
> 2016) (each debt collector must send its own § 1692g notice);
> *Camacho v. Bridgeport Fin., Inc.*, 430 F.3d 1078 (9th Cir.
> 2005) (misrepresenting validation rights violates §§ 1692e
> and 1692g).

## Using these patterns in a letter

1. **Open with the CR 26(i) / CRLJ 26(f) framing** (see general
   `meet-and-confer.md`)
2. **Number each deficiency** — match the RFP/IROG/RFA number
3. **Identify the pattern** — A, B, C, D, or E above
4. **Use the paragraph template** — adapt specifics
5. **Propose a conference** — dates and times, phone or Zoom
6. **Set a response deadline** — 5–7 business days
7. **Close with the motion-to-compel warning** — cite *Heintz*
   and *Brown v. Transworld* if the plaintiff is represented by
   a collection firm with a pattern of procedural non-compliance

## What to preserve for the motion

- **The letter itself** — becomes Exhibit A to the motion
- **Proof of delivery** — email metadata, USPS certified mail
  receipt
- **Plaintiff's response** (or documented non-response) —
  Exhibit B
- **Confirmation letter** after any phone/Zoom conference —
  Exhibit C

See `meet-and-confer.md` for the certification paragraph that
goes into the motion itself.

## Cross-references

- `../../wa-discovery/references/meet-and-confer.md` — general
  CR 26(i) / CRLJ 26(f) template
- `interrogatories-debt-buyer.md` — patterns the IROGs should
  have asked
- `rfp-debt-buyer.md` — patterns the RFPs should have asked
- `../../wa-discovery/references/objection-responses.md` — how
  to handle plaintiff's objections
- `recent-decisions.md` — full case citations (in this bundle)
- `chain-of-title.md` — chain-of-title doctrine (in this bundle)
- `key-cases.md` — debt-specific case catalog (in this bundle)