District Court (Mo.) Denies Motion to Compel FDCPA/FCRA Plaintiff’s Settlement with Other Defendants Because Offset is Not An Affirmative Defense to Those Statutes

In Ringenbach v. DirecTV, LLC, No. 4:21 CV 1400 CDP, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 214026, at *2-4 (E.D. Mo. Nov. 29, 2022), Judge Perry denied a debt collector’s motion to compel discovery of settlements with other co-defendants because she held that offset is not an affirmative defense under the FCRA/FDCPA.

I.C. System’s motions will be denied as it cites no relevant legal authority that offset is permitted under either the FCRA or the FDCPA. Instead, as plaintiff correctly points out in her opposition to amendment, the cases that have considered the issue have all reached the conclusion that offset is not permitted. In Thompson v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78350, 2019 WL 2059123, at *1-3 (E.D. Mich. May 9, 2019), also a FCRA case, the district court denied a motion by a non-settling defendant to compel the plaintiff to disclose the amounts of her confidential settlements with the other co-defendants. The court held: “[T]here is no right to contribution or indemnification under the FCRA. Accordingly, there is no danger of double recovery by plaintiff. For that reason, the details of plaintiff’s settlement agreements with other defendants are irrelevant.” 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78350, [WL] at *2 (cleaned up). The same is true under the FDCPA. See Irwin v. Mascott, 94 F. Supp. 2d 1052, 1060 (N.D. Cal. 2000) (no express or implied right to contribution or indemnification under FDCPA). After due consideration, I will deny the motion to compel. See Cheetham v. Specialized Loan Servicing LLC, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99759, 2021 WL 2137823, at *1-2 (W.D. Wash. May 26, 2021) (denying motion to compel FCRA plaintiff to disclose settlements with other defendants to non-settling defendant because “courts have found FCRA defendants do not enjoy rights of contribution or indemnity to prevent double recovery and, thus, settlement information is not relevant.”) (collecting cases). As I.C. System has no right to seek offset, leave to amend will be denied as futile. See Moses.com Sec., Inc. v. Comprehensive Software Sys. Inc., 406 F.3d 1052, 1065 (8th Cir. 2005).