Capital One Services, Inc., et al. v. Page
| Docket Number: | 2005-IA-00153-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 11-16-2006 Opinion Author: COBB, P.J. Holding: AFFIRMED AND REMANDED |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Contract - Discovery of customer information - 15 U.S.C. §§ 6802(e)(8) Judge(s) Concurring: SMITH, C.J., WALLER, P.J., DIAZ, EASLEY, CARLSON, DICKINSON AND RANDOPLH, JJ. Concurs in Result Only: GRAVES, J. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - CONTRACT |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 01-10-2005 Appealed from: Covington County Circuit Court Judge: Robert G. Evans Disposition: Granted Appellee's Motion to Compel the bank to produce requested forms Case Number: 2003-181C |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | CAPITAL ONE SERVICES, INC., AND CAPITAL
ONE BANK |
FRED L. BANKS, JR., JAMES W. SHELSON, REBECCA HAWKINS,
KENNETH J. GRIGSBY |
||
| Appellee: | EARTHA PAGE | A. REGNAL BLACKLEDGE, DAVID SHOEMAKE |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Contract - Discovery of customer information - 15 U.S.C. §§ 6802(e)(8) |
| Summary of the Facts: | Eartha Page filed suit in the Covington County Circuit Court against Capital One Services, Inc., and Capital One Bank. The suit was based on Capital One’s alleged failure to disclose certain terms of a credit card account with Page, which included numerous fees and charges and resulted in a significant increase in the amount she owed Capital One. Page made discovery requests for a list of all Mississippians who were issued accounts from January 1, 1999, to April 13, 2004, utilizing acceptance certificate forms identical to the one she completed. She also requested the forms themselves. After Capital One objected to this request, Page filed a motion to compel. The circuit court granted her motion in part, limiting its scope and ruling that Capital One would not have to produce the actual forms at that time. On Motion for Reconsideration the trial court further limited its ruling to place restrictions on how the compelled information could be used. The Supreme Court granted an interlocutory appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Capital One argued that Page’s requests sought disclosure of information protected and precluded by the Gramm-Leach-Bailey Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 6801-6809. Capital One argues that the purpose of the Act is to protect the privacy of customers of financial institutions and that to allow circumvention of the privacy protections contained in the act would negate much of its effectiveness. Several courts have decided that the judicial process exception in 15 U.S.C. § 6802(e)(8) allows for discovery of customer information in civil cases. 15 U.S.C. § 6802(e)(8) provides an exception to the general rule that the names and addresses cannot be released in order to respond to judicial process or government regulatory authorities having jurisdiction over the financial institution for examination, compliance, or other purposes as authorized by law. Capital One’s interpretation of 15 U.S.C. § 6802(e)(8) would make it more difficult to show a pattern of behavior when making a prima facie case under the ECOA, 15 U.S.C. § 1691(a)(1), FHA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3605 and 3617, CRA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1982, and 2000(a-1)-2000(e-4), and the RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1962. It is illogical to believe that Congress intended to undercut these federal statutes. Further, even if the words “judicial process” were not meant to be separated from “or government regulatory authorities having jurisdiction over the financial institution for examination, compliance, or other purposes as authorized by law”, that catch-all at the end of the sentence clearly allows for other purposes authorized by law. Having jurisdiction for other purposes authorized by law would reasonably include responding to an order compelling discovery in a court that has jurisdiction over the financial institution in a civil case. This interpretation of 15 U.S.C. § 6802(e)(8) is reasonable and faithful to the intent of Congress. Capital One argues that, even though the Act does not prohibit the release of the names and addressed of all Mississippians who completed a Form 4136 over the period of two years, the information is still outside the scope of discovery. The evidence sought is probative to validate Page’s claim that she did not receive adequate disclosures pertaining to her credit account with Capital One. If a significant number of applicants say they also did not receive such disclosures, it strengthens her claim. Mississippi law favors discovery, and limitations on discovery should be respected, but not extended. Therefore, the trial judge’s discovery order is affirmed. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
