1. DEBORAH DICKSON DAVIS
910 AZALEA HILL DRIVE (912) 257-6253
GREENVILLE, SC 29607 DLDICKSON@SAVANNAHLAWSCHOOL.ORG
WRITING SAMPLE
The attached writing sample is an excerpt of an Omnibus Order written for a Judge in the
Superior Court of Chatham County, which was instrumental in assisting the Judge with a
backlog in credit card collection cases. The names and facts have been changed to protect the
confidentiality of all parties involved.
This was a credit card collection case based on a debtor’s breach of contract with the
creditor, who subsequently reassigned the debt to a third party in a credit sale. Whether a
contract existed between the Creditor and the Defendant was not a disputed fact. The legal issue
centered on whether the Plaintiff, the debt collector, had a valid assignment to collect the debt
from the Defendant. The Plaintiff had inherent issues both from a legal standpoint, and as an
evidentiary matter proving a valid assignment.

2. 1
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CHATHAM COUNTY
STATE OF GEORGIA
DEBT COLLECTOR, LLC
ASSIGNEE OF
CREDITOR, N.A.
Plaintiff,
v. CIVIL ACTION NO. CV14-99999-MO
JANE M. DOE
Defendant.
OMNIBUS ORDER
Pending before the Court are Defendant’s Motion to Strike the Affidavit of Debt
Collector Employee, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment as to the Plaintiff’s case,
Defendant’s Partial Motion for Summary Judgment as to the Defendant’s counterclaims,
Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss Defendant’s Counterclaims, Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment as to Defendant’s Counterclaims, and Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary
Judgment as to the Plaintiff’s case. No request for oral argument has been made pursuant to
Uniform Superior Court Rule 6.3. Upon review and consideration of the record and the
applicable law presently before the Court, the Court hereby rules as follows:
DISCUSSION
Facially, this is a straightforward credit card collection case based on a debtor’s breach of
contract with the creditor, who subsequently reassigns the debt to a third party in a credit sale.1
A
creditor may assign its contractual rights to another as long as the assignment is made in
1
15 U.S.C. § 1602(h) (“The term ‘credit sale’ refers to any sale in which the seller is a creditor. The term
includes any contract in the form of a bailment or lease if the bailee or lessee contracts to pay as compensation for
use a sum substantially equivalent to or in excess of the aggregate value of the property and services involved and it
is agreed that the bailee or lessee will become, or for no other or a nominal consideration has the option to become,
the owner of the property upon full compliance with his obligations under the contract.”).

3. 2
writing.2
See O.C.G.A. §§ 9-2-20, 44-12-20, 44-12-22. To award summary judgment for the
Plaintiff, the Plaintiff must establish that (1) there was a valid contract between the Creditor and
the Defendant and (2) there was a valid assignment of this contract from the Creditor to the
Plaintiff. Under the law of Georgia, the Plaintiff must prove the prima facie elements in a breach
of contract: “(1) breach and the (2) resultant damages (3) to the party who has the right to
complain about the contract being broken.” Kuritzky v. Emory Univ., 294 Ga. App. 370, 371, 669
S.E.2d 179, 181 (2008). Upon breach of contract, a valid assignment from the creditor to the debt
collector assumes that the debt collector has legal standing to the creditor’s chose in action with
the debtor named as the defendant. O.C.G.A. § 44-12-21.
The Defendant contends that the Plaintiff did not meet the Plaintiff’s burden of proof
because: (1) there is no existing bilateral, written contract binding the Defendant to either the
Creditor or the Plaintiff; and (2) there is no valid assignment of the alleged debt from the
Creditor to the Plaintiff. In the absence of proffering any rebuttable evidence, the Defendant
must pierce the Plaintiff’s claims in the Defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment. The
Defendant has failed to pierce the Plaintiff’s claims that a valid contract existed between the
Creditor and the Defendant. But, the Defendant does pierce the claim whether a valid assignment
exists, which eclipses all other legal issues.
In turn, the Plaintiff presents inconclusive evidence to support a motion for summary
judgment because the Plaintiff’s affidavit references to documentation not set forth in the
business records provided. The Plaintiff’s lack of evidence renders such allegations as merely
hearsay and impermissible parol evidence to the formation of a contract and assignment
2
O.C.G.A. § 9-2-20 (“As a general rule, an action on a contract, whether the contract is expressed, implied,
by parol, under seal, or of record, shall be brought in the name of the party in whom the legal interest in the contract
is vested, and against the party who made it in person or by agent.”).

4. 3
thereafter. Whether there is a valid assignment of the Defendant’s debt from the Creditor to the
Plaintiff is not a disputed, material fact. The Plaintiff does not show an exclusive chain of
assignment from the Creditor to the Plaintiff regarding the Defendant’s alleged debt. The
Plaintiff’s failure to provide evidence supporting the essential elements for a cause of action
under contract law precludes summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiff, thus granting summary
judgment in favor of the Defendant. Finally, the Defendant’s counterclaim is founded on
improper pleadings that fails to state a claim by which relief may be granted.***
[OMITTING THE ANALYSIS THAT A VALID CONTRACT EXISTED BETWEEN
CREDITOR AND DEFENDANT]
I.
***The Plaintiff fails to provide sufficient documentation to show the exclusive chain of
assignment from the Creditor to the Plaintiff regarding the Defendant’s debt thus the motion to
strike the affidavit for Debt Collector Employee remains moot.3
A party may introduce all or part
of a writing, and, subsequently, the adverse party may require the introduction of any other part
of the writing to consider the merits of the evidence out of fairness—at the Court’s discretion,
who determines whether the evidence is admissible. FED. R. EVID. 106, 201; O.C.G.A. §§ 24-1-
106, 24-1-103. As an exception to the witness averring to the witness’s personal knowledge,4
a
witness may aver to circumstantial evidence even if the witness “has no distinct and independent
recollection of the details of a fact occurring in the routine course of [the] business.” Cont'l Cas.
Co. v. Wilson-Avery, Inc., 115 Ga. App. 793, 797-98, 156 S.E.2d 152, 157 (1967). A witness
“may testify to the fixed and uniform habit in such cases and state that he [or she] believes that
3
Whether the affidavit is objectionable as hearsay relies on whether the affidavit is supported by sufficient
business records showing that the Creditor’s assignment of the Defendant’s debt is valid. This is a genuine issue of
material fact but this fact is eclipsed by whether the Plaintiff has a valid assignment to bring this action to court.
4
Ingles Markets, Inc. v. Martin, 236 Ga. App. 810, 812, 513 S.E.2d 536, 538 (1999) (averring witnesses’
personal knowledge and supported by the documentation provided).

5. 4
what was done in a given transaction was in accordance with habit.” Cont'l Cas. Co., 115 Ga.
App. at 797-98; O.C.G.A. §§ 24-3-14(b), 24-4-406; Benedict v. State Farm Bank, FSB, 309 Ga.
App. 133, 139, 709 S.E.2d 314, 320 (2011); Bozeman, 282 Ga. App. at 257.
In contrast, if the affidavit serves to authenticate business records relevant to the legal
issues, then the affidavit must be accompanied by all relevant, supporting documentation.
O.C.G.A. §§ 24-8-803, 24-9-902, 24-10-1004; Nyankojo v. N. Star Capital Acquisition, 298 Ga.
App. 6, 6-10, 679 S.E.2d 57, 58-66 (2009). A party may not rely upon parol evidence to string
together a contract presented to the court in a piecemeal fashion nor to substitute missing
documentation from the contract. Melman, 312 Ga. App. at 272-75; Lester v. Heidt, 86 Ga. 226,
12 S.E. 214 (1890) (“There may be various writings, provided they refer one to another, but they
cannot be correlated and connected together by parol evidence.”); N. & Co. v. Mendel & Bro., 73
Ga. 400 (1884) (admitting parol evidence requires supporting documentation to verify a contract
in part and parcel or evidence will be subject to statute of frauds).
The Plaintiff bears the burden of proof to show documentation of a valid assignment and
evidence that authenticates electronic files, methods used, and the process or system. See, e.g.,
FED. R. EVID. 901(b)(9)-(10); FED. R. CIV. P. 34; O.C.G.A. §§ 9-2-20, 44-12-20, 44-12-22. The
Plaintiff must validate the assignment as a binding transfer of rights and obligations from the
Creditor to the Plaintiff.5
The party who resists “production bears the burden of establishing lack
5
Following standard practices for discovery of electronic information, extraneous information of third
parties unrelated to this suit are unnecessary and further make candidates for redaction within the original
documentation (or the Plaintiff may make copies thereof or submit a privileged log to the court). As presented, the
Plaintiff has not laid the proper foundation to authenticate the Plaintiff’s own electronic records. See generally
David K. Isom, Electronic Discovery Primer for Judges, 2005 FED. CTS. L. REV. 1 (2005) (“Owners and custodians
of information have a duty to preserve information for civil litigation, the breach of which is spoliation. Spoliation
cases are much more prevalent in electronic discovery than in paper discovery, perhaps because electronic
information is more likely to be destroyed inadvertently than paper and because, whether information is destroyed
intentionally or accidentally, the destruction of all copies of electronic information is so much more difficult to
accomplish and difficult to hide than with paper.”); see also Burke T. Ward, J.D., LL.M. et al., Electronic
Discovery: Rules for A Digital Age, 18 B.U. J. SCI. & TECH. L. 150, 151 (2012).

6. 5
of relevancy or undue burden.” St. Paul Reinsurance Co., Ltd. v. Commercial Fin. Corp., 198
F.R.D. 508, 511-14 (N.D. Iowa 2000). Neither party may make conclusory statements or “ipse
dixit assertions . . . that requested discovery of electronic records is overbroad, burdensome or
prohibitively expensive[, which] provide[s] no help at all to the [C]ourt.” Thompson v. U.S. Dep't
of Hous. & Urban Dev., 219 F.R.D. 93, 99 (D. Md. 2003); St. Paul Reinsurance Co., Ltd., 198
F.R.D. at 511-14.
Traditionally, communications are privileged in certain relationships and protected from
discovery in the following categories: the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination;6
doctor-patient communications; minister, priest, or rabbi and any person of faith; spousal
communications; and attorney-client communications.7
O.C.G.A. § 24-5-501 et seq.; Schwimmer
v. United States, 232 F.2d 855, 863 (8th Cir. 1956) (referring to privileged communication that is
sealed forever by law unless the party waives the privilege). However, as exceptions to
privileged communications, the producing party may waive privileged communications under
the totality of the circumstances in the following situations: producing privileged information
during discovery (even inadvertently);8
disclosing privileged information to a third party;9
and
disclosing information to an attorney outside the scope of legal advice related to the attorney’s
line of profession.10
S. Guar. Ins. Co. of Georgia v. Ash, 192 Ga. App. 24, 27-28, 383 S.E.2d
6
See U.S. CONST. amend. V.; but see U. S. v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435, 442-43 (1976) (denying depositors any
reasonable expectations of privacy over sensitive, financial information because depositors disclosed information to
a third party voluntarily).
7
United States v. Horvath, 731 F.2d 557, 561 (8th Cir. 1984); Diversified Indus., Inc. v. Meredith, 572 F.2d
596, 612 (8th Cir. 1977) disapproved of by United States v. Massachusetts Inst. of Tech., 957 F. Supp. 301 (D. Mass.
1997).
8
See, e.g., Schwimmer, 232 F.2d at 863 (8th Cir. 1956).
9
United States v. Billmyer, 57 F.3d 31, 37 (1st Cir. 1995); Green v. Crapo, 181 Mass. 55, 62, 62 N.E. 956,
959 (1902).
10
Marriott Corp. v. Am. Acad. of Psychotherapists, Inc., 157 Ga. App. 497, 504-05, 277 S.E.2d 785, 791-
92 (1981) (citing Diversified Indus., Inc. v. Meredith, 572 F.2d 596, 609 (8th Cir. 1977)); Diversified Indus., Inc. v.
Meredith, 572 F.2d 596, 609 (8th Cir. 1977) disapproved of by United States v. Massachusetts Inst. of Tech., 957 F.
Supp. 301 (D. Mass. 1997) (“The attorney-client privilege is applicable to an employee's communication if (1) the
communication was made for the purpose of securing legal advice; (2) the employee making the communication did

7. 6
579, 582-84 (1989). Lastly, the Plaintiff bears the burden to show the Court why the information
is protected as a privileged communication. Id. at 28 (“The burden is upon the corporation to
establish that counsel's advice was privileged legal advice and thus not subject to discovery . . .
[i]n addition to the requirement that an attorney-client relationship exists, relevant factors
generally include, but are not limited to, the nature and purpose of the communication and how
and to whom the communication was made.”).
[OMITTING THAT BILL OF SALE WAS NOT PRIVILEGED INFORMATION AS
ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT OR UNDULY BURDENSOME BECAUSE DISCLOSURE
TO THIRD PARTY DESTROYS PRIVILEGE]
***The Plaintiff failed to set forth the supporting documentation to support a valid
assignment relying on parol evidence to supplant the missing documentation instead. C.f. In re
Musicland Holding Corp., 374 B.R. 113, 120 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2007) aff'd, 386 B.R. 428
(S.D.N.Y. 2008) aff'd, 318 F. App'x 36 (2d Cir. 2009). As presented, the Bill of Sale and the
Agreement between the Creditor and the Plaintiff is an incomplete document, an invalid legal
agreement, and inadmissible for summary judgment. This missing documentation is highly
relevant to the legal issue in this case. As a debt collector, the Plaintiff is required to maintain
records of all assignments in a routine, consistent manner. The Plaintiff bears the burden of proof
to show a valid assignment under Georgia law if the Plaintiff seeks legal redress against a debtor.
In re Shank, 315 B.R. 799, 810 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 2004) (“The fact that a party's business
so at the direction of his corporate superior; (3) the superior made the request so that the corporation could secure
legal advice; (4) the subject matter of the communication is within the scope of the employee's corporate duties; and
(5) the communication is not disseminated beyond those persons who, because of the corporate structure, need to
know its contents. We note, moreover, that the corporation has the burden of showing that the communication in
issue meets all of the above requirements.”); United States v. Massachusetts Inst. of Tech., 957 F. Supp. 301, 304
(D. Mass. 1997) aff'd in part, vacated in part, 129 F.3d 681 (1st Cir. 1997) (holding “that the disclosure of
privileged information to any third party destroys the privilege”) (emphasis added).

8. 7
practices make it difficult to produce evidence to prove its case does not permit courts to ignore
evidentiary rules in deciding a disputed matter.”).
In this case, the Plaintiff provides an affidavit that merely recounts documentation that is
not included as part of the contracts tendered to the Court (such as other contracts, exhibits, and
data files)—that is, equating the Plaintiff’s parol evidence as hearsay, which is defined as an out
of court statement being offered for the truth of the matter. FED. R. EVID. 801; O.C.G.A. § 24-8-
802. As excerpts of a contract between the Creditor and Plaintiff, the Database Record does not
suffice as authenticated, electronic evidence without more documentation to show the link for a
valid assignment of the Defendant’s debt to the Bill of Sale.11
Simply put, the Defendant’s
name—as party to this suit—should appear in a cross reference to the actual Bill of Sale as part
of the documentation to substantiate the Defendant was included in the Bill of Sale that assigned
the Defendant’s debt to the Plaintiff per the Agreement. Otherwise, the information provided in
the Bill of Sale merely references “unidentified accounts of unidentified debtors for unspecified
amounts.” In re Pursley, 451 B.R. 213, 234 (Bankr. M.D. Ga. 2011).
The Plaintiff merely makes ipse dixit assertions regarding the undue costs of providing
documentation to show that the Plaintiff has a valid assignment in this action. The Plaintiff does
not provide any substantial information regarding the burden imposed on the Plaintiff to
authenticate the Plaintiff’s own evidence—other than what is already required of debt collectors
under federal and Georgia law. 15 U.S.C. § 1692g; O.C.G.A. §§ 9-10-112, 24-1-106, 24-1-103;
1st Nationwide Collection Agency, Inc. v. Werner, 288 Ga. App. 457, 459, 654 S.E.2d 428, 431
(2007).
11
The Bill of Sale as presented is not a complete, legal document for the Plaintiff to assert a valid
assignment on behalf of the Creditor. Additionally, the Bill of Sale does not identify the Defendant nor does any of
the Plaintiff’s documentation set forth regarding the Bill of Sale identify the Defendant.

9. 8
This missing information is the missing link in the chain of assignment to the
Defendant’s debt, which is highly relevant should the Plaintiff wish to maintain this action
against the Defendant or face dismissal with prejudice. FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6); O.C.G.A. § 9-
11-12(b)(6). Whether the Plaintiff has a valid assignment of the Creditor’s chose in action with
the Defendant is the essential legal issue rendering all other issues moot. Without showing
proper assignment, the Plaintiff has no right to sue and enforce the Creditor’s chose in action
with the Defendant. Thus, the affidavit of Debt Collector Employee corroborates the Defendant’s
indebtedness to the Creditor but fails to show a valid assignment to the Plaintiff of the Creditor’s
chose in action with the Defendant based on the evidence presented.12
Accordingly, the Court hereby GRANTS the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment
as to the Defendant’s case.
II.
Under contract law, the doctrine of privity mandates that “only parties to a contract may
bring suit to enforce it.” Scott v. Cushman & Wakefield of Georgia, Inc., 249 Ga. App. 264, 265-
66, 547 S.E.2d 794, 795-96 (2001). While choses in action arising from contractual obligations
may be reassigned, the assignee is still responsible to show privity when assuming the Creditor’s
contractual obligations. Id. (“A recognized exception to the requirement of immediate
contractual privity between the parties to an action, specifically, that a party may assign to
12
Other than the Creditor’s documentation, the Plaintiff provided only a Database Record, a single page of
self-generated documentation that identified the Defendant in Exhibit 3. The Database Record was generated by the
Plaintiff without any explanation to lay the evidentiary foundation for this document and the relevance of this
document to the Bill of Sale. The Plaintiff’s proprietary process and references on this Database Record remain
unidentified and inconclusive rendering this self-generated documentation as inadmissible evidence. As previously
discussed, the Bill of Sale fails to identify the Defendant. Without any cross-references between the Bill of Sale and
the Defendant, this Database Record is insufficient evidence to assert that the Plaintiff received a valid assignment
of the Defendant’s debt with the Creditor.

10. 9
another a contractual right to collect payment, including the right to sue to enforce the right . . .
.”).
Additionally, the assignment must be in writing to recognize the valid assignment of a
chose in action. See O.C.G.A. §§ 44-12-20, 44-12-22 (requiring assignments in writing to show
the exclusive chain of assignment when assuming another’s contractual obligations for choses in
action). Debt collectors are not required to show a written contract between the Creditor and the
consumer–just a valid assignment of the Creditor’s chose in action to enforce the Defendant’s
contractual obligations. Jang, 122 F.3d at 482 (explaining that debt collectors are only required
to provide debt verification from the original creditor upon the debtor’s request any time after the
debtor has received a written notice that indicates the creditor assigned the debt to debt
collector); 15 U.S.C. § 1692g.
The Plaintiff has not met the Plaintiff’s burden of proof that the Plaintiff has a legal
assignment to enforce an action with the Defendant based on the Defendant’s purported
contractual obligations with the Creditor. O.C.G.A. § 9-11-56(e). The Plaintiff’s supporting
evidence fails to show the Defendant’s account number as one of the accounts the Creditor
assigned to the Plaintiff in the Agreement. Wirth v. Cach, LLC, 300 Ga. App. 488, 489, 685
S.E.2d 433, 434 (2009) (reversing trial court’s summary judgment when the account invoices
reflected evidence supporting the defendant’s account with the creditor but the evidence failed to
show a valid chain of assignment of the defendant’s debt to the plaintiff as the assignee). Simply
put, the documentation does not include a print out of the Receivables listing the Defendant in
the database records included in the Bill of Sale to show that the Defendant’s record was part of
the file transfer assigning the Defendant’s debt to the Plaintiff under the Agreement.13
In re
13
As the Plaintiff bears the burden of proof, how to present the corroborating documentation of the
Receivables is for the Plaintiff to decide when trying the Plaintiff’s case—that is, a hardcopy of the Receivables

11. 10
Pursley, 451 B.R. at 234 (Bankr. M.D. Ga. 2011) (criticizing evidence that shows an assignment
without any identifying information).
Exhibit 2 contains preprinted form documents “that bear the name of an individual and an
address, as well as a business and an address” corroborating specific information regarding the
Defendant’s use of the credit card issued by the Creditor. Nyankojo, 298 Ga. App. at 8.
Subsequently, the Court finds sufficient circumstantial evidence authenticating the credit card
statements identifying the Defendant, which remains undisputed. Id.; In re Cluff, 313 B.R. 323,
337-38 (Bankr. D. Utah 2004). While the Plaintiff provided circumstantial evidence
substantiating the Defendant’s debt with the Creditor, the Plaintiff failed to show legal standing
in a cause of action against the Defendant because the record fails to show a valid assignment of
the Creditor’s chose in action with the Defendant precluding summary judgment in favor of the
Plaintiff.
Accordingly, the Court hereby DENIES the Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment as
to the Plaintiff’s case.
presented as a sealed document to the Court, a redacted version of the Receivables, or a privilege log of the
Receivables. The only material name that must appear in the corroborating documentation of the Receivables is the
named Defendant in this action.