One thing many MCA debt collectors fail to understand is this:

Once a lawsuit is filed, the parties are in litigation.

That means the dispute is no longer simply a collection matter where one side gets to demand immediate compliance on its own timeline. The parties are now operating within a court-supervised process, with rules, procedures, deadlines, and basic expectations of fairness.

Plaintiff chose to commence the lawsuit. Plaintiff chose to invoke the court system. Plaintiff does not then get to demand that the Defendant abandon the ordinary litigation process simply because Plaintiff wants documents, financial information, or settlement leverage immediately.

Discovery Exists for a Reason

Discovery is not a nuisance. It is part of the litigation process.

The parties are entitled to exchange documents, evaluate claims and defenses, test the evidence, determine what is actually disputed, and assess whether the matter can be resolved fairly.

That process does not need to be rushed merely because the Plaintiff is impatient.

In many cases, discovery is scheduled over a period of approximately 120 days. That timeframe exists so the parties can gather records, review information, serve appropriate demands, respond properly, raise objections where necessary, and meaningfully evaluate the case.

If a Defendant provides documents faster than the court-ordered discovery schedule requires, that is often a good-faith effort to evaluate settlement, narrow the issues, or move the case forward cooperatively.

But the failure to produce everything immediately is not bad faith.

It is litigation.

There Is a Difference Between Bad Faith and Due Process

There is a major difference between refusing to cooperate and insisting that the process unfold in a fair, orderly, and court-approved manner.

MCA plaintiffs and debt collectors often try to manufacture urgency. In fact many of the debt collectors I’ve dealt with (I can provide a list if you want) don’t understand this, or ignore this, and even reach out to my clients and lie to them about this fabricated urgency. They may suggest that if a merchant does not immediately provide documents, banking information, financial records, or settlement terms, the merchant is somehow acting improperly.

That is not how litigation works.

A Defendant has the right to review the claims, consult with counsel, assert defenses, preserve objections, demand proof, and participate in discovery on the timeline set by the court.

Plaintiff does not get to file a lawsuit and then complain that the Defendant is using the process the lawsuit created.

Plaintiff Cannot Use Litigation as a Pressure Tactic

This issue becomes especially serious in MCA cases, where plaintiffs may attempt to use UCC filings, customer contact, payment processor interference, or aggressive collection activity to create pressure while the lawsuit is still pending.

That kind of pressure can cripple a merchant’s business before the parties have even had a meaningful opportunity to conduct discovery.

The purpose of litigation is not to give Plaintiff a weapon to force settlement before Defendant can investigate the claims.

The purpose of litigation is to provide a structured process for resolving disputes.

If Plaintiff wants the benefit of the court system, Plaintiff must also accept the rules, timelines, and protections that come with it.

Once Plaintiff Files, Defendant Is Entitled to Defend

The bottom line is simple:

If Plaintiff wanted immediate, unquestioned compliance, it should not have filed a lawsuit.

Once Plaintiff files, Defendant is entitled to defend.

That includes the right to discovery.
That includes the right to a reasonable timeline.
That includes the right to challenge Plaintiff’s proof.
That includes the right to refuse to be rushed into a settlement simply because Plaintiff wants leverage.

In litigation, patience is not bad faith.

Following the court process is not obstruction.

And demanding a fair opportunity to defend is not delay.

It is the process Plaintiff chose when it filed the lawsuit. Neither Plaintiff, nor its often un-educated debt collectors, have the right to complain about that process. It’s that simple.