Duke et al v. Nationstar Mortgage, L.L.C.

Filing 47

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER The court ORDERS defendant Nationstar to produce the aforementioned items to plaintiffs by January 22, 2013. Signed by Judge William M Acker, Jr on 1/15/13. (KGE, )

FILED
2013 Jan-15 PM 04:16
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
KENT DUKE and
JACQUELINE C. DUKE,
Plaintiffs,
v.
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC,
Defendant.

}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}

CIVIL ACTION NO.
2:12-cv-00157-WMA

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pursuant to this court’s October 30, 2012 and November 16,
2012 orders, defendant Nationstar Mortgage, LLC (“Nationstar”) on
December 27, 2012, provided the court with voluminous documents for
an

in

camera

examination

discoverability by plaintiffs.

and

a

determination

(Docs. 39 and 44).

of

their

Specifically,

Nationstar provided the court with (1) 622 pages of documents
relating to the “policies and procedures of Nationstar” that had
not

been

previously

produced;

(2)

a

statement

that

76,558

mortgagors received a communication from Nationstar to the effect
that the mortgagor’s home would not be referred to foreclosure or
sold at a foreclosure sale while Nationstar was reviewing the loan
for modification; and (3) a list of names, locations, case numbers,
and statuses of cases filed against Nationstar in state and federal
court alleging some sort of misrepresentation.

After studying

these materials, the court finds them sufficiently relevant to the
claims and defenses and sufficiently non-protectable to be subject

to discovery by plaintiffs, and Nationstar will be ordered to
produce them to plaintiffs.
Specifically, Nationstar’s written policies and procedures and
whether it complied with those policies and procedures during the
time leading up to the subject disputed foreclosure are directly
relevant to plaintiffs’ claims, including but not limited to their
claim

for

negligent

hiring,

training,

and

supervision.

Furthermore, the information regarding communications with thirdparties

and

other

litigation

is

also

directly

relevant,

for

example, based on its potential to establish a pattern and practice
for

the

purposes

of

the

punitive

damages

claim.

While

the

plaintiffs are entitled to this evidence, the court makes no
determination as its admissibility at trial. The court reminds the
parties of the scheduling order and the March 8, 2013 dispositive
motion deadline.

The court further reminds the parties that the

items to be furnished to plaintiffs are subject to the October 30,
2012 protective order.
The court hereby ORDERS defendant Nationstar to produce the
aforementioned items to plaintiffs by January 22, 2013.
DONE this 15th day of January, 2013.

_____________________________
WILLIAM M. ACKER, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2