Shedd et al v. Barclays Capital Real Estate, Inc. et al

Filing 165

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 134 Motion to Compel Discovery, as further set out.; granting in part and denying in part 140 Motion to Compel, as further set out. Signed by Magistrate Judge Bert W. Milling, Jr on 3/28/2016. copies to parties. (sdb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
GEORGE P. SHEDD, JR., et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
BARCLAYS CAPITAL
REAL ESTATE, INC.,
d/b/a HomEq Servicing, et al.,

:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION 14-275-CB-M

:
:
ORDER

Defendants.

On this date, a hearing was held and this Court heard
from all parties regarding Plaintiffs’ Motions to Compel
(Docs. 134, 135, and 140) and all pleadings relating
thereto (Docs. 145, 148, 150, 157, 158 and 162).

After

consideration of the relevant pleadings and the argument of
counsel, the Motions were ruled on as follows, for the
reasons set out in the audio record of the hearing.
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Barclays Capital Real
Estate, Inc. to Respond to First Set of Interrogatories and
Request for Production (Docs. 134 and 135) was GRANTED as
set out below and otherwise DENIED.
A.

GRANTED.

Barclays’ Amended Privilege Log is

insufficient.

It does not comply with the

requirements for a privilege log as noted in
Paragraph 10.d. of the Amended Rule 16(b)

1

Scheduling Order (Doc. 127).

Defendant is to

produce a complying privilege log to
Plaintiffs, and confer if there are any
disagreements, not later than April 11, 2016.
B.

DENIED.

Defendant is not required to subpoena

its corporate documents or any other documents
from Black Knight Financial Services.
C.

GRANTED.

In response to Interrogatory 2,

Defendant is to supplement its list of
employees with knowledge of the claims and
defenses in this action, especially with
respect to each person’s knowledge, as more
fully discussed at the hearing, not later than
April 11, 2016.
D.

DENIED.

Defendant stated that there are no

pooling or servicing agreements as requested.
The response to Request for Production 2 is
sufficient.
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Wells Fargo Defendants to
Respond to First Set of Interrogatories and Request for
Production (Doc. 140) was GRANTED as set out below and
otherwise DENIED.
A.

GRANTED.

Wells Fargo’s Privilege Log is

insufficient.

It does not comply with the

2

requirements for a privilege log as noted in
Paragraph 10.d. of the Amended Rule 16(b)
Scheduling Order (Doc. 127).

Defendant is to

produce a complying privilege log to
Plaintiffs, and confer if there are any
disagreements, not later than April 11, 2016.
B.

DENIED.

Defendant’s response is sufficient to

Interrogatory 2.b.

Wachovia Bank’s mortgage

loans were assumed by Defendant when it merged
with Wachovia Bank.
C.

DENIED.

Defendant’s responses to

Interrogatory 2.i. and Requests for Production
14 and 18 are sufficient since the requests
are not relevant and too broad.
D.

MOOT as to Request for Production 2.

E.

GRANTED as modified.

Defendant is to produce

a copy of its training materials related to
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the
Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act and the
Fair Credit Reporting Act, not later than
April 11, 2016.
DONE this the 28th day of March, 2016.
s/BERT W. MILLING, JR.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3