Becker et al v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA, Inc. et al

Filing 178

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 2/18/2014 DENYING AS UNTIMELY the plaintiff's Motion to Compel the defendant to remove redactions from certain produced documents; DENYING AS UNTIMELY the plaintiff's Motion to Compel di scovery related to the identity of the Wells Fargo employee identified by the initials "LVZ"; DENYING AS UNTIMELY AND IMPROPER the plaintiff's Request to Compel the defendant to allow him to inspect ESI and loan files; GRANTING WITHOUT PREJUDICE the defendant's Motion to Quash the plaintiff's deposition subpoenas for Zuniga and Ortega; DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE the plaintiff's Request to conduct a deposition of the person identified by the initials "LVZ"; ORDERING the defendant's counsel to sent the plaintiff, by 2/20/2014, a letter including the information listed herein. (Michel, G)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DENNLY R. BECKER, et al.,

12

Plaintiffs,

13
14
15

No. 2:10-cv-2799 TLN KJN PS

v.

ORDER

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., INC., et
al.,
Defendants.

16

Plaintiff Dennly Becker (“plaintiff”) and defendant Wells Fargo Bank (“defendant”)

17
18

requested an informal discovery teleconference to allow the court to address the following

19

matters: (1) defendant’s motion to quash plaintiff’s deposition subpoenas for Sharon Zuniga

20

(“Zuniga”) and Joseph Ortega (“Ortega”); (2) plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery related to

21

the identity of the Wells Fargo employee identified by the initials “LVZ” and request to take a

22

deposition of the individual identified as LVZ; and (3) plaintiff’s motion to compel defendant to

23

remove redactions from certain produced documents.1

24

////

25

////

26
27

1

(See ECF Nos. 163 at 4 (requiring the parties to request telephonic conferences before
completing any further discovery filings); 164 at 3-4 (same).)

28
1

On February 14, 2014, the undersigned conducted the informal discovery teleconference.2

1
2

Plaintiff appeared telephonically on his own behalf. Attorney David Newman appeared

3

telephonically on defendant’s behalf.

4
5

For the reasons discussed on the record during the teleconference, it is HEREBY
ORDERED THAT:
1. Plaintiff’s motion to compel defendant to remove redactions from certain produced

6
7

documents is DENIED as untimely.
2. Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery related to the identity of the Wells Fargo

8
9

employee identified by the initials “LVZ” is DENIED as untimely.
3. Plaintiff’s request to compel defendant to allow him to inspect ESI and loan files is

10
11

DENIED as both untimely and improperly noticed.
4. Defendant’s motion to quash plaintiff’s deposition subpoenas for Zuniga and Ortega is

12
13

GRANTED without prejudice to a renewed request by plaintiff to take depositions of either or

14

both individuals after plaintiff takes the deposition of defendant’s person most knowledgeable

15

(“PMK”) on February 21, 2014, provided that plaintiff makes a showing that defendant’s PMK

16

was unable to testify as to certain information relevant to plaintiff’s claims and that it will be

17

necessary for plaintiff to conduct a deposition of either or both individuals in order to obtain that

18

information. This grant of defendant’s motion is also without prejudice to any future requests by

19

plaintiff to take depositions of other individuals provided that plaintiff can make the same above

20

showing with respect to those individuals.

21

5. Plaintiff’s request to conduct a deposition of the person identified by the initials “LVZ”

22

is DENIED without prejudice to a renewed request by plaintiff to take that individual’s deposition

23

upon a showing that defendant’s PMK was unable to testify as to certain information relevant to

24

plaintiff’s claims and that it will be necessary for plaintiff to conduct a deposition of that

25

individual in order to obtain that information.

26

////

27
28

2

This action proceeds before this court pursuant to Eastern District of California Local Rule
302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
2

1
2

6. On or before February 20, 2014, defendant’s counsel shall send to plaintiff a letter
including the following:

3

a. A statement by defendant’s counsel articulating his belief that Zuniga lacks

4

personal knowledge of the topics plaintiff seeks to address through his deposition

5

of her and will be unable to offer plaintiff the information he is seeking.

6

b. A statement by defendant’s counsel articulating his belief that defendant’s

7

PMK will be able to provide the best and most complete information regarding the

8

topics plaintiff seeks to address through his depositions.

9

c. The name of the person or persons identified by Wells Fargo as “LVZ”

10

throughout the time period relevant to the allegations in plaintiff’s Third Amended

11

Complaint.

12

d. Information regarding whether a person by the name “Lindsay Vasquez” was

13

employed by Wells Fargo during the time period relevant to the allegations in

14

plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint.

15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 18, 2014

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3