JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A. v. Sierra Pacific Mortgage Company, Inc.

Filing 92

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 12/18/15 ORDERING that Defendant's Motion to Compel 80 is GRANTED in PART. Defendant's request to compel Plaintiff's written Seller and Servicing Contracts with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac regarding the 12 loans at issue in this action is DENIED without prejudice. Defendant's request for an order directing plaintiff to supplement its declaration of William Betz is GRANTED. (Mena-Sanchez, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

No. 2:13-cv-1397-JAM-KJN

ORDER

v.
SIERRA PACIFIC MORTGAGE
COMPANY, INC.,
Defendant.

16
17

Presently before the court is defendant Sierra Pacific Mortgage Company, Inc.’s

18
19

(“defendant”) motion to compel plaintiff JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. (“plaintiff”) to produce its

20

written Seller and Servicing Contracts with the Federal National Mortgage Association (“Fannie

21

Mae”) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (“Freddie Mac”) that concern the 12

22

mortgage loans at issue in this action in response to defendant’s request for production numbers

23

2, 4, and 10. (ECF No. 80.) Defendant also requests the court to order plaintiff to supplement the

24

Declaration of William Betz dated August 11, 2015, that plaintiff produced in response to the

25

court’s July 21, 2015 order directing plaintiff to provide defendant with a declaration stating

26

whether any of the loans at issue in this action fell within the “credit back” provisions of

27

plaintiff’s October 2013 settlement agreements with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (Id.)

28

////
1

1

The court heard this matter on its December 10, 2015 law and motion calendar. Attorney

2

Gregory Sudbury appeared for plaintiff. Attorney Navdeep Singh appeared for defendant. Based

3

on the defendant’s motion, the parties’ joint statement, other relevant filings, and oral arguments,

4

and for the reasons discussed on the record during the hearing, defendant’s motion to compel

5

(ECF No. 80) is GRANTED IN PART. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

6

1.

Defendant’s request to compel plaintiff’s written Seller and Servicing Contracts

7

with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac regarding the 12 loans at issue in this action is DENIED

8

without prejudice. Within 30 days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall provide defendant

9

with a formal statement, via declaration or other appropriate means, that clearly and

10

unequivocally reiterates its counsel’s representation at the hearing that the representations and

11

warranties and underwriting terms in plaintiff’s Seller and Servicing Contracts with Fannie Mae

12

and Freddie Mac concerning the 12 loans at issue are exactly the same as those contained within

13

the relevant Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Sellers Guides plaintiff has already produced to

14

defendant. If plaintiff refuses to provide such a definite statement or defendant obtains

15

information that leads it to reasonably believe that the representations and warranties and/or

16

underwriting terms in the relevant Seller and Servicing Contracts materially differ from the

17

Sellers Guides, then defendant may renew its motion to compel the written contracts or seek other

18

appropriate relief from the court.

19

2.

Defendant’s request for an order directing plaintiff to supplement its declaration of

20

William Betz is GRANTED. Within 30 days of the date of this order, plaintiff shall provide

21

defendant with a supplemental declaration to the Declaration of William Betz that clearly sets

22

forth what efforts were made to ascertain that the 12 loans at issue in this action were in no way

23

impacted by either of the October 2013 settlement agreements plaintiff entered into with Fannie

24

Mae or Freddie Mac.1

25

1

26
27
28

As the court noted at the hearing, the supplemental response may require Mr. Betz, or another
individual with personal knowledge of the efforts plaintiff made to determine that the 12 loans at
issue in this action were not impacted by the October 2013 settlement agreements, to address the
underlying settlement agreements to the extent needed to show that they did not impact the loans
at issue. Accordingly, if it is later brought to the court’s attention that the supplemental
declaration addresses the topic in a manner that is equivocal or vague because plaintiff takes the
2

1
2

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 18, 2015

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

position that further clarification would reveal confidential information contained within the
settlement agreements, appropriate sanctions may issue.
3