Becker v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. et al
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 5/12/17 ORDERING that the parties shall promptly meet and confer regarding a mutually convenient date to conduct the deposition of Nationstars person most knowledgeable ( PMK). Provided that the parties mutually agree to the date, Plaintiff need only serve a brief notice of deposition referencing this order and need not comply with the full notice.(Mena-Sanchez, L)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
DENNLY R. BECKER,
No. 2:15-cv-2240-MCE-KJN PS
BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON AS
TRUSTEE FOR THE BELLAVISTA
MORTGAGE TRUST 2004-2 &
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC,
On May 11, 2017, pursuant to the parties’ request, the court conducted an informal
telephonic discovery conference. Plaintiff Dennly Becker appeared representing himself, and
attorney Megan Kelly appeared on behalf of defendants. After careful consideration of the
parties’ joint letter brief (ECF No. 49) and the parties’ representations at the telephonic
conference, and as explained in greater detail to the parties in the course of the telephonic
conference, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The parties shall promptly meet and confer regarding a mutually convenient date to
conduct the deposition of Nationstar’s person most knowledgeable (“PMK”).
Provided that the parties mutually agree to the date, plaintiff need only serve a brief
notice of deposition referencing this order and need not comply with the full notice
2. Based on the parties’ agreement at the conference, the matters with respect to which
Nationstar’s PMK is to be examined are limited as follows:1
(a) Nationstar shall provide testimony as to matter nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 14, 15, and 17
within the reasonable parameters discussed in greater detail with the parties at the
(b) Nationstar need not provide testimony as to nos. 5 (which the court finds
overbroad and duplicative of no. 4), 7 (except for the dollar amounts stated in the
referenced documents), 8, 10 (except as to whether Nationstar received fees for
payments made by plaintiff), 11 (except that plaintiff may seek explanations for
alleged inconsistencies in the records), 12 (except that plaintiff may ask questions
regarding how his communications with Ms. Wolford and other pertinent
Nationstar representatives were directed and/or recorded), 13 (except that plaintiff
may inquire as to Ms. Wolford’s last date of employment with Nationstar), and 16
(which the court finds overbroad).
3. Plaintiff’s request to have defendants reimburse his flight rebooking fee related to the
previously-scheduled deposition is denied.
4. Plaintiff’s request for a further response to plaintiff’s interrogatory no. 8 is denied
without prejudice. Plaintiff may inquire regarding potentially relevant abbreviations at
the PMK deposition, and the parties shall subsequently meet and confer regarding any
specific further clarification needed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 12, 2017
Plaintiff’s notice of deposition on its face lists 16 matters for examination, but actually includes
two matters labeled as number 4, resulting in 17 total matters. As such, the court adopts the
numbering used by the parties in their joint letter brief (ECF No. 49), which re-numbered the
matters sequentially from 1 through 17.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?