Becker v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. et al

Filing 51

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)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DENNLY R. BECKER, 12 13 14 15 16 17 No. 2:15-cv-2240-MCE-KJN PS Plaintiff, v. ORDER BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON AS TRUSTEE FOR THE BELLAVISTA MORTGAGE TRUST 2004-2 & NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC, Defendants. 18 19 On May 11, 2017, pursuant to the parties’ request, the court conducted an informal 20 telephonic discovery conference. Plaintiff Dennly Becker appeared representing himself, and 21 attorney Megan Kelly appeared on behalf of defendants. After careful consideration of the 22 parties’ joint letter brief (ECF No. 49) and the parties’ representations at the telephonic 23 conference, and as explained in greater detail to the parties in the course of the telephonic 24 conference, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 25 1. The parties shall promptly meet and confer regarding a mutually convenient date to 26 conduct the deposition of Nationstar’s person most knowledgeable (“PMK”). 27 Provided that the parties mutually agree to the date, plaintiff need only serve a brief 28 notice of deposition referencing this order and need not comply with the full notice 1 1 period. 2. Based on the parties’ agreement at the conference, the matters with respect to which 2 3 Nationstar’s PMK is to be examined are limited as follows:1 4 (a) Nationstar shall provide testimony as to matter nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 14, 15, and 17 5 within the reasonable parameters discussed in greater detail with the parties at the 6 conference. 7 (b) Nationstar need not provide testimony as to nos. 5 (which the court finds 8 overbroad and duplicative of no. 4), 7 (except for the dollar amounts stated in the 9 referenced documents), 8, 10 (except as to whether Nationstar received fees for 10 payments made by plaintiff), 11 (except that plaintiff may seek explanations for 11 alleged inconsistencies in the records), 12 (except that plaintiff may ask questions 12 regarding how his communications with Ms. Wolford and other pertinent 13 Nationstar representatives were directed and/or recorded), 13 (except that plaintiff 14 may inquire as to Ms. Wolford’s last date of employment with Nationstar), and 16 15 (which the court finds overbroad). 3. Plaintiff’s request to have defendants reimburse his flight rebooking fee related to the 16 17 previously-scheduled deposition is denied. 4. Plaintiff’s request for a further response to plaintiff’s interrogatory no. 8 is denied 18 19 without prejudice. Plaintiff may inquire regarding potentially relevant abbreviations at 20 the PMK deposition, and the parties shall subsequently meet and confer regarding any 21 specific further clarification needed. 22 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: May 12, 2017 24 25 26 27 28 1 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. 2

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?