Sepehry-Fard v. MB Financial Services

Filing 69

Discovery Order re: Docket No. 63. Signed by Judge Maria-Elena James on March 14, 2014. (mejlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/14/2014)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

FAREED SEPEHRY-FARD,

Case No. 13-cv-02784-JSW (MEJ)

Plaintiff,
8

DISCOVERY ORDER

v.

Re: Dkt. Nos. 63, 65

9
10

MB FINANCIAL SERVICES,
Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

On February 5, 2014, Plaintiff Fareed Sepehry-Fard (“Plaintiff”) filed a “Letter Re: „Meet

13

and Confer‟ and Alleged Defendant Unwillingness to Provide Interrogatories, Documents and

14

Things,” without providing Defendant sufficient time to respond or prepare its portion of the

15

letter. Pl.‟s Ltr., Dkt. No. 63. In the letter, Plaintiff states that the parties were unable to resolve

16

their discovery dispute during a lengthy telephonic meet and confer on February 3, 2014, and he

17

now seeks production of documents and interrogatory responses from Defendant. Id. Defendant

18

MB Financial Services USA (“Defendant”) filed a response to Plaintiff‟s letter on February 10,

19

2014. Def.‟s Ltr., Dkt. No. 65.

20

As a threshold matter, Plaintiff‟s letter does not comply with this Court‟s January 23, 2014

21

Order setting forth the procedure to resolve disputes after an unsuccessful telephonic meet and

22

confer session. Order, Dkt. No. 61. Specifically, the Order required Plaintiff to provide Defendant

23

with “a draft joint letter in compliance with the undersigned‟s Discovery Standing Order,” and to

24

allow Defendant to provide its portion of the letter “within seven calendar days of receipt of Plaintiff‟s

25

draft.” Id. Instead, Plaintiff provided his portion of the joint letter to Defendant on February 4,

26

2014, and demanded that Defendant respond by February 5, 2014, or he would unilaterally file his

27

portion of the letter with the Court. Pl.‟s Ltr.at 4. Plaintiff is advised that further letters must

28

comply with the joint letter briefing requirements.

1

Turning to the issues raised in the letter, Plaintiff first requests an affidavit or stipulation

2

seeking admissions from Defendant‟s attorney regarding certain issues. Id at 1-4. However,

3

Plaintiff is not entitled to seek affidavits or admissions from Defendant‟s counsel. Accordingly,

4

this request is DENIED.

5

Plaintiff next requests various documents pertaining to loan records for Plaintiff‟s vehicle.

6

Id., Ex. A. Plaintiff first demands the “original wet ink signature promissory note.” Id.

7

Defendant objects on the basis that the term “promissory note” is too ambiguous. Def.‟s Ltr., Ex.

8

A. Given that the subject matter of this case is whether the note on Plaintiff‟s vehicle has been

9

paid in full, the request reasonably appears to request the original note evidencing the loan on the

10

vehicle. Accordingly, Plaintiff‟s request is GRANTED.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Plaintiff then requests seven categories of items pertaining to the servicing and payment

12

history of the loan. Categories A through F seek information regarding “credit default swaps,”

13

“other insurance payouts,” “yield spread premiums,” “tax write offs,” “cross collaritization,” and

14

“other payments such as TARP, but not limited to TARP.” Pl.‟s Ltr., Ex. A. The last category

15

seeks “GAAP accounting, double entry accounting general ledger showing all credits and debits.”

16

Id. (emphasis in original). Defendant contends that the terms are ambiguous because Plaintiff has

17

failed to define them, and it cannot discern what items it must provide. Def.‟s Ltr., Ex. A.

18

Defendant also states that the requested items are not likely to lead to the discovery of relevant

19

information. Id.

20

According to his Complaint, Plaintiff disputes that he owes a debt to Defendant on a 2006

21

Mercedes vehicle. Compl., Dkt. No. 1. Plaintiff‟s claims appear to be based on allegations that he

22

sent Defendant a “proof of claim,” and that Defendant‟s failure to respond to Plaintiff‟s request

23

means that he no longer owes any debt on the vehicle. Id., ¶¶ 3, 7-14. For this reason, the Court

24

finds that an accounting of Plaintiff‟s payment history is relevant to his claims. To the extent

25

Plaintiff is requesting a copy of the general ledger showing his account history with Defendant,

26

including all credits and debits made to his account, this request is reasonable, and the Court

27

ORDERS Defendant to produce it. To the extent that Plaintiff requests further items related to the

28

accounting or servicing history of the loan, Plaintiff may serve revised requests for production
2

1

which define each item with particularity. Accordingly, Plaintiff‟s request that Defendant produce

2

those items is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4
5
6
7

Dated: March 14, 2014
______________________________________
MARIA-ELENA JAMES
United States Magistrate Judge

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3