United States of America et al v. Academy Mortgage Corporation

Filing 271

ORDER by Judge Edward M. Chen Denying #257 Defendant's Motion for Relief From Non-Dispositive Pretrial Order of Magistrate Judge, and Granting #263 Relator's Administrative Motion for Relief From Amended Case Management and Pretrial Order. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/8/2021)

Case 3:16-cv-02120-EMC Document 271 Filed 09/08/21 Page 1 of 6

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8
9
10
11

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM NONDISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL ORDER OF
MAGISTRATE JUDGE, AND
GRANTING RELATOR’S
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR
RELIEF FROM AMENDED CASE
MANAGEMENT AND PRETRIAL
ORDER

v.
ACADEMY MORTGAGE
CORPORATIONN,
Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 16-cv-02120-EMC

12
13

Docket Nos. 257, 263

14
15
16

I.

INTRODUCTION

17

In this qui tam False Claims Act suit, Gwen Thrower (“Relator”) alleges that Academy

18

Mortgage Corporation (“Defendant”) falsely certified compliance with the U.S. Department of

19

Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD’s) regulations, enabling it to obtain government

20

insurance on the mortgage loans underwritten by Defendant, and to make claims on those loans.

21

Pending before the Court are (1) Defendant’s motion for relief from Magistrate Judge

22

Sallie Kim’s August 6, 2021 order requiring Defendant to produce loan files in a data file that can

23

be loaded into Encompass or IHM, see Docket Nos. 255 (“Order”); 257 (“Mot. 1”); and (2)

24

Relator’s motion for administrative relief from this Court’s amended case management and

25

pretrial order, see Docket Nos. 180 (“Am. CMC Order”), 263 (“Mot. 2”).

26
27
28

For the following reasons, this Court DENIES Defendant’s motion and GRANTS
Relator’s administrative motion.

Case 3:16-cv-02120-EMC Document 271 Filed 09/08/21 Page 2 of 6

II.

1

NON-DISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL ORDER OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2
3

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM

A.

Background

4

On February 18, 2021, the parties filed a joint discovery letter brief detailing their dispute

5

as to whether Defendant’s production of loan files in a static, single PDF meets the requirements

6

of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34 (b)(2)(E)(ii). See Docket No. 209 (“Letter Brief 1”). For

7

each loan file, Defendant produced a single PDF averaging nearly 1,600 pages without slips or

8

bookmarks to separate the different documents. Id. at 2. Each PDF includes several loan

9

documents, such as the borrower’s paystubs, tax documents, credit reports, bank statements, and
more. Id. On February 23, 2021, Judge Kim entered an Order allowing Relator to depose Ms.

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Kaya Chavez, Defendant’s corporate representative with knowledge on how Defendant keeps the

12

loan files at issue. See Docket No. 210 (“February 23 Order”). On April 14, 2021, Relator

13

deposed Ms. Kaya Chavez. See Docket No. 246 (“Bexley Decl.”), Ex. A.

14

On July 2, 2021, the parties filed another joint discovery letter brief detailing their dispute

15

as to whether Defendant’s production of loan files in static, single PDFs meets the requirements of

16

Rule 34 and complies with Judge Kim’s February 23 Order. See Docket No. 245 (“Letter Brief

17

2”). Shortly after, on July 7, Judge Kim granted Relator’s request and ordered “Defendant to

18

produce the loan files in their entirety in native format.” See Docket No. 249 (“July 7 Order”).

19

On August 2, 2021, the parties filed a third joint discovery letter brief regarding

20

Defendant’s non-compliance with the July 7 Order, whereby Relator requested attorneys’ fees and

21

costs under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37. See Docket No. 253 (“Letter Brief 3”) at 4. On

22

August 6, 2021, Judge Kim again ordered Defendant to produce the documents in native format

23

on or before August 21, 2021, by either (1) giving Relator access to Defendant’s Encompass and

24

IHM systems, or (2) as a data file that can be loaded onto Relator’s operating versions of

25

Encompass and IHM. See Order at 3. Judge Kim also ordered that monetary sanctions were

26

appropriate and instructed Relator to submit a declaration indicating the amount of attorneys’ fees

27

sought on or before September 3, 2021. Id. Shortly thereafter, Defendant filed the instant motion

28

seeking relief from Judge Kim’s August 6 Order. Mot. 1.
2

Case 3:16-cv-02120-EMC Document 271 Filed 09/08/21 Page 3 of 6

1

B.

Standard of Review

2

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(A), a district court may “designate a magistrate judge to

3

hear and determine any pretrial matter pending before the court.” Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

4

72(a) allows a party to file objections to the order. A district court considering objections to a

5

non-dispositive pretrial order must “modify or set aside any part of the order that is clear

6

erroneous or is contrary to law.” See 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(A) (“A judge of the court may

7

reconsider any pretrial matter under this subparagraph (A) where it has been shown that the

8

magistrate judge’s order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.”); Osband v. Woodford, 290 F.3d

9

1036, 1041 (9th Cir. 2022) (“A district judge may reconsider a magistrate’s order in a pretrial
matter if that order is ‘clearly erroneous or contrary to law.’” (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(A));

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

see also, Grimes v. City & Cnty. Of San Francisco, 951, F.2d 236, 241 (9th Cir. 1991) (holding

12

that under the clearly erroneous standard, “[t]he reviewing court may not simply substitute its

13

judgment for that of the deciding court” (citing United States v. BNS, Inc., 858 F.2d 456. 464 (9th

14

Cir. 1988))).

15

C.

Discussion

16

Judge Kim ordered Defendant to produce the documents at issue in native format either by

17

providing Relator access to Defendant’s Encompass and IHM systems, or as a data file that can be

18

loaded onto Relator’s operating versions of Encompass and IHM. See Order at 3. Defendant

19

contends that it can only produce these documents as PDFs. See Mot. 1 at 2-3. The question is

20

whether Judge Kim’s August 6 Order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law because Defendant’s

21

production of a single, static PDF for each loan file satisfies its discovery obligations under the

22

Federal Rules.

23

First, Defendant contends it complied with the July 7 Order because a single, static PDF is

24

the only native format that exists for the files at issue. Id. at 2. Relator submitted publicly

25

available information indicating the “data files” Judge Kim ordered Defendant to produce do

26

indeed exist. See Docket No. 261 (“Relator’s Response”) at 4-5. In fact, Encompass users

27

routinely export loan file data in the course of their business. Id. In any case, even if the

28

Encompass data files do not exist, Defendant should have complied with Judge Kim’s July 7
3

Case 3:16-cv-02120-EMC Document 271 Filed 09/08/21 Page 4 of 6

1

Order by giving Relator direct access to Encompass and IHM. See July 7 Order; Order at 3.

2

Second, Defendant contends giving Relator direct access to its Encompass and IHM

3

systems is unwarranted. See Mot. 1 at 5. But Defendant’s own corporate representative, Ms.

4

Chavez, admitted that providing Relator access to Defendant’s Encompass or IHM systems is a

5

viable option. See Bexley Decl., Ex. A at 156:14–21, 186:20–187:11.
Lastly, Defendant contends it produced all the loan documents. See Mot. 1 at 4. Relator

6

challenges this characterization by pointing out that the single, static PDF Defendant produced for

8

each loan file omits “conversation logs, audit trails, and certain underwriting documents” that are

9

only available on Encompass. See Relator’s Response at 4. Ms. Chavez’s testimony confirms that

10

Defendant’s PDF production only contains documents in an Encompass “eFolder,” which includes

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

7

most, but not all, loan file documents. See Bexley Decl., Ex. A at 148:7–151:3. Relator is entitled

12

to review the entire loan documents to determine whether each loan file contains the FHA-

13

required information and whether each loan is eligible for FHA insurance. See Letter Brief 1 at 2.

14

Defendant’s production was therefore incomplete.
Accordingly, Defendant’s motion for relief from Judge Kim’s August 6 non-dispositive

15
16

pretrial order is DENIED because the order is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law.

17

Moreover, for the same reasons, Judge Kim’s order of monetary sanctions was proper.

18

III.

RELATOR’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM AMENDED

19

CASE MANAGEMENT AND PRETRIAL ORDER

20

Relator asks this Court for a six-month continuance of the trial setting and all pretrial

21

deadlines to complete discovery, including completing an underwriter review and deposing

22

Defendant’s underwriters. See Mot. 2 at 4. Despite several meet and confer efforts, Defendant

23

will only agree to a two-month continuance. Id. at 1-2. Trial courts have broad discretion to

24

manage their dockets and can modify their case management orders upon a showing of “good

25

cause,” which considers the moving party’s diligence and any prejudice that will result to the non-

26

moving party. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607, 609 (9th Cir. 1992).

27

Because Defendant does not argue that it will be prejudiced by a six-month delay, the only

28

question is whether there is good cause for it.
4

Case 3:16-cv-02120-EMC Document 271 Filed 09/08/21 Page 5 of 6

Relator has established there is good cause for a continuance because it has been diligent in

1

pursuing discovery. Relator served written discovery requests, conferred with Defendant, and

3

filed multiple joint discovery letter briefs to resolve the disputes. Defendant’s noncompliance

4

with the Federal Rules and with Judge Kim’s multiple orders has obstructed discovery,

5

specifically the production of the full loan files, causing delay. Without production of the loan

6

files in a usable format, Relator’s counsel cannot prepare to depose Defendant’s underwriters, nor

7

can they complete their own underwriting review. See Mot. 2 at 4. It is Defendant’s

8

noncompliance, not Relator’s lack of diligence, that has made it impossible for Relator to

9

complete non-expert discovery by the current deadline of September 23, 2021. See July 7 Order;

10

Order. Given the sheer volume of documents to be produced and the time it takes to review those

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

2

documents, a six-month continuance is appropriate.
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Relator’s administrative motion for a six-month

12
13

continuance of the trial setting and all pretrial deadlines, as follows:

14

17
18
19
20
21
22

9/26/2022

Pretrial Conference

8/30/2022

Objections

8/16/2022

Joint pretrial statement

8/9/2022

Meet and Confer

7/19/2022

Last Day to Hear Dispositive Motions

6/16/2022

Last Day to File Dispositive Motions

5/12/2022

Expert Discovery Close

5/5/2022
4/14/2022

Expert Disclosure / Non-expert Discovery

16

Trial

Rebuttal Expert Disclosure

15

3/24/2022

23
24
25
26

IV.

CONCLUSION

27

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Defendant’s motion for relief from

28

Magistrate Judge Kim’s August 6 non-dispositive order and GRANTS Relator’s administrative
5

Case 3:16-cv-02120-EMC Document 271 Filed 09/08/21 Page 6 of 6

1

motion for a six month-continuance of trial and pre-trial deadlines. Defendant shall comply with

2

Judge Kim’s order by September 24, 2021. Relator shall submit to Judge Kim its attorneys’ fees

3

declaration by September 27, 2021. Defendant’s challenge thereto as to amount shall be filed by

4

October 7, 2021.

5

This order disposes of Docket Nos. 257 and 263.

6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
9

Dated: September 8, 2021

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

______________________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6