Pinel v. Aurora Loan Services LLC

Filing 191

ORDER re 189 Joint Discovery Letter Brief filed by Deogeneso Palugod, Alice Chao, Mauder Chao, Maritz Pinel, Glorina Palugod. Signed by Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler on 3/18/2013. (ls, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/18/2013)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 Northern District of California 10 San Francisco Division MARITZA PINEL, et al., 12 For the Northern District of California UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 Plaintiffs, No. C 10-03118 SBA (LB) ORDER v. 13 AURORA LOAN SERVICES, LLC, 14 15 16 Defendant. _____________________________________/ The parties have a discovery dispute about whether Plaintiffs should be able to depose Aurora a 17 second time about regarding the storage, tracking, and production of data regarding the loan files 18 and servicing history of putative class members, including how foreclosure status is tracked and 19 communicated. See Joint Letter Brief, ECF No. 189 at 1 & Ex. A. 20 More specifically, Aurora responded to interrogatories with spreadsheets of data concerning the 21 class member loans, and on August 29 and 30, 2012, Plaintiffs deposed Aurora. The issue is 22 whether Plaintiffs should get a second Rule 30(b)(6) deposition because Aurora provided 23 replacement spreadsheets with new data and fields on October 20, 2012, November 1, 2012, January 24 7, 2013, and January 17, 2013, which was the final spreadsheet. Plaintiffs characterizes the 25 productions as "different" and the January 7 production as "materially" different. Id. 26 Aurora argues that at least some topics can be answered in writing (such as the identity of the 27 person who created the spread sheets, the date and location of creation, and similar inquiries). Id. 28 (referencing Ex. A, topics 1-5 and 9-10). Plaintiffs responded that the spreadsheets are so different ORDER C 10-03118 SBA (LB) 1 that they ought to get a chance to ask about the data (pointing to topic 4 as an example). The court 2 ruled that it was not going to foreclose a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition given Plaintiffs’ representations 3 about how different the spreadsheets were. The process will begin, however, with Aurora’s 4 providing written answers. 5 As to topics 6 and 7, those seek information about the types of data associated with a borrower. 6 Aurora does not dispute the relevance but says that Plaintiffs previously asked for specific categories 7 of information, and Aurora produced it that way. Now, Aurora said, Plaintiffs are asking for 8 information in topics 6 and 7 that they never asked for before. At least on this record, the court 9 concludes that Aurora’s compromise of providing the answers in writing makes sense. As to topics 12 and 13, Plaintiffs narrowed the topics by adding the words “in your electronic 12 For the Northern District of California The parties are working out topic 11 themselves. 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 data systems” after the words “What terms YOU used” in topic 12 and “How YOU tracked” in topic 13 13. With that narrowing, for the same reasons that apply to topics 6 and 7, Aurora’s written answers 14 are sufficient on this record. 15 As to topic 14, the words “How YOU communicated with outside vendors through your 16 electronic data systems” should be substituted for “How YOU provided,” and Aurora may provide 17 written responses about the electronic captures. To the extent that the issue is about whether this 18 area of inquiry was adequately captured in the notice for the first deposition of Aurora (and whether 19 Aurora shut down the line of inquiry), that issue was not captured in the current discovery letter 20 brief. The parties should meet and confer and file a separate letter brief, but they should do so after 21 Aurora provides its written responses. Plaintiffs may reassert their “utility-and-no-burden- 22 outweigh-policies-against-second-30(b)(6)-depositions” arguments in that second letter brief too. 23 At least at this point, however, the court is contemplating a second Rule 30(b)(6) deposition only on 24 new information conveyed in the updated databases. The court expects that the process in this order 25 should narrow the topics and shorten any deposition. 26 27 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 18, 2013 28 ORDER C 10-03118 SBA (LB) _______________________________ LAUREL BEELER United States Magistrate Judge 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?