Bias et al v. Wells Fargo & Company et al

Filing 111

ORDER RE: THIRD PARTY VENDOR SUBPOENAS SERVED BY PLAINTIFFS. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 1/29/2014. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/29/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14

LATARA BIAS, ERIC BREAUX, and
NAN WHITE-PRICE, individually, and on
behalf of other members of the general
public similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
vs.

15
16
17

WELLS FARGO & COMPANY, a
Delaware corporation, and WELLS
FARGO BANK, N.A., a national
association,

18

Case Number: 4:12-cv-00664-YGR
CLASS ACTION
[PROPOSED] ORDER RE: THIRD
PARTY VENDOR SUBPOENAS
SERVED BY PLAINTIFFS
Judge:
Action Filed:
Trial Date:

Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers
February 10, 2012
None Set

Defendants.

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case No. 4:12-cv-00664-YGR
07685.1127/3089723.1

ORDER RE: THIRD PARTY VENDOR SUBPOENAS SERVED BY PLAINTIFFS

1

On January 24, 2014, at 3:30 pm, this Court held a telephonic hearing on the Joint

2

Letter Brief dated January 14, 2014 (Dkt. 69) (the “Joint Letter Brief”) submitted in Ellis

3

et al. v. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. et al., (N.D. Cal. Case No. 4:12-cv-03897-YGR by

4

Plaintiffs Diana Ellis, James Schillinger, and Ronald Lazar (“Plaintiffs”) and Defendants

5

JPMorgan Chase & Co., JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (“Chase Defendants”) pursuant to

6

Rule 8.b of this Court’s Standing Order in Civil Cases. The Joint Letter Brief addressed

7

discovery disputes regarding the 26 subpoenas served by Plaintiffs in the Ellis action

8

during the weeks of December 9 and 16, 2013 on third party vendors (“Subpoenaed Third

9

Parties”). Daniel Alberstone and Roland Tellis of Baron & Budd, P.C., and David

10

Parsiola and Andrew Cvitanovic of Cossich, Sumich, Parsiola & Taylor LLC and Charles

11

Colvin of Kingsmill Riess, LLC, appeared on behalf of Plaintiffs. Peter Obstler and Jee

12

Young You of Arnold & Porter, LLP appeared on behalf of Defendants. Also on the call

13

was Rebecca Snavely Saelao of Severson & Werson on behalf of Wells Fargo &

14

Company and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., defendants (“Wells Fargo Defendants”) in this

15

action.1
After reviewing the Joint Letter Brief, as well as “Exhibit A” to the subpoena

16
17

served on one of the Chase Defendants’ vendors that was attached to the Chase

18

Defendants’ separate letter of that same date (Dkt. 70), and which is identical to the 21

19

subpoenas served in December 2013 by Plaintiffs on the Wells Fargo Defendants’

20

vendors in this action , and considering the oral arguments of counsel, the Court rules as

21

follows:

22

1.

For purposes of clarity, “Exhibit A” is attached to this Order.

23

2.

The Court shall pursue a phased approach in addressing the parties’ disputes

24

concerning these third party vendor subpoenas. For the first phase (“Phase

25

I”) the Court limits the scope of the subpoenas as specified in this Order, but

26
27
28

1

On January 24, 2014, the Wells Fargo Defendants filed a partial joinder to the Joint Letter Brief, joining
in Sections 1 and 2 of the Joint Letter Brief.
Case No. 4:12-cv-00664-YGR
07685.1127/3089723.1

ORDER RE: THIRD PARTY VENDOR SUBPOENAS SERVED BY PLAINTIFFS

1

may reconsider its ruling as referenced below at a later date. The Court may

2

hold another hearing after Phase I, and may implement a “Phase II” relating

3

to the third party vendor subpoenas.

4

3.

Request Nos. 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 14 shall be complied with as drafted,

5

using the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD as defined in the subpoenas, and

6

without any limitation concerning the type of default-related service. To

7

address issues of privacy, any production pursuant to the requests for

8

“EXEMPLARY SAMPLING” shall be produced subject to redactions of

9

non-public, private, and identifying information of the borrowers.

10

4.

During this initial phase, Request Nos. 2, 3, and 4 shall be limited to

11

documents pertaining to broker’s price opinions, appraisals and property

12

inspections only, using the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD as defined in the

13

subpoenas. The phrase “default-related services” is stricken from Requests

14

Nos. 2, 3, and 4 during this phase. If a document produced in response to

15

these requests mentions multiple default-related services, however, it must be

16

produced in its entirety without redaction. The Court may reconsider its

17

ruling on these requests at a later date.

18

5.

Request Nos. 12 and 13 are overbroad as drafted and, therefore, the

19

subpoenaed parties are not required at this time to produce any documents in

20

response during this phase.

21

6.

Plaintiffs shall, if they have not already done so, serve an interrogatory on

22

each of the Defendants in the related actions, asking them to identify all

23

default-related services for which borrowers’ accounts are charged by

24

Defendants. Defendants shall fully respond to that interrogatory.

25

7.

Once Defendants have fully responded to the interrogatory referenced in

26

paragraph 7 above and the Subpoenaed Third Parties have produced all

27

documents consistent with the Court’s Order above, the parties shall meet

28
Case No. 4:12-cv-00664-YGR
07685.1127/3089723.1

ORDER RE: THIRD PARTY VENDOR SUBPOENAS SERVED BY PLAINTIFFS

1

and confer and determine whether further Court intervention is

2

required.

3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5
6

Dated: January 29, 2014
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case No. 4:12-cv-00664-YGR
07685.1127/3089723.1

ORDER RE: THIRD PARTY VENDOR SUBPOENAS SERVED BY PLAINTIFFS