Gilbert v. Bank of America, N.A. et al
Filing
340
Discovery Order regarding Interrogatory number 13 and the timing of pending discovery. (Beeler, Laurel) (Filed on 7/21/2016)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
San Francisco Division
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
SEAN L. GILBERT, et al.,
Case No. 13-cv-01171-JSW (LB)
Plaintiffs,
13
v.
DISCOVERY ORDER
14
15
MONEYMUTUAL, LLC, et al.,
Re: ECF No. 338
Defendants.
16
17
Interrogatory number 12 asks for the amount of money paid by each lender to Selling Source
18
during the class period. At the June 21 hearing, Selling Source’s counsel described its platform for
19
selling leads to lenders. It is an auction platform where lenders bid on “leads” and pay a per-lead
20
dollar amount (such as $50); the lenders then use the leads to sell loans and may or may not
21
consummate a loan to a lead. Selling Source produced its contracts with the lenders, the leads sold
22
to the lenders, and the sales amounts for the leads. This is sufficient.
23
The plaintiff essentially asked Selling Source to do the math. Apparently the information was
24
produced in native-format spreadsheets. Selling Source said that its other records are (essentially)
25
invoices to lenders that would have a total amount due for a particular time period, regardless of
26
where the leads are located. An invoice thus would cover all sales of all leads in all states and
27
would not be specific to California. The court agrees with Selling Source that this information is
28
overbroad and is not readily capable of being parsed out to capture only California class members.
ORDER (No. 13-cv-01171-JSW)
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?