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)

Download PDF
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?