Spears et al v. Washington Mutual, Inc. et al

Filing 318

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd re 302 Discovery Dispute Joint Report No. 2. EA's requests granted in part and denied in part. (hrllc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/1/2013)

1
2

*E-FILED: August 1, 2013*

3
4
5
6
NOT FOR CITATION

8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

7

12

FELTON A. SPEARS, JR. and SIDNEY
SCHOLL, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated,

13
14
15
16
17

No. C08-00868 RMW (HRL)
ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTE
JOINT REPORT NO. 2

Plaintiffs,

[Re: Docket No. 302]

v.
FIRST AMERICAN EAPPRAISEIT (a/k/a
eAppraiseIT, LLC), a Delaware limited liability
company,
Defendant.
/

18
19

Plaintiffs sue for themselves and on behalf of a certified class of “[a]ll consumers in

20

California and throughout the United States who, on or after June 1, 2006, received home loans

21

from Washington Mutual Bank, FA in connection with appraisals that were obtained through

22

eAppraiseIT.” They claim that defendants engaged a scheme to inflate the appraised values of

23

homes receiving loans in order to sell the aggregated security interests at inflated prices. First

24

American EAppraiseIT (EA) is the only defendant left. This court is told that plaintiffs’ sole

25

remaining claim for relief is that the complained-of conduct violates the Real Estate Settlement

26

Practices Act (RESPA), 12 U.S.C. § 2607(a).

27

In Discovery Dispute Joint Report (DDJR) No. 2, EA seeks an order compelling

28

plaintiffs to further respond to Request for Admission (RFA) No. 1 and to supplement their Fed.

1

R. Civ. P. 26(a) disclosures. EA also seeks leave to propound three additional interrogatories

2

beyond the presumptive 25-interrogatory limit.

3

EA’s Request for Admission No. 1 asks plaintiffs to “[a]dmit that, according to You,

4

there was a single conspiracy between WAMU, EA and LSI to inflate the appraised value of

5

property underlying Your mortgage loans.” (Dkt. No. 302-1, DDJR No. 2, Ex. 1). Pointing out

6

that Judge Whyte previously found that their complaint described two parallel conspiracies (one

7

between EA and Washington Mutual and another between previous defendant Lenders

8

Services, Inc. and Washington Mutual), plaintiffs responded by saying that they had no

9

information beyond their complaint’s allegations that would enable them to admit or deny the
subject matter of the request. Defendant has not convincingly demonstrated that plaintiffs’

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

response is improper. EA’s request for an order compelling a further response is denied.

12

EA requests permission to serve three additional interrogatories on plaintiff Spears

13

asking for the identities of all persons who knew about, agreed to, and participated in the

14

alleged conspiracy. The court may grant leave to serve additional interrogatories to the extent

15

consistent with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2). FED. R. CIV. P. 33(a)(1). EA’s proposed new

16

interrogatories are duplicative of prior interrogatories served on both plaintiffs. (Dkt. No. 302-

17

1, DDJR No. 2, Exs. 4-5). EA’s request therefore is denied.

18

In their Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a) disclosures, plaintiffs listed “Members of the certified

19

class” as persons with knowledge that they may use to support their claim. (Dkt. No. 302-1,

20

DDJR No. 2, Ex. 3). Pointing out that the certified class could include over 230,000

21

individuals, EA requests an order requiring plaintiffs to specifically identify members of the

22

class that they will use to support their claim. Plaintiffs say that they listed “Members of the

23

certified class” as potential witnesses because they may have to send out a questionnaire to

24

determine whether some people actually are class members. The court does not understand why

25

that would preclude plaintiffs from identifying specific class members that they know about

26

now. EA’s request therefore is granted as follows: Within 14 days from the date of this order,

27

plaintiffs shall serve supplemental disclosures identifying specific class members, if any, that

28
2

1
2
3

they know about now and may use to support their claim.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 1, 2013

4
HOWARD R. LLOYD
5

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

6
7
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3

1

5:08-cv-00868-RMW Notice has been electronically mailed to:

2

Allison Lauren Libeu [e-mail]
Alvin Matthew Ashley [e-mail], [e-mail]
Angela M. Papalaskaris [e-mail], [e-mail]
Christopher J Clark [e-mail]
David A. Super [e-mail]
Ellen Mary M. Doyle [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
Gretchen Freeman Cappio [e-mail], [e-mail]
Harry Williams , IV [e-mail]
Janet Lindner Spielberg [e-mail]
Joel R. Hurt [e-mail]
John C. Hueston [e-mail]
John Charles Hueston [e-mail], [e-mail]
Jonathan Mark Lloyd [e-mail], [e-mail]
Joseph N. Kravec , Jr [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
Justin Nathanael Owens [e-mail]
Kevin C Wallace [e-mail]
Kris Hue Chau Man [e-mail], [e-mail]
Lynn Lincoln Sarko [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail]
Margaret Anne Keane [e-mail], [e-mail]
Martin L. Fineman [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
Michael D. Braun [e-mail], [e-mail]
Ryan E. Bull [e-mail]
Sam N. Dawood [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail]
Stephen M. Ng [e-mail], [e-mail]
Stephen Michael Rummage [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail]
Sung-Min Christopher Yoo [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail]
Wyatt A. Lison [e-mail], [e-mail]

3
4
5
6
7
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

4