Golden v. BofI Holding, Inc. et al

Filing 337

ORDER Regarding Discovery Disputes. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen S. Crawford on 1/13/22.(dlg)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

In re B of I HOLDING, INC.
SECURITIES LITIGATION

Case No.: 15-cv-2324-GPC-KSC
ORDER REGARDING
DISCOVERY DISPUTES

13
14
15
16
17

Before the Court are discovery disputes concerning plaintiff’s Sixth, Seventh, and

18

Eighth Sets of Requests for Production (“RFPs”) to defendants, which the parties raised

19

with the Court on December 7, 2021 in accordance with the Court’s order that all remaining

20

discovery disputes concerning written discovery be raised by December 10, 2021. Doc.

21

No. 293. The parties appeared in chambers for an in-person meet and confer session on

22

December 20, 2021, during which the Court heard from the parties and gave them

23

preliminary guidance on the disputes. See Doc. No. 327. At the conclusion of the December

24

20, 2021 conference, the Court ordered the parties to return for further meet and confer on

25

January 7, 2022. See id. On January 5, 2022, the parties advised the Court that after

26

continued meet and confer efforts, they had narrowed the outstanding disputes, which

27

comprised six broad categories, and that they had exhausted their meet and confer efforts

28

///
1
15-cv-2324-GPC-KSC

1

with respect to these remaining disputes. 1 The Court construed the parties’ dispute as a

2

Motion to Compel further responses to the disputed RFPs and held argument on the motion

3

on January 7, 2022. The Court then delivered an oral ruling on the Motion to Compel on

4

January 13, 2022. This Order follows.

5

ORDER

6

Having reviewed the disputed discovery and considered the parties’ arguments, and

7

for the reasons stated during the January 13, 2022 hearing, the Court hereby ORDERS

8

that:

9

1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel production of loan files for six types of loans in

10

response to RFPs No. 76, 78, 80, 84, 86 and 87 is DENIED.

11

2. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel production of personnel files for the Confidential

12

Witnesses in response to Request for Production No. 90 is DENIED.

13

3. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel production of transcripts of depositions taken in

14

other litigation involving BofI or its officers in response to Request for

15

Production No. 91 is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Plaintiff’s

16

request for an order compelling defendants to produce the transcript of the

17

deposition of Charles Matthew Erhart (“Erhart”), taken in BofI Federal Bank v.

18

Sofia Cornell, No. 37-2016-00016599-CU-NP-CTL (Cal. Super. Ct.) is

19

GRANTED. Defendants must produce the transcript to plaintiff within 10 days

20

of the date of this Order. Plaintiff’s request for an order compelling production

21

of the depositions of Erhart, Gregory Garrabrants and Daniel Crescitelli, taken in

22

Gregory Garrabrants v. Charles Matthew Erhart, No. 37-2017-00039440-CU-

23

NP-CTL (Cal. Super. Ct.), is DENIED.
4. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel a response to Interrogatory No. 18 is DENIED.

24
25
26
27
28

1

On January 12, 2022, the parties advised the Court that they had resolved their dispute regarding
plaintiff’s Request for Production No. 99 and Interrogatory No. 16 without further assistance from the
Court.
2
15-cv-2324-GPC-KSC

1

5. The parties represent that they have agreed that the Court’s reasoning in resolving

2

the pending motions regarding plaintiff’s subpoenas to third parties [Doc. Nos.

3

305, 318] will extend to their disputes concerning plaintiff’s responses to Request

4

for Production Nos. 89, 92, 93, 94, 95 and 96. The Court will not interfere with

5

the parties’ agreement. The parties are directed to the Court’s rulings on those

6

motions for guidance.

7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8

Dated: January 13, 2022

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
15-cv-2324-GPC-KSC