Henry et al v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC et al
Filing
47
ORDER denying 39 Joint Motion for Determination of Discovery No. 2 as to Requests 1-21, 27, 31-33, 34-36, 39-41, 43-45. As to the remaining requests, the Court ORDERS the parties to meaningfully meet and confer. If they have not already been pro duced, the confidential servicing notes that Defendant represented would be produced under a protective order must be produced by no later than May 1, 2018. Plaintiffs request for an award of attorneys fees is DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nita L. Stormes on 4/17/2018. (gac)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
ATLEY HENRY, LAURA HENRY,
Case No.: 3:17-cv-688-JM-NLS
Plaintiff,
12
13
v.
14
ORDER ON JOINT MOTION FOR
DETERMINATION OF DISCOVERY
DISPUTE NO. 2
OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, et
al.,
15
[ECF No. 39]
Defendants.
16
17
Before the Court is the parties’ Joint Motion for Determination of Discovery
18
19
Dispute No. 2. ECF No. 39. Plaintiff Laura Henry (“Plaintiff”) moves to compel
20
additional documents from defendant Ocwen Loan Serving, LLC (“Defendant”). Id. at 1.
21
22
I.
BACKGROUND
This case arises from a home loan modification and alleges breach of contract and
23
violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, Fair Debt Collection Act, and similar state
24
statutes. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff propounded Requests for Production of Documents on
25
December 20, 2017. ECF No. 39 at 3. Defendant requested and was given an extension
26
of time to respond, until February 21, 2018. Id. at 8. As the deadline for responses drew
27
closer, Defendant requested an additional extension, which Plaintiff at first appeared to
28
be agreeable to and then clearly denied as of February 19, two days prior to the response
1
3:17-cv-688-JM-NLS
1
deadline. Id. Defendant timely provided initial responses on February 21, 2018 that
2
contained objections only and did not include a document production at that time. Id.
3
Plaintiff’s counsel began the meet and confer process, and Defendant agreed to produce
4
documents by March 16, 2018. Id. at 4-5. On March 13, 2018, Defendant produced
5
upwards of 1500 pages of documents as well as supplemental responses.1 Id. at 5, 9.
6
Plaintiff reviewed the production and prepared its portion of the Joint Motion.
7
ECF No. 39 at 5. Defendant argues Plaintiff failed to properly meet and confer following
8
Defendant’s supplemental responses and production, but nonetheless prepared its portion
9
of the Joint Motion. Id. at 10.
10
It is clear to the Court after reviewing the Joint Motion and Joint Statement (Ex. A)
11
that Plaintiff did not adequately meet and confer following Defendant’s supplemental
12
responses and production. However, it also not clear to the Court that ordering a further
13
meet and confer will be productive for most of the requests, and so addresses Plaintiff’s
14
arguments.
15
II.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff’s motion to compel identifies four issues as problematic, paraphrased as
16
17
follows: (1) the responses provided did not identify which documents were responsive to
18
which request; (2) documents were withheld pending entry of a protective order; (3)
19
documents contained redactions without explanation; and (4) no privilege log was
20
provided. ECF No. 39 at 2. Plaintiff does not dispute that 1500 pages of responsive
21
documents were produced. Id. at 5.
22
A. Defendant’s Responses
23
Plaintiff argues Defendant’s responses are deficient because they do not correlate
24
responsive documents to specific requests. ECF No. 39 at 12. Defendant correctly points
25
26
27
28
1
Defendant withheld some documents subject to entry of a protective order. Id. at 9. Since the time the
parties submitted this joint motion, the Court has entered a protective order. ECF No. 44. It is not clear
whether Defendant has since produced the documents withheld until a protective order was in place.
2
3:17-cv-688-JM-NLS
1
to Rule 34’s disjunctive nature: documents may be produced as they are ordinarily kept
2
or corresponding to the categories of the request. ECF No. 39 at 17. Particularly in light
3
of the limited scope of this case, and relatively small number of documents involved, the
4
Court sees no reason (and Plaintiff points to none) that Defendant should be compelled to
5
identify precisely which documents are responsive to each request.
6
B. Privilege Log and Redactions
7
Plaintiff argues—in only its introduction—that no privilege log was provided and
8
that redactions were made to documents without production of privilege log. ECF No. 39
9
at 2-3. As to the matter of a privilege log, Defendant responds that no documents were
10
withheld on the grounds of privilege so no privilege log is necessary. Plaintiff fails to
11
show any reasonable basis to believe otherwise responsive documents were withheld on
12
the basis of privilege and so fails to satisfy her burden. There is nothing left to compel.
13
As to the redactions, Defendant also explains that redactions were made solely to
14
“confidential information, such as portions of the loan number, social security numbers
15
and birth dates, which it routinely redacts for confidentiality purposes and for ease of use
16
of the Bate[s] stamped documents in public filings and trial.” Id. at 6. Plaintiff argues
17
that a privilege log is necessary for Plaintiff to evaluate what privilege or confidentiality
18
is being asserted and whether that assertion is proper. ECF No. 39 at 3.
19
The Court will not require a redaction log for the redaction of plainly confidential
20
information such as account numbers, social security numbers, birthdates or addresses.
21
Not only is redaction of this information responsible, it is common practice and brings
22
the documents into compliance with the Southern District’s ECF Policies and Procedures,
23
§1.h (“…parties must refrain from including, or must partially redact where inclusion is
24
necessary, the following personal identifiers from all pleadings and documents filed with
25
the court, including exhibits thereto: 1. Social Security numbers … 4. Financial account
26
numbers … 5. Home address….”). Moreover, where these documents were produced to
27
Plaintiff prior to the time a protective order was place, the redaction of confidential
28
information is particularly appropriate. However, if Plaintiff has a good faith reason to
3
3:17-cv-688-JM-NLS
1
believe the redactions included information other than “confidential information, such as
2
portions of the loan number, social security numbers and birth dates” as the Defendant
3
suggests, the Plaintiff must, in writing, (1) identify by Bates stamp number the
4
redaction(s) in question, (2) clearly articulate the good faith basis for any belief that other
5
than confidential information was redacted. Upon receipt of any challenge, Defendant is
6
ORDERED to meet and confer regarding that content and to settle the dispute may re-
7
produce any challenged documents under the protective order.
8
C. Document Requests
9
Plaintiff’s motion purports to move to compel additional documents in response to
10
nearly every request issued (Nos. 1-27, 31-36, 38-45), but does not identify any
11
documents or categories of documents believed to be withheld or missing in response to
12
any requests, apart from those that Defendant indicated would be produced subject to a
13
protective order.
14
Defendant responds that all relevant documents have been produced, or would be
15
under a protective order. See ECF No. 39 at 16 (“Ocwen’s production included its
16
communications with Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs’ counsel, the Consumer Financial Protection
17
Bureau, a copy of its title insurance policy, the loan documents, recorded documents and
18
credit reports on Plaintiffs”).
19
Plaintiff’s portion of the Joint Statement for each request simply argues that each
20
request seeks relevant documents. See ECF No. 39, Ex. A. Defendant’s responses
21
largely fall into three categories: First, that Defendant has produced responsive
22
documents and the motion to compel is moot. See ECF No. 39 Ex. A, (Requests 1-21,
23
27, 31-33). The second category of responses points to a potential confusion between a
24
Better Business Bureau complaint, for which Defendant states it was unable to locate any
25
responsive documents, and a complaint with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau,
26
for which documents were produced. ECF No. 39 Ex. A, (Requests 34-36, 39-41, 43-
27
45). The third and final category of responses largely indicate that some documents were
28
4
3:17-cv-688-JM-NLS
1
produced, and confidential servicing notes would be produced under a protective order.
2
See ECF No. 39 Ex. A, (Request Nos. 22-26, 38, 42).
3
For those requests that fall into the first category, Defendant produced documents
4
in response to Plaintiff’s requests. Plaintiff does not satisfactorily identify any basis to
5
believe the production was incomplete or inadequate. Plaintiff’s motion to compel is
6
DENIED as to Requests 1-21, 27, 31-33.
7
For the requests in the second category, Defendant represents that it searched for
8
documents related to a Better Business Bureau complaint and was unable to locate any.
9
Defendant also represents it produced documents reflecting a Consumer Financial
10
Protection complaint. It appears there is nothing left to compel. Having searched for and
11
found no documents relating to the Better Business Bureau, Defendant properly produced
12
the documents it believed to be the target of the request. Plaintiff’s motion to compel is
13
DENIED as to Requests 34-36, 39-41, 43-45.
14
As to the remaining requests in the third category, Requests 22-26, 38, 42, for
15
which additional responsive documents may have been produced under the protective
16
order, the Court ORDERS the parties to meaningfully meet and confer regarding any
17
supplemental production since the entry of a protective order. If they have not already
18
been produced, the confidential servicing notes that Defendant represented would be
19
produced under a protective order must be produced by no later than May 1, 2018. It
20
appears likely to the Court that production of documents under the protective order
21
renders the remaining requests in this category moot as well. However, if following the
22
meet and confer, Plaintiff is able to identify a document or category of documents
23
missing or believed to be missing from Defendant Ocwen’s production, Plaintiff may file
24
a supplemental brief identifying (1) which of these specific document request is at issue,
25
(2) what responsive documents or type of documents that have not been produced; and
26
(3) the basis for any belief that those documents exist in Defendant’s possession, custody,
27
and control and were not produced.
28
5
3:17-cv-688-JM-NLS
1
D. Attorneys’ Fees
2
Plaintiff’s request for an award of attorneys’ fees is DENIED.
3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
4
Dated: April 17, 2018
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6
3:17-cv-688-JM-NLS
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?