Appel et al v. Boston National Title Agency, LLC
Filing
68
ORDER denying Plaintiffs' 57 Motion for Reconsideration re 30 Order on Motion for Discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin on 4/30/2019. (jah)
1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
6
7
HOWARD APPEL, DAVID COHEN,
KEE PARTNERS, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company,
8
9
10
11
12
Case No.: 18-cv-0873-BAS-MDD
ORDER DENYING MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION
Plaintiffs,
v.
[ECF NO. 57]
BOSTON NATIONAL TITLE
AGENCY, LLC, a Florida limited
liability company,
Defendant.
13
14
15
Presently before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration of
16
this Court’s January 14, 2019 Order. (ECF No. 57). Also before the Court is
17
Defendant Boston National’s Opposition to the Motion. (ECF No. 66). The
18
Court finds this Motion suitable for determination on the papers without oral
19
argument. See Civ. L.R. 7.1(d)(1). For the reasons stated below, this Court
20
DENIES Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration.
21
22
I.
BACKGROUND
This case involves Plaintiffs’ deposit of a total of $285,000 into an
23
escrow account maintained by Defendant in connection with a real estate
24
transaction. The transaction was not consummated. Plaintiffs assert that
25
Defendant delayed returning and possibly misused the escrow funds.
26
Ultimately, the escrow deposits were refunded.
27
On January 14, 2019, the Court issued an order denying Plaintiffs’
1
18-cv-0873-BAS-MDD
1
motion to compel the production of Defendant’s unredacted escrow account
2
records. (ECF No. 30) (“the Order”). Plaintiffs filed objections to the Order
3
with the District Judge on January 25, 2019. (ECF No. 31). On February 20,
4
2019, in a related case, Plaintiffs also filed objections to this Court’s order
5
quashing a subpoena for the same unredacted escrow account records. (See
6
18-cv-2617, ECF No. 24). In support of the objections in the related case,
7
Plaintiffs provided two expert witness declarations. (Id.). The District Judge
8
struck the expert declarations because they were not presented to this Court.
9
(Id. at ECF No. 26). In lieu of ruling on the objections without the
10
declarations, the District Judge allowed Plaintiffs to file a motion for
11
reconsideration with this Court. (Id.). Plaintiffs filed this Motion for
12
Reconsideration on April 8, 2019 without the expert witness declarations.
13
(ECF No. 57). Defendant filed its opposition to the motion on April 19, 2019.
14
(ECF No. 66).
15
II.
LEGAL STANDARD
16
District courts may entertain a motion for reconsideration of an
17
interlocutory order at any time before entry of final judgment. See FED. R.
18
CIV. P. 54(b), 59(e); Amarel v. Connell, 102 F.3d 1494, 1515 (9th Cir. 1996).
19
To determine the merits of a request to reconsider an interlocutory order, the
20
court applies the standard required under a Rule 59(e) reconsideration
21
motion. See Hydranautics v. FilmTec Corp., 306 F.Supp.2d 958, 968 (S.D.
22
Cal. 2003). Reconsideration is an “extraordinary remedy, to be used
23
sparingly.” Kona Enter., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir.
24
2000). Reconsideration may be appropriate where: (1) the movant presents
25
newly discovered evidence; (2) the Court committed clear error or the initial
26
decision was manifestly unjust; or (3) an intervening change in controlling
27
law has occurred. Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty. V. ACandS, Inc., 5
2
18-cv-0873-BAS-MDD
1
F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993).
2
A party seeking reconsideration must show more than a disagreement
3
with the court's decision. To succeed, a party must set forth facts or law of a
4
strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior decision.
5
Cancino-Casteller v. Nielsen, 338 F. Supp. 3d 1107, 1110 (S.D. Cal. 2018); see
6
also Jones v. AeroChem Corp., 921 F.2d 875, 878 (9th Cir. 1990).
7
Recapitulation of arguments already considered by the court fails to carry the
8
moving party’s burden to show reconsideration is warranted. See Salem v.
9
FDIC for La Jolla Bank, FSB, No. 15-cv-1114, 2017 WL 1375616 at *2 (S.D.
10
Cal. 2017).
11
III. DISCUSSION
12
A. Summary of the Dispute
13
Since this dispute first arose, Plaintiffs have argued that they require
14
“completely unredacted” copies of Defendant’s escrow account records. (See,
15
e.g., ECF No. 29 at 5). Defendant demonstrated that the escrow account in
16
question was the repository of escrow funds for many customers and reflects
17
details of their identities and transactions. It appears undisputed that
18
Defendants have provided or offered multiple versions of the redacted
19
records. (ECF No. 29 at 5-6; ECF No. 66 at 9).
20
In the Court’s Order, it found that Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that
21
the redacted identities and transaction details of third party customers whose
22
funds were deposited in the escrow account were relevant to this litigation.
23
(ECF No. 30 at 4-5). The Court noted that Defendant provided Plaintiffs with
24
redacted statements demonstrating there were sufficient funds in the escrow
25
account every day to cover Plaintiffs’ deposits. (Id.). The Court also reasoned
26
that “the money in the account was fungible[, with] [o]nly accounting entries .
27
. . to identify customers’ deposits, transfers and refunds.” (Id.). Thus, the
3
18-cv-0873-BAS-MDD
1
Court concluded that there was “no conceivable connection between
2
identifying other customers and their transactions to Plaintiffs’ claims.” (Id.).
In this motion to reconsider, Plaintiffs repeat the arguments they have
3
4
already made to this Court. That is, they require “completely unredacted”
5
copies of the escrow account records. To support their motion, Plaintiffs
6
identify new evidence including: (1) two expert witness declarations;1 and (2)
7
declarations and deposition testimony of two Boston National employees.
8
Defendants oppose the motion because: (1) it is untimely;2 (2) fails to include
9
supporting declarations or other evidence; and (3) fails to present any new
10
argument as to the relevance of the redacted third party confidential
11
financial information.
B. Analysis
12
The burden is on the movant to establish that reconsideration is
13
14
warranted. Plaintiffs must not only identify new evidence that was not
15
previously available, but they must also demonstrate why that new evidence
16
should cause the court to reverse its prior decision. See Cancino-Casteller,
17
338 F.Supp.3d at 1110. In the Order, the Court determined that the
18
identities of other customers whose funds were deposited in the escrow
19
account and the disclosure of details of those transactions is simply not
20
relevant. As discussed in further detail below, the new declarations do not
21
address the relevance of the third party information to this litigation.
22
23
24
25
26
27
The Court notes that the expert declarations were not filed with this motion. Plaintiffs
provided ECF references to the purported declarations in a related case. However, those
documents were stricken from the record by Judge Bashant. Therefore, the Court had
nothing to review in support of this motion. In the interests of efficiency, the Court
endeavored to search for and found the declarations through other filings and will consider
the motion on the merits.
2 The Court granted until April 8. 2019 to file the Motion to Reconsider. It is timely. (ECF
No. 50).
1
4
18-cv-0873-BAS-MDD
1
Consequently, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs do not present facts of a
2
strongly convincing nature that demonstrate why the new evidence should
3
cause the Court to reverse its prior order. See id.
4
5
1. Expert Witness Declarations
Plaintiffs retained Brian Bergmark and John Cavin as expert witnesses
6
to analyze the escrow account records. Both experts provided brief
7
declarations stating they need to review “unredacted records.” (See 18-cv-
8
2617, ECF Nos. 26-1, 26-2). Plaintiffs argue these new declarations require
9
the Court to compel the production of “completely unredacted records.” (ECF
10
11
No. 57-1 at 13).
The Court carefully reviewed the expert declarations. Mr. Bergmark
12
states he needs a complete accounting of the monies held during the period at
13
issue. He states that “[i]n order to determine if [Defendants] held the
14
entirety of Plaintiffs’ escrow funds during the period at issue, it is not
15
sufficient to simply show that Boston National maintained a balance in
16
excess of Plaintiffs’ escrow funds. [Defendants] must maintain a balance
17
sufficient to cover not only Plaintiffs’ escrow funds, but all other customers’
18
escrow funds.” (ECF No. 57-1 at 7; see 18-cv-2617, ECF No. 26-1). Similarly,
19
Mr. Cavin declared that he “reviewed the redacted bank statements . . . and
20
was unable to determine whether [Defendant] had distributed any of
21
Plaintiffs’ funds to any other party . . . because the summary information
22
that remained unredacted does not show the transaction-level detail
23
necessary to make that determination.” (See 18-cv-2617, ECF No. 26-2).
24
The Court disagrees with Plaintiffs contention that the declarations
25
support the need for “completely unredacted” account records. Both experts
26
agree that they require transaction level detail about the monies deposited
27
and disbursed from the account. They do not explain or claim to need
5
18-cv-0873-BAS-MDD
1
information on the identities of any third parties, which is the information at
2
issue in this dispute.
3
The Court was not provided with the actual records produced during
4
discovery and during the lengthy meet and confers between the parties. The
5
experts do not explain what version of the records produced by Defendant
6
were reviewed. It is undisputed that Defendant provided Plaintiffs with
7
unredacted account records that include transaction level detail of all
8
transactions relating to Plaintiffs. (ECF No. 66-1 at 3). Defendant also
9
informed the Court that it offered complete transaction level records where
10
only the third party identities and transaction information were redacted and
11
replaced with a “unique identifying moniker for each client.” (Id.).
12
Defendant claims this allows Plaintiffs to see how many different depositors
13
were involved in the account and when, as well as the amounts of each
14
transaction. (Id.). The Court fails to see how this is not the “transaction-
15
level detail” required by the experts.
16
The expert declarations and Plaintiffs’ arguments related to them fail to
17
convince the Court to rethink its prior decision. The expert declarations do
18
not support Plaintiffs’ alleged need for “completely unredacted” records.
19
Plaintiffs’ arguments do not offer an explanation as to the relevance of the
20
challenged information in the records—i.e., the third party information.
21
Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Reconsider on the basis of the expert
22
declarations is denied.
23
24
2. Boston National Employee Declarations
Plaintiffs also argue that the declarations and deposition testimony of
25
Ms. Redfearn and Mr. Lewis require the Court to reverse its Order. (ECF No.
26
57-1 at 13). Plaintiffs argue that Defendants should be compelled to produce
27
copies of the unredacted account records because Ms. Redfearn and Mr. Lewis
6
18-cv-0873-BAS-MDD
1
testified they rely on those documents for daily accounting purposes. (ECF
2
No. 57-1 at 6, n. 4). The Court is unpersuaded by this argument. The third
3
party information in the records relates to Defendant’s own clients. There is
4
no reason for Defendant to use redacted records during the course of its
5
business. The issue is not whether Defendant uses the unredacted records.
6
The issue that Plaintiffs still have not addressed is why the identities of the
7
third parties is relevant to Plaintiffs’ litigation. Because Plaintiffs do not
8
offer new evidence or legal arguments that address this issue, they have
9
failed to meet their burden and the Court will not reconsider its previous
10
11
12
order on the basis of these declarations.
IV.
CONCLUSION
The evidence in support of Plaintiffs motion fails address the relevance
13
of the third party information to the litigation. Moreover, it fails to present
14
any new argument or fact supporting Plaintiffs broad sweeping claims that
15
they require completely unredacted account records. The experts argue that
16
they need transaction level data. It appears to the Court that the redacted
17
copies of the records that were provided or offered during discovery include
18
transaction level data. Because Plaintiffs fail to meet their burden by
19
providing strongly convincing evidence to support their position, the Court is
20
not persuaded to reconsider its prior decision and does not find that the
21
previous order was clearly erroneous. For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’
22
motion to reconsider is DENIED.
23
24
Dated: April 30, 2019
25
26
27
7
18-cv-0873-BAS-MDD
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?