Sigler v. Chase Manhattan Bank et al

Filing 79

ORDER: denying 58 Motion for Hearing/Conference; granting 72 Motion to Compel. On or before April 18, 2012, the plaintiff shall produce to the defendant all documents and copies of recordings that are responsive to Requests Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, and 9, by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 4/4/12.(bnbcd, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland
Civil Action No. 10-cv-01794-LTB-BNB
CURT ALLEN SIGLER,
Plaintiff,
v.
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK NA,
Defendant.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER
______________________________________________________________________________
This matter arises on the following:
1. Defendant’s Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production [Doc. #72,
filed 03/06/2012] (the “Motion to Compel”); and
2. Defendant’s Motion for Emergency Hearing Compelling an Out of State
Deposition Scheduled for Thursday, January 26, 2012 [Doc. #58, filed 01/24/2012] (the
“Motion for Emergency Hearing”).
The Motion to Compel [Doc. # 72] is GRANTED. The Motion for Emergency Hearing
[Doc. # 58] is DENIED as moot.
MOTION TO COMPEL
“Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any
party’s claim or defense . . . . Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the
discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1).

Although the rules of discovery are broad, they are not unbounded. A party’s right to
obtain discovery “may be constrained where the court determines that the desired discovery is
unreasonable or unduly burdensome given the needs of the case, the importance of the issues at
stake in the litigation, and the importance of the proposed discovery in resolving the issues.”
Simpson v. University of Colorado, 220 F.R.D. 354, 356 (D.Colo. 2004).
“When the discovery sought appears relevant, the party resisting discovery bears the
burden of establishing lack of relevance by demonstrating that the requested discovery either
does not come within the broad scope of relevance as defined under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) or is
of such marginal relevance that the potential harm occasioned by discovery would outweigh the
ordinary presumption in favor of broad disclosure.” Etienne v. Wolverine Tube, Inc., 185 F.R.D.
653, 656-57 (D.Kan. 1999) (internal quotations and citation omitted). “Conversely, when the
request is overly broad on its face or when relevancy is not readily apparent, the party seeking
the discovery has the burden to show the relevancy of the request.” Owens v. Sprint/United
Management Co., 221 F.R.D. 649, 652 (D.Kan. 2004).
On December 8, 2011, the defendant served “Defendant’s First Requests for Production
of Documents to Plaintiff.” Motion to Compel, Ex. A. The plaintiff emailed several documents
to the defendant on January 3, 2012. Id. at Ex. B. The defendant received “Plaintiff’s Response
to Defendant’s Request for Procuction [sic] of Documents” on January 6, 2012. Id. at Ex. C.
The defendant seeks an order compelling the plaintiff to fully respond to Requests Nos. 1, 2, 3,
4, 5, 6, 8, and 9. Motion to Compel, ¶ 14.
The plaintiff is proceeding pro se, and I must liberally construe his pleadings. Haines v.
Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972). I cannot act as advocate for a pro se litigant, however,

2

who must comply with the fundamental requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991).
Request No. 1
The defendant states that the plaintiff has not provided any documents in response to
Request No. 1. Motion to Compel, ¶ 5. Request No. 1 states:
Produce each letter, e-mail, text or any other form of
correspondence or communication, whether sent or received by
you, with Patricia Sigler, now know as Patricia Marchetti,
regarding the cashier’s check at issue in this litigation, including
but not limited to its deposit into an account at a branch of
Defendant’s bank, the distribution of any funds so deposited, and
this lawsuit.
Id. at Ex. A, ¶ 1.
The plaintiff responded to Request No. 1 with the following nonsensical ramble:
Plaintiff can provide all the items requested in #1 of their request
that Plaintiff has possession of except would argue that it must be
limited to deposit into an account at a branch of the Defendant’s
Banks. The matter at hand is a federal question on the illegal
conversion of an instrument. The Defendant’s cannot argue that
they had no duties because of something known or not known at
the time based on something over one (1) year away from
happening. Defendant’s Request for any information about or in
the Divorce is irrelevant and protected by Attorney client privilege,
Attorney-Attorney privilege and husband wife privilege.1
Id. at Ex. C, ¶ 1.
In his deposition (taken almost two months after he served his response to the
defendant’s request for production), the plaintiff admitted that he has documents responsive to
Request No. 1, and he promised to provide them to defendant. Id. at Ex. D, 97:1-98:22. The

1

I have quoted the plaintiff’s papers as written, without correction or acknowledgment of

error.
3

plaintiff does not explain his failure to do so. Plaintiff’s Response to Motion to Compel [Doc.
#75]. To the contrary, plaintiff’s response to the Motion to Compel consists of vague, general
objections; immaterial and impertinent statements; and ad hominem attacks against the
defendant’s counsel and others. For example, the plaintiff states that he “does not have access or
control of many of the things Respondent requests”; “[t]he requests are broad, irrelevant, too farreaching, protected and impeachment evidence Plaintiff may or may not choose to use”; “Mr.
Biscan has repeatedly answered for the Forger and conspired with the forger to lie to this Court”;
“Plaintiff believes that lying to the Court, misleading the Court and withholding information
from the Court to be a tactic that the Court should not allow Court Officers to use.” The
plaintiff’s vague and general objections are insufficient to challenge any particular request for
production. The plaintiff’s use of immaterial and impertinent statements and ad hominem
attacks are intolerable.
Moreover, the plaintiff does not provide a privilege log to support his claim of privilege.
A party resisting discovery based on the attorney-client privilege or work product immunity has
the burden of establishing that the privilege applies. Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co. v. West, 748
F.2d 540, 542 (10th Cir. 1984). Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(5), when a party withholds documents
or other information based on privilege, the party must make the claim expressly and must
“describe the nature of the documents, communications, or tangible things not produced or
disclosed--and do so in a manner that, without revealing information itself privileged or
protected, will enable other parties to assess the claim.”
To satisfy the burden established by Rule 26(b)(5), the party asserting the privilege must
provide a privilege log that describes in detail the documents or information claimed to be

4

privileged and the precise reasons the materials are subject to the privilege asserted. See McCoo
v. Denny’s, Inc. 192 F.R.D. 675, 680 (D.Kan. 2000). The information provided in the privilege
log must be sufficient to enable the court to determine whether each element of the asserted
privilege is satisfied. Id.
In this case, the plaintiff has failed to provide any privilege log from which I can
determine whether the withheld information is subject to a privilege. Request No. 1 is relevant
and/or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and the plaintiff
admits that he has documents responsive to Request No. 1. Therefore, the defendant’s Motion is
granted as to Request No. 1. The plaintiff must produce all documents responsive to this
request.
Request No. 2
The defendant states that although the plaintiff has provided two letters in response to
Request No. 2, he admits that he has additional documents including faxes. Motion to Compel, ¶
6; Ex. D, 98:23-99:5. Request No. 2 requests all correspondences with JP Morgan Chase. Id. at
Ex. A, p. 2, ¶ 2. Request No. 2 is relevant and/or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery
of admissible evidence. The plaintiff did not object to Request No. 2, id. at Ex. 2, ¶ 2, and he
does not explain why he has not produced additional documents that are responsive to Request
No. 2. Plaintiff’s Response to Motion to Compel [Doc. #75].
The defendant’s Motion is granted as to Request No. 2. The plaintiff must produce all
documents responsive to this request.
Request No. 3

5

The defendant states that the plaintiff has refused to produce any documents in response
to Request No. 3 on the basis of relevance. Motion to Compel, ¶ 7 and Ex. C, ¶ 3. Request No. 3
states:
Produce each letter, e-mail, text, or any other form of
correspondence or communication with any other person or entity,
including but not limited to any child, step-child, or other relative
by blood or marriage of yours, Dann Porter, and Guaranty Bank . .
. whether sent or received by you, regarding the cashier’s check at
issue in this litigation, including but not limited to its deposit into
an account at a branch of Defendant’s bank, the distribution of any
funds so deposited, and this lawsuit.
Id. at Ex. A, pp. 2-3, ¶ 3.
The plaintiff objected to the request by stating:
Plaintiff objects to the whole #3, Plaintiff cannot remember
everyone he has spoken to or talked to or not about this Cashier’s
Check Forgery. Plaintiff has talked to many people about many
things one of which could be this check forgery. Whom the
Plaintiff has spoken to about this case or not and what they have
said or not is irrelevant to this case against JP Morgan Chase, NA.
Plaintiff has the freedom of association and would hold that this is
all irrelevant except for Guarantee Bank and Trust which they have
named and they will answer for themselves. Plaintiff has no
contact with Guarantee Bank and trust that Chase does not have
but Plaintiff will find that information and send it.
Id. at Ex. C, ¶ 3.
Subsequently, the plaintiff admitted to possessing documents responsive to Request No.
3, and he promised to provide them to the defendant. Id. at Ex. D, 100:1-104:10. Request No. 3
seeks relevant information and/or information reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence. Therefore, the Motion is granted as to Request No. 3, and the plaintiff shall
produce all documents responsive to Request No. 3.
Request No. 4
6

Request No. 4 seeks “each and every document pertaining to your divorce from Patricia
Sigler, now known as Patricia Marchetti.” Id. at Ex. A, p. 3, ¶ 4. The plaintiff objected to the
request as irrelevant. Id. at Ex. C, ¶ 4. The defendant states that the plaintiff’s filings in this
case are replete with references to the divorce and its financial consequences, and that
documentation of the divorce, including affidavits of financial condition, are relevant. Motion to
Compel, ¶ 8. While the relevance of the information appears tenuous, the scope of discovery is
very broad, and the information may lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The Motion
is granted as to Request No. 4. The plaintiff shall produce all documents responsive to the
request.
Request No. 5
Request No. 5 seeks “copies of every recording of any communication with any
employee, agent, representative, and any person associated in any way with J. P. Morgan Chase
Bank, NA.” Id. at Ex. A, ¶ 5. The plaintiff admits to having two audio recordings and states that
he “is doing everything he can to get a audible copy of this hand electronic recording, but has not
succeeded yet with anything but screeches.” Id, at Ex. C, ¶ 5. The information sought in
Request No. 5 is relevant. Therefore, the Motion is granted as to Request No. 5. The plaintiff
shall produce copies of all recordings that are responsive to Request No. 5.
Request No. 6
Request No. 6 states:
Produce copies of every recording of any communication with
Patricia Sigler, now known as Patricia Marchetti, Dann Porter,2 or
any other person pertaining to the divorce between you and

2

Mr. Porter has acted as an “advisor” to the plaintiff. Scheduling Order [Doc. #48], § 6b.
7

Patricia Sigler, now known as Patricia Marchetti, the cashiers
check at issue in this litigation, the distribution of funds from that
cashier’s check, or this lawsuit.
Id. at Ex. A, ¶ 6.
The plaintiff objected to the request on the ground that the divorce is irrelevant to this
action. Id. at Ex. C, ¶ 6. He states that the forgery in 2008 caused the divorce in 2009, and “the
divorce a listed harm by the plaintiff.” Id.
The information sought in Request No. 6 is relevant and/or reasonably calculated to lead
to the discovery of admissible evidence. Accordingly, the Motion is granted as to Request No. 6,
and the plaintiff shall produce copies of all recordings responsive to the request.
Requests Nos. 8 and 9
Request No. 8 seeks “all emails, checks and documents referenced in your email to
Matthew Y. Biscan dated November 4, 2011, 1:34 pm” and “all document referenced in your
email to Matthew Y. Biscan dated October 31, 2011, 4:08 pm.” Id. at Ex. A, ¶¶ 8-9. The
plaintiff admits that he has responsive documents, id. at Ex. C, ¶¶ 8-9, but he has not produced
them. Motion, ¶ 12. The documents appear to be relevant and/or reasonably calculated to lead
to the discovery of admissible evidence. The Motion is granted as to Requests Nos. 8 and 9, and
the plaintiff shall produce all responsive documents.
MOTION FOR EMERGENCY HEARING
The defendant filed this motion on January 24, 2012. The motion requests that the court
conduct an emergency hearing because the plaintiff is refusing to attend his deposition on
January 26, 2012. However, the plaintiff attended his deposition on January 26, 2012. Motion
to Compel, Ex. D. Accordingly, the Motion for Emergency Hearing is moot.

8

IT IS ORDERED:
1. Defendant’s Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production [Doc. #72] is
GRANTED;
2. Defendant’s Motion for Emergency Hearing Compelling an Out of State Deposition
Scheduled for Thursday, January 26, 2012 [Doc. #58] is DENIED as moot; and
3. On or before April 18, 2012, the plaintiff shall produce to the defendant all
documents and copies of recordings that are responsive to Requests Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, and 9.
Dated April 4, 2012.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Boyd N. Boland
United States Magistrate Judge

9