Inglis v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

Filing 163

OPINION AND ORDER overruling 146 Objections to October 17, 2016 139 Order. Signed by Judge John E. Steele on 11/21/2016. (RKR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
RICHARD
K.
INGLIS,
as
Special Trustee to the trust
under the Will of Rosa B.
Schweiker, dated February 2,
1961,
the
Frederick
W.
Berlinger Revocable Deed of
Trust, dated 10/17/1991, as
amended and restated,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 2:14-cv-677-FtM-29CM

WELLS FARGO BANK N.A.,
Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff’s Objections
to October 17, 2016 Order (Doc. #146) filed on October 25, 2016.
Defendant filed a Response in Opposition (Doc. #157) on November
14, 2016.
On October 17, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued an Order
(Doc. #139) on plaintiff’s Third Motion for an Order Compelling
Disclosure, plaintiff’s Emergency Motion for Extension of Time to
Complete Discovery, and on defendant’s Motion for Clarification.
Only plaintiff’s motions are at issue herein.

Pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), the Court may reconsider or review the
Magistrate Judge’s Order on a pretrial matter if shown that it was

clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
72.

See also Fed. R. Civ. P.

Plaintiff’s objections are addressed below.
1. Third Motion to Compel
On October 23, 2015, plaintiff served its first request for

production, and defendant responded to the request within 60 days.
Almost a year later, plaintiff filed the motion to compel defendant
to produce documents responsive to a request for production from
October 2015, after plaintiff deposed defendant’s former employees
a little over a week before the expiration of this deadline in
September 2016.
that

the

effectuate
successor

In light of the revelation at their depositions

employees
the

had

closure

trustee,

followed
for

policies

transfer

plaintiff

argued

of

and

the

that

procedures

accounts
the

to

to

the

policies

and

procedures were relevant to defendant’s defense that the transfer
occurred
defendant

in
had

a

commercially
a

duty

to

reasonable

supplement

its

time,

and

response.

therefore
Defendant

objected that the policies and procedures were irrelevant to the
defense because the employees worked on the closure, not the
transfer of the accounts, and further that the defense actually
stemmed from a stipulation in the Berlinger 1 litigation.
discovery deadline was October 3, 2016.

1

See Case No. 2:11-cv-459-FtM-29CM.

- 2 -

The

The

Magistrate

Judge

found

defendant’s

objection

of

irrelevancy persuasive, and further found that plaintiff did not
sufficiently explain how the policies and procedures would be
relevant

to

proving

whether

commercially reasonable time.

the

transfer

occurred

within

a

The Magistrate Judge noted that

plaintiff did receive the checklists used by the employees, and
also noted the proper procedural remedy based on a breach of the
duty to supplement should have been by motion for sanctions.
Plaintiff essentially reiterates the arguments made in the
motion to compel by including citations to the pages from the
motion to show where it was argued that the policies and procedures
were relevant to the element of intent on the claim for civil
theft.

Plaintiff does not object however that the evaluation of

these arguments by the Magistrate Judge was contrary to law or
clearly erroneous, only that they were indeed made.
arguments were made is undisputed.
rejected

the

arguments

as

Whether the

Rather, the Magistrate Judge

insufficient.

The

objection

is

overruled.
2. Emergency Motion for Extension of Time
Before the expiration of the deadline, plaintiff moved to
extend discovery by 120 days based on the need to discover the
policies and procedures.

The Magistrate Judge found that the

motion was moot, or in the alternative, that plaintiff had failed
to act with diligence in conducting discovery.

- 3 -

Plaintiff’s objection seeks reconsideration if the objection
above is sustained, which is it was not.
is moot.

Therefore, the objection

Plaintiff goes on to say that it was not a lack of

diligence, but rather a delay caused by both sides, a brief stay
of discovery, and attempts to confer on a date for depositions.
As the Court finds that the objection is moot because the Third
Motion for an Order Compelling Disclosure remains denied, these
additional arguments need not be considered.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
Plaintiff’s Objections to October 17, 2016 Order (Doc. #146)
are overruled.
DONE and ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this
of November, 2016.

Copies:
Counsel of Record

- 4 -

21st

day