Mutual of Omaha Mortgage, Inc. v. WaterStone Mortgage Corporation

Filing 52

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 42 Motion to Compel and for an Award of Fees. Signed by Magistrate Judge Julie S. Sneed on March 1, 2023. (DD)

Case 8:22-cv-01660-TPB-JSS Document 52 Filed 03/01/23 Page 1 of 4 PageID 529

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
MUTUAL OF OMAHA MORTGAGE,
INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 8:22-cv-1660-TPB-JSS

WATERSTONE MORTGAGE
CORPORATION,
Defendant.
___________________________________/
ORDER
Defendant moves to compel Plaintiff to provide complete responses and
productions to Defendant’s interrogatories and documents requests, to produce a
privilege log of documents withheld from its productions, and for an award of
attorneys’ fees. (Motion, Dkt. 42). In support of the Motion, Defendant relies on the
declaration of its counsel, Attorney Maria L. Kreiter. (Dkt. 43.) Plaintiff opposes the
Motion (Dkt 45) and submits the declaration of its counsel, Attorney Christopher L.
McCall in support of its opposition (Dkt. 46). The court held a hearing on the Motion
on March 1, 2023. 1 Upon consideration and for the reasons stated during the hearing:
1. Defendant’s Motion to Compel and for an Award of Fees (Dkt. 42) is
GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

The court also briefly addressed the Motion with counsel for both parties at a case management
conference on February 22, 2023.

1

Case 8:22-cv-01660-TPB-JSS Document 52 Filed 03/01/23 Page 2 of 4 PageID 530

2. Plaintiff is ordered to supplement its responses to Defendant’s
interrogatories and production requests as discussed at the hearing and
in this order, on or before March 10, 2023.
3. With respect to Defendant’s Interrogatory No. 1, Plaintiff shall
supplement its response to include information related to the calculation
of ill-gotten gains and lost revenue and profits as discussed at the hearing.
4. With respect to Defendant’s Interrogatories Nos. 2–8, Plaintiff shall
supplement its responses to include the bates numbers of those produced
documents on which it relies as responsive to each interrogatory.
5. With respect to Defendant’s Document Requests Nos. 2–3, Plaintiff shall
amend its responses to state that it does not have in its possession,
custody, or control documents responsive to these requests, as
represented by Plaintiff’s counsel at the hearing.
6. With respect to Defendant’s Document Requests Nos. 5, 10, 28, 29,
Plaintiff shall supplement its responses to include the bates numbers of
those produced documents on which it relies as responsive to each
request.
7. With respect to Defendant’s Document Request No. 7, Plaintiff shall
supplement its response to clarify that the documents responsive to this
request are the relevant employment agreements, as represented by
Plaintiff’s counsel at the hearing. Plaintiff shall further supplement its

-2-

Case 8:22-cv-01660-TPB-JSS Document 52 Filed 03/01/23 Page 3 of 4 PageID 531

response to include the bates numbers of those produced documents on
which it relies as responsive to this request.
8. With respect to Defendant’s Document Request No. 8, the request is
narrowed to include only the employment agreements and any
compensation agreements from the personnel files of each of the relevant
employees.

To the extent not already produced, Plaintiff shall

supplement its production to include those documents. To the extent
already produced, Plaintiff shall supplement its response to include the
bates numbers of those produced documents on which it relies as
responsive to this request.
9. With respect to Defendant’s Document Requests Nos. 14–23 and 25–26,
Plaintiff shall supplement its responses to include the bates numbers of
those produced documents on which it relies as responsive to each
request.
10. With respect to Defendant’s request for production of a privilege log,
Plaintiff shall include in its amended responses a statement indicating
that it has not withheld any documents on the basis of privilege or other
protections, as represented by Plaintiff’s counsel at the hearing.
11. As requested by Plaintiff’s counsel at the hearing, Defendant is ordered
to supplement its responses to Plaintiff’s document requests to include
the bates numbers of those produced documents on which it relies as
responsive to each request.
-3-

Case 8:22-cv-01660-TPB-JSS Document 52 Filed 03/01/23 Page 4 of 4 PageID 532

12. Defendant’s request for attorneys’ fees in connection with the Motion is
denied.
ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on March 1, 2023.

Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record

-4-