National Credit Union Administration Board v. RBS Securities, Inc. et al

Filing 438

ORDER denying defendants' November 14, 2014 discovery request. Signed by Magistrate Judge James P. O'Hara on 11/21/2014. (ah)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
----------------------------------------X
NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMINISTRATION
:
:
BOARD, etc.,
Plaintiff,
:
:
-v:
:
MORGAN STANLEY & CO., et al.,
:
:
Defendants.
:
And other NCUA Actions.
:
----------------------------------------X
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF KANSAS
----------------------------------------X
NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMINISTRATION
:
BOARD, etc.,
:
Plaintiff,
:
-v:
:
RBS SECURITIES, INC., f/k/a GREENWICH
:
CAPITAL MARKETS, INC., et al.,
:
:
Defendants.
:
:
And other NCUA Actions.
:
----------------------------------------X

13cv6705
13cv6719
13cv6721
13cv6726
13cv6727
13cv6731
13cv6736

(DLC)
(DLC)
(DLC)
(DLC)
(DLC)
(DLC)
(DLC)

USDC SDNY
DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
DOC #: _________________
DATE FILED: ______________
11/21/14
/ /

11cv2340
11cv2649
12cv2591
12cv2648
13cv2418

(JWL)
(JWL)
(JWL)
(JWL)
(JWL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
WESTERN DIVISION
----------------------------------------X
NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMINISTRATION
:
BOARD, etc.,
:
Plaintiff,
:
-v:
:
RBS SECURITIES, INC., f/k/a GREENWICH
:
CAPITAL MARKETS, INC., et al.,
:
:
Defendants.
:
:
And other NCUA Actions.
:
----------------------------------------X

11cv5887 (GW)
11cv6521 (GW)
ORDER

HON. DENISE COTE, HON. JOHN W. LUNGSTRUM, and HON. GEORGE H. WU,
District Judges; and HON. JAMES P. O’HARA, Magistrate Judge:
This Order addresses a November 14 request from the
defendants for additional document discovery from NCUA itself.
The request is denied.
Discovery in these fourteen actions has been coordinated to
promote efficiency and the fair administration of justice.

On

April 9, 2014, our Courts adopted a Master Discovery Protocol
(“MDP”) and ordered that document discovery in these actions be
substantially completed by October 31, 2014.

The parties were

required to use their best efforts to agree upon a set of search
terms and relevant time periods for document production and to
inform our Courts of any disagreement by April 18.
Between April 18 and May 2, the parties presented their
disputes to our Courts.

For example, in their letter of May 2,

the defendants requested that NCUA be required to identify more
2

than the two document custodians from which it had agreed to
produce documents.

In an Order of May 6, we denied the

defendants’ request for additional custodians from NCUA.
Following further discussion among the parties, a list of the
search terms that NCUA would use for its document production to
the defendants was adopted by NCUA as of June 6.
Every party in these coordinated actions has now certified
that it met the October 31 date for substantial completion of
document discovery.

On November 14, the defendants utilized the

procedures in the MDP to raise this dispute over the scope of
the document production made by plaintiff NCUA.
In their November 14 letter request, the defendants seek
further documents from NCUA to be produced from centralized NCUA
files and the files of its two designated document custodians,
including documents related to the timing and bases of the four
credit unions’ awareness of potential claims against the
defendants, the causes of their RMBS losses, and their awareness
of RMBS-related risks.

The November 14 letter presents many of

the arguments that appeared in the defendants’ May 2 letter.

It

appears from the attachments to the defendants’ November 14
letter and NCUA’s responsive submission of November 19, that the
parties discussed a further document production from NCUA in a
September 12 conference call and exchanged two brief email
communications on September 29 and October 6.
3

It does not

appear that the defendants represented to NCUA that they had
completed their review of the plaintiff’s document production or
were able to identify any material deficiency in that
production.
NCUA became the conservator for the four failed credit
unions at issue here beginning in 2009.

The investments in the

defendants’ securitizations spanned the years 2005 to 2007.
Relying on our understanding of the claims and defenses in these
actions, our Courts have restricted document discovery of NCUA
itself in these strict liability actions.

Accordingly, it is

hereby
ORDERED that the defendants’ November 14 request for a
further document production from NCUA is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any party may make a request for
further targeted productions of documents if
1) it represents that it has substantially completed review
of produced documents and uncovered material
deficiencies;
2) it explains why the request is timely and could not have
been made earlier; and

4

3) it represents that it has exhausted the meet and confer
process on the issue.

Dated: November 21, 2014

__/s/ Denise Cote _______________
United States District Judge

Dated: November 21, 2014

__/s/ George H. Wu________________
United States District Judge

Dated: November 21, 2014

___/s/ John W. Lungstrum__________
United States District Judge

Dated: November 21, 2014

___/s/ James P. O’Hara____________
United States Magistrate Judge

5