Bowers et al v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. et al

Filing 291

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER sustaining 263 the Objection of the Defendants to the Order of the Magistrate Judge. The sanctions imposed on July 9, 2012, are hereby set aside. Signed by District Judge J. Thomas Marten on 9/7/2012. (jlw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

ROY AND SHEILA BOWERS,
Plaintiffs,

vs.

Case No. 10-4141-JTM

MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS, INC., et al.
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on the Objection filed by defendants Mortgage Electronic
Registration Systems (MERS), Lorna Slaughter, and Wells Fargo Bank. The defendants object to
the sanctions imposed by the Magistrate Judge on July 9, 2012.
In that Order, the Magistrate Judge overruled the defendants’ objections to five Requests for
Admission. Specifically, the court overruled the defendants’ Objections to Requests to Admit (1)
the number of its certifying officers, (2) the number of its employees, (3) that certifying officers are
appointed without a meeting of the MERS Board of Directors, (4) that there was no Board meeting
on December 15, 2008, and (5) that MERS corporate seals were sold for $25.00. In addition, the
Magistrate Judge imposed a $1000 sanction upon defendants’ counsel for advancing these
objections. This sanction was advanced on the grounds that the defendants’ objections were not

advanced in good faith, were merely “boilerplate” objections, and the information was readily
available to defendants. (Dkt. 252, at 12).
After a review of all of the pleadings, the court finds that the objection to the imposition of
sanctions should be sustained.
First, the court finds that the background and history of the case does not support a
conclusion that the objections were offered in bad faith. While the July 9, 2012 Order was the first
to address written discovery entered in the action, the previous resolution of the dispute over the
extensive proposals by Plaintiffs Roy and Sheila Bowers for their oral deposition of MERS gave
defendants reasonable grounds for their objections.
In that Order, the court had struck down the Bowers’ Deposition Notice as overbroad and
irrelevant, finding that “[m]any of the [22] topics [referenced in the Notice] have no application to
the claims asserted in this case, but rather to the claims in other litigation, some theoretical problem
with MERS or the industry in which it operates.” (Dkt. 109, at 10, 12). That is, the case simply did
not involve complaints about the “current MERS.” (Id. at 11-12).1 Given this background, the
defendants’ Objections to the remaining five Requests for Admission were thus “warranted by
existing law” in the case, and not sanctionable. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g)(1)(B)(I).
Second, the “boilerplate” nature of defendants’ Objections to the Requests to Admit must
be be viewed in the context of the present action, in which Bowers has issued some 62 Requests for
Admission, many of which have no real relevance to the action. This is not a case in which

1

In addition, as defendants note, in the same Order imposing sanctions for their
Objections to the Requests for Admission, the Magistrate Judge sustained some of their
objections, which included similar objections (overbreadth and burdensomeness) to those for
which they were sanctioned.
2

defendants have cavalierly advanced boilerplate objections to a plaintiff seeking targeted, relevant
discovery. Rather, the plaintiffs have sought discovery through carpet bombing; the defendants’ use
of similar language in their objections provides no basis for sanctions.
Finally, while the undersigned agrees with the need to deter future discovery abuses, the
sanctions were imposed without warning. In their Response in support of the sanctions (Dkt. 268),
plaintiffs assert that warnings were indeed issued, but upon review, the court finds that the cited
passages indicate discovery conferences or communications in which the court generically
encouraged the parties to participate in discovery in a collegial and cooperative manner.
IT IS ACCORDINGLY ORDERED this 7th day of September, 2012, that the Objection of
the defendants (Dkt. 263) is hereby sustained, and the sanctions imposed on July 9, 2012 are hereby
set aside.

s/ J. Thomas Marten
J. THOMAS MARTEN, JUDGE

3