North Fork Partners Investment Holdings, LLC v. Forbright Bank

Filing 12

MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge Stephanie A. Gallagher on 9/19/2022. (bmhs, Deputy Clerk)

Case 1:22-cv-01681-SAG Document 12 Filed 09/19/22 Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

CHAMBERS OF
STEPHANIE A. GALLAGHER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

101 WEST LOMBARD STREET
BALTIMORE, MARYLAND 21201
[phone]
Fax [phone]
[e-mail]

September 19, 2022
LETTER MEMORANDUM
Re: North Fork Partners Investment Holdings, LLC v. Forbright Bank
Civil Case No. SAG-22-1681
Dear Counsel:
This Court has reviewed the parties’ submissions in relation to Forbright Bank’s Motion
for Order to show cause why North Fork Partners Investment Holdings, LLC (“North Fork”) had
not paid its production costs following this Court’s August 2, 2022 letter order (“the Order”),
ECF 6. ECF 7, 8, 11. Once again, the parties appear to be talking past one another in a way that
exacerbates a relatively simple need for clarification of the Order. The parties’ interpretive
disagreement does not amount to conduct, on either side, warranting contempt or sanctions.
Forbright Bank’s Motion for Order to Show Cause, ECF 7, will therefore be DENIED, and this
Court will clarify its August 2, 2022 Order as described below.
As the Order stated, this Court intended to require production of the documents sought by
North Fork only if the expenses of that production, including the cost of privilege review, were
transferred to North Fork. ECF 6. To that end, this Court directed the parties to meet and confer
on the timetable of the anticipated production and on the payment of “North Fork’s payment of
any outstanding expenses incurred by Forbright.” By use of that shorthand, this Court intended
to refer to the reasonable production expenses Forbright had occurred as of August 2, 2022.
Despite all of the information the parties provided about their email exchanges and the
size of Forbright Bank, nobody provided this Court with information regarding the crux of the
dispute: what expenses are presently sought by Forbright and when were those expenses
incurred? In this Court’s view, any fees or expenses incurred between the time of this Court’s
Order and the parties’ eventual meet and confer are not recoverable because the parties should
have conferred first about North Fork’s intent to proceed with the subpoena before making
additional expenditures. Similarly, any fees or expenses incurred after the parties’ meet and
confer are also not recoverable because North Fork decided not to proceed with the subpoena.
Given North Fork already compensated Forbright Bank for certain expenditures before this
dispute arose, this Court finds it perplexing that Forbright Bank could have an additional $40,000
in expenses incurred before August 2, 2022. However, this Court has no information to assess
the reasonableness of that request.
Put another way, this Court did intend for the parties to meet and confer regarding a
reasonable assessment of the expenses Forbright Bank had incurred as of August 2, 2022. This

Case 1:22-cv-01681-SAG Document 12 Filed 09/19/22 Page 2 of 2
North Fork Partners Investment Holdings, LLC v. Forbright Bank
Civil Case No. SAG-22-1681
September 19, 2022
Page | 2
Court also intended that those reasonable expenses incurred before August 2, 2022 be borne by
North Fork. Given North Fork’s subsequent decision not to proceed with its subpoena, any fees
and expenses incurred after August 2, 2022 will not be shifted to North Fork. Should there be
disagreement as to the amount of pre-August 2, 2022 reasonable fees and expenses, the parties
are directed to meet and confer, either in person or by videoconference, to conduct a line-by-line
review of the relevant billing statements and to provide the Court with a detailed summary of
their precise disputes.
A separate order follows.
Sincerely yours,
/s/
Stephanie A. Gallagher
United States District Judge