Residential Funding Company, LLC v. Standard Pacific Mortgage, Inc.

Filing 129

ORDER denying without prejudice 99 Motion to Approve Use of Statistical Sampling ; finding as moot 109 Motion to Stay Briefing on Plaintiffs' Motion to Approve Use of Statistical Sampling, or in the Alternative, for Enlargement of Time. (Written Opinion) Signed by Judge John R. Tunheim on December 17, 2014. (HAZ)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Civil No. 13-3526 (JRT/JJK)

RESIDENTIAL FUNDING COMPANY,
LLC and RESCAP LIQUIDATING
TRUST,
Plaintiffs,

ORDER

v.
STANDARD PACIFIC MORTGAGE,
INC.,
Defendant.
Anthony Alden, David Elsberg, Erica P. Taggart, Isaac Nesser, and Peter E.
Calamari, QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP, 51
Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor, New York, NY 10010; Donald G. Heeman,
Marnie E. Fearon, Richard R. Voelbel, Ryan A. Olson, Jessica J. Nelson,
and David L. Hashmall, FELHABER LARSON, 220 South 6th Street,
Suite 2200, Minneapolis, MN 55402; Jeffrey A. Lipps and Jennifer A. L.
Battle, CARPENTER LIPPS & LELAND LLP, 280 North High Street,
Suite 1300, Columbus, OH 43215, for plaintiffs.
Enza G. Boderone, Philip R. Stein, and Shalia M. Sakona, BILZIN
SUMBERG BAENA PRICE & AXELROD LLP, 1450 Brickell Avenue,
Suite 2300, Miami, FL 33131; Erin Sindberg Porter, Janine Wetzel
Kimble, and Jenny Gassman-Pines, GREENE ESPEL PLLP, 222 South
9th Street, Suite 2200, Minneapolis, MN 55402, for defendant Standard
Pacific Mortgage, Inc.

Plaintiffs Residential Funding Company, LLC (“RFC”) and ResCap Liquidating
Trust (“ResCap”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) move under Federal Rule of Evidence 702
for an order approving the use of statistical sampling to prove their case at trial. Plaintiffs
argue that without the use of sampling, it will be highly burdensome and inefficient to

1

obtain expert testimony about the mortgage loans RFC purchased from defendant
Standard Pacific Mortgage, Inc. (“Standard Pacific”) and others.

To support their

argument for statistical sampling, Plaintiffs seek to admit testimony from Dr. Karl N.
Snow, an expert in statistical modeling and sampling.
In a civil case such as this, parties may “obtain discovery regarding any
nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(b)(1).

A court will “not ordinarily determine whether a Daubert hearing is

appropriate until after discovery is completed . . . .” Brooks v. Lyon County, No. 061089, 2007 WL 1146612, at *1 (D. Kan. April 17, 2007). Given that the parties only
recently held the Rule 16 conference with Magistrate Judge Jeffrey J. Keyes, discovery is
far from complete in this case.
Although the Court may ultimately agree with Plaintiffs that they may prove their
case at trial using statistical sampling, at this point the Court concludes that it is
premature to make a determination about the appropriateness of statistical sampling. The
Court will not limit Standard Pacific and the defendants in related cases from obtaining
discovery to which they have a right under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Indeed,
Standard Pacific and similarly-situated defendants will need broad discovery from
Plaintiffs in order to assess and perhaps challenge the reliability of the statistical
sampling that Plaintiffs propose to do at trial. Therefore, the Court will deny Plaintiffs’
motion without prejudice until fact and expert discovery has been completed in
accordance with the deadlines set out in the operative scheduling order.

2

ORDER
Based on the foregoing, and all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Approve Use of Statistical Sampling [Docket No. 99] is
DENIED without prejudice until after discovery is completed in accordance
with the operative scheduling order.
2. Defendant’s Motion to Stay Briefing on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Approve Use of
Statistical Sampling, or in the Alternative, for Enlargement of Time [Docket
No. 109] is DENIED as moot.

DATED: December 17, 2014
at Minneapolis, Minnesota.

___________s/John R. Tunheim__________
JOHN R. TUNHEIM
United States District Judge

3