Lutzeier v. Citigroup, Inc. et al

Filing 126

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER...IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' Partially Unopposed Motion for Partial Reconsideration of February 2, 2015 Order and For an Extension of Time to Comply with Order (ECF No. 116 ) is GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, i n part. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall provide a joint proposed amended case management order no later than March 6, 2015. (SEE ORDER FOR COMPLETE DETAILS) ( Response to Court due by 3/6/2015.). Signed by District Judge Ronnie L. White on 3/3/2015. (NEB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
FRED LUTZEIER,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
vs.
CITIGROUP INC., et al. ,
Defendants.

Case No. 4:14CV183 RLW

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendants' Partially Unopposed Motion for Partial
Reconsideration of February 2, 2015 Order and For an Extension of Time to Comply with Order
(ECF No. 116). Plaintiff filed his Response in Opposition to Defendants' Partially Unopposed
Motion for Partial Reconsideration of February 2, 2015 Order (ECF No. 120). Defendants have
indicated to the Court that they are resting on their papers and not filing a reply memorandum in
support of their motion.
A. Motion for Reconsideration
Defendants request the Court reconsider its February 2, 2015 Order, requiring them to
utilize the additional search phrase "consent order." Defendants contend that the phrase "consent
order" would yield more than 40,000 documents for Defendants to review for relevance.
Defendants provide an affidavit stating that the only two consent orders CitiMortgage, Inc. entered
into with the Office of the Comptroller of Currency and the Board of Governors of the Federal
Reserve System relevant to the United States Mortgage Business have been produced to Plaintiff.
Finally, Defendants contend that any consent orders relevant to this case would be yielded from
the search terms "LOIS" and "COSMOS".

1

In response, Plaintiff puts forth a third consent order that it claims is relevant to this case
but that has not been produced by Defendants. Plaintiff argues that this demonstrates Defendants
need to search for "consent orders" to fully respond to Plaintiffs discovery requests.
The Court denies the Motion for Reconsideration. The Court believes that a full search
and review of documents that are responsive to the phrase "consent order" is the only way to
ensure that all responsive documents are produced. Defendants shall produce these documents no
later than March 23 , 2015.
B. Motion for Extension of Time to Comply with Order
Defendants state that they need an extension of time until March 23 , 2015 to produce
several categories of documents, and until April 24, 2015 to produce documents related to
LOIS/COSMOS and related to five additional custodians. With respect to Plaintiffs need for
additional time to review these documents, Defendants indicated that they would agree "to file a
joint motion for a reasonable extension of discovery should it prove necessary." (ECF No. 118 at
2).

In response, Plaintiff argues that "if Defendants want or need extensions of time to produce
their documents, it only seems fair and reasonable that Plaintiff should be granted a concomitant
and reciprocal extension of time with respect to Plaintiffs relevant discovery deadlines so that
Plaintiff may have a fair opportunity to review Defendants' rolling productions" (ECF No. 120 at
4).

The Court will grant Defendants an extension until March 23, 2015 to produce documents
as set forth in the Court' s February 2, 2015 Order. The Court also grants Plaintiff a similar 30 day
extension to comply with his accompanying discovery deadlines under the Case Management
Order. The Court, however, will not move the trial date in this case. The Court orders the parties

2

to meet and confer and provide to the Court a proposed joint scheduling plan that accomplishes all
of these ends no later than Friday, March 6, 2015.
According! y,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' Partially Unopposed Motion for Partial
Reconsideration of February 2, 2015 Order and For an Extension of Time to Comply with Order
(ECF No. 116) is GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall provide a joint proposed amended

case management order no later than March 6, 2015.
Dated this 3rd day of March, 2015.

~L~

RONNIE L. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3