CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Chicago Bancorp, Inc. et al

Filing 206

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER : IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff CitiMortgage, Inc.s motion for a protective order is GRANTED. (Doc. No 161 .) Signed by District Judge Audrey G. Fleissig on 01/05/2016. (KCB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

CITIMORTGAGE, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
CHICAGO BANCORP, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)  
)
)

Case No. 4:14CV01278 AGF

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the motion (Doc. No. 161) of Plaintiff
CitiMortgage, Inc. (“CMI”) for a protective order barring inquiry by Defendant Chicago
Bancorp, Inc. (“Chicago Bancorp”) into five of the topics listed in Chicago Bancorp’s
Rule 30(b)(6) notice of deposition directed to CMI. For the following reasons, the
motion for protective order shall be granted.
This lawsuit arises out of a contract between CMI and Chicago Bancorp, under
which CMI purchased residential mortgage loans from Chicago Bancorp and required
Chicago Bancorp to repurchase any loans that CMI, in its sole discretion, determined
were improper. CMI claims that Chicago Bancorp breached this contract by refusing to
repurchase certain loans.
Four of the topics at issue in Chicago Bancorp’s Rule 30(b)(6) notice seek
information related to CMI’s development of its stated income loan programs. As this
Court has already held, in denying Chicago Bancorp’s motion to compel similar written

discovery, information regarding the development and implementation of CMI’s stated
income loan program is beyond the scope of permissible discovery in this case. (Doc.
No. 139.) Chicago Bancorp does not dispute that inquiry into these topics is foreclosed
by the Court’s prior Order, but merely states that the Order is contrary to the law.
The remaining topic seeks testimony regarding the magnitude of CMI’s losses due
to the foreclosure crisis and its efforts to recoup those losses from correspondents such as
Chicago Bancorp. Chicago Bancorp asserts that this topic, like the four topics related to
the stated income loan program, is relevant to its defense that CMI acted in bad faith in
demanding repurchase.
The Court incorporates the reasoning and authority cited in its November 4, 2015
Order (Doc. No. 139) to hold that all five topics are beyond the scope of discovery in this
case. Further, the Court notes that a recent Eighth Circuit opinion in a similar case
between the same parties confirms that the issues in this case are very narrow and do not
warrant the discovery sought by Chicago Bancorp here. See CitiMortgage, Inc. v.
Chicago Bancorp, Inc., --- F.3d ---, 2015 WL 9268117, at *4 (8th Cir. Dec. 21, 2015)
(holding that Chicago Bancorp’s bad faith defense was doomed by precedent because
“CMI did not act in bad faith by asserting or enforcing its legal and contractual rights. To
inquire further by reviewing the validity of CMI’s defectiveness determination would be
to contradict unambiguous contract language, something Missouri law does not allow us
to do”) (citing Residential Funding Co. v. Terrace Mortg. Co., 725 F.3d 910, 918, 920
(8th Cir. 2013)).
Accordingly,
‐2‐ 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff CitiMortgage, Inc.’s motion for a
protective order is GRANTED. (Doc. No 161.)

_______________________________
AUDREY G. FLEISSIG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 5th day of January, 2016.

‐3‐