Hurster v. Specialized Loan Servicing LLC
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment or in the Alternative Stay Plaintiff's Response Deadline to After Defendant's Deposition 39 is DENIED. Signed by District Judge John A. Ross on 1/11/2022. (CLO)
Case: 4:21-cv-00318-JAR Doc. #: 48 Filed: 01/11/22 Page: 1 of 2 PageID #: 578
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
JAMES HURSTER, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated,
SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING, LLC,
No. 4:21-CV-00318 JAR
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion pursuant to Rule 37 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 3.04 to strike Defendant’s Motion for Summary
Judgment or in the alternative stay Plaintiff’s response deadline until 21 days after Defendant
designates a Rule 30(b)(6) representative and makes them available for deposition. (Doc. No.
39). Plaintiff states that on December 9, 2021, one day before filing its motion for summary
judgment, Defendant served a Second Supplemental Response to Plaintiff’s First Requests for
Production via email to the undersigned counsel. Plaintiff argues Defendant is relying on this
new information in its summary judgment motion but failed to disclose it in its Rule 26
disclosures and in subsequent discovery. Plaintiff further argues Defendant has refused to
designate a Rule 30(b)(6) corporate representative for deposition.
Defendant responds that the information provided was not unknown to Plaintiff; rather,
Defendant did not have the requested documentation until recently and timely supplemented its
discovery responses in accordance with Rule 26(e). In further response, Defendant asserts that it
Case: 4:21-cv-00318-JAR Doc. #: 48 Filed: 01/11/22 Page: 2 of 2 PageID #: 579
never refused to produce a Rule 30(b)(6) witness and remains willing to do so, but that Plaintiff
had agreed to provide Defendant with an amended notice of deposition and failed to do so. 1
Upon consideration, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s motion. The Court notes that Plaintiff
filed his memorandum in opposition to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment on January 3,
2022 (Doc. No. 45) and has noticed the deposition of Defendant’s Rule 30(b)(6) corporate
representative for January 25, 2022 (Doc. No. 42). If the testimony of Defendant’s corporate
representative has any bearing on the issues and defenses raised in the motion for summary
judgment, then Plaintiff may seek leave to file an amended response in opposition.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Defendant’s Motion for
Summary Judgment or in the Alternative Stay Plaintiff’s Response Deadline to After
Defendant’s Deposition  is DENIED.
Dated this 11th day of January, 2022.
JOHN A. ROSS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Defendant has requested oral argument on Plaintiff’s motion. The parties have briefed their respective
positions, and oral argument is not necessary for the Court to render a decision. Thus, Defendant’s request
for oral argument will be denied.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?