Bank of America, N.A. v. Sonrisa Homeowners Association et al

Filing 79

ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 59 Defendant SFR's Emergency Motion to Stay is denied. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 62 Plaintiff BANA's Emergency Motion for a ProtectiveOrder from its 30(b)(6) Deposition and Motion for Sanctions is granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff's Motion for a Protective Order from its 30(b)(6) Deposition is granted on a limited basis as detailed above. Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions is denied. Signed by Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr. on 12/1/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6
7
8
9
10
11
12

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
)
vs.
)
SONRISA HOMEOWNERS
)
)
ASSOCIATION, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
__________________________________________)
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.

Case No. 2:16-cv-00848-JCM-GWF
ORDER

13
14

This matter is before the Court on Defendant SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC’s (“SFR”)

15

Emergency Motion to Stay (ECF No. 59), filed on September 22, 2016. Plaintiff Bank of America,

16

N.A. (“BANA”) filed its Response (ECF No.63) on October 10, 2016. Defendant SFR filed its Reply

17

(ECF No. 65) on October 12, 2016. Also before the Court is Plaintiff BANA’s Emergency Motion

18

for a Protective Order from its 30(b)(6) Deposition and Motion for Sanctions (ECF No. 62), filed on

19

October 7, 2016. Defendant SFR filed its Response (ECF No. 67) on October 28, 2016. Plaintiff

20

BANA filed its Reply (ECF No. 68) on November 7, 2016. The Court conducted a hearing in this

21

matter on November 10, 2016.

22

Defendant SFR requests that the Court impose a stay on the parties’ dispositive motion

23

briefing and/or the entire litigation pending issuance of the Ninth Circuit’s mandate in Bourne Valley

24

Court Trust v. Wells Fargo Bank, 2016 WL 4254983 (9th Cir. Aug. 12, 2016). Plaintiff BANA

25

argues that a stay is not justified because Bourne Valley does not affect tender. See Plaintiff’s

26

Opposition, (ECF No. 63), pg. 3. Defendant filed its Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 58)

27

on September 20, 2016. The Court temporarily stayed the response deadline to Plaintiff BANA’s

28

Motion for Summary Judgment pending a ruling on Defendant SFR’s Motion to Stay. See ECF No.

1
2

66.
During the hearing on November 10, 2016, the Court and the parties discussed the advisability

3

of staying this action pending the outcome of the petition for rehearing in Bourne Valley. On

4

November 4, 2016, the Ninth Circuit denied the appellee’s petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc.

5

Bourne Valley Court Trust v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth

6

Circuit, No. 15-15233, Order (Dkt Entry: 69). On November 17, 2016, the Ninth Circuit also denied

7

appellee’s motion to stay mandate pending the filing and disposition of a petition for writ of certiorari

8

to the United States Supreme Court. Id., Order (Dkt Entry 75). Based on these developments, a stay

9

of proceedings based on Bourne Valley is no longer necessary. The Court instructs the parties to meet

10

and confer regarding what discovery must take place before Defendant SFR is in a position to file its

11

response to Plaintiff BANA’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 58). The Court holds the

12

response deadline temporarily in abeyance until the parties submit a stipulation and proposed order

13

regarding the response deadline following its meet and confer efforts.

14

Defendant SFR noticed the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of Plaintiff BANA for October 13, 2016.

15

See Motion for Protective Order, (ECF No. 62), Exhibit D. Plaintiff BANA requests that the Court

16

issue a protective order to (1) limit their deposition testimony to topics relevant under Bourne Valley

17

and Stone Hollow Avenue Trust v. Bank of Am., Nat’l Ass’n, No. 64955, 2016 WL 4543202 (Nev.

18

Aug. 11, 2016), (2) allow BANA’s witness to testify from Dallas, Texas or by video conference, (3)

19

sanction Defendant SFR, and (4) award Plaintiff BANA its attorney’s fees and costs. See Motion for

20

Protective Order, (ECF No. 62), pg. 18.

21

The deposition topics are listed as follows:

22

Topic 1:

Your knowledge of the events and circumstances of the proceedings leading up
to and including the Association foreclosure sale, including Your
knowledge/notice of the foreclosure proceedings (from the Association or
otherwise) and all communications about the Association
lien/foreclosure/Borrower’s delinquency with Your agents, the Borrowers, the
Association, NAS, and/or internally.

Topic 2:

Your standing - currently and at the time of the Association foreclosure
sale - to enforce the First Deed of Trust/underlying promissory note and
the transaction(s) through which You obtained Your interest in the First
Deed of Trust/underlying promissory note.

Topic 3:

All actions You allege You took before the Association foreclosure sale

23
24
25
26
27
28

2

1

to protect Your interest in the Property as it relates to the Association’s
lien including written agreement(s) with the Borrowers,
communications with the Borrowers, communications with the
Assocation, NAS and civil/administrative actions challenging the
Association’s lien.

2
3
4

Topic 4:

The foreclosure proceedings related to the First Deed of Trust.

5

Topic 5:

Your policies and procedures for processing and maintaining
documents and communications related to an Association
lient/foreclosure received via mail, email, from counsel, or any other
means. This topic is limited to policies and procedures that were/are
applicable to the Property from origination to the present.

Topic 6:

Your policies and procedures applicable to the Property for handling
association liens from the time the Association recorded its notice of
default to the date of the Association foreclosure sale.

Topic 7:

Your knowledge and understanding of the transaction(s) through which
any other entity besides You, currently claims or claimed at the time of
the Association foreclosure sale, an interest in the First Deed of
Trust/underlying promissory note.

Topic 8:

Any action(s) You took to notify third parties, including SFR, of any pre-sale
dispute(s) between You and the Association and/or NAS.

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

DISCUSSION
Rule 26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[p]arties may obtain

16

discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and

17

proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action,

18

the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources,

19

and the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden and expense of

20

the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Information within the scope of discovery need

21

not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.” The 2015 amendments to Rule 26(b) encourage

22

trial courts to exercise their broad discretion to limit and tailor discovery to avoid abuse and overuse,

23

and to actively manage discovery to accomplish the goal of Rule 1 to secure the just, speedy, and

24

inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding. Roberts v. Clark County School District,

25

312 F.R.D. 594, 601–04 (D. Nev. 2016).

26

Considering the time involved in preparing for and the taking of the deposition, the Court will

27

allow the deposition on the listed topics be taken. The Court nonetheless grants in part Defendant’s

28

Motion for Protection from its 30(b)(6) Deposition as provided herein. The Court limits Topic 5
3

1

regarding document retention policies to those documents that Defendant SFR believes are missing

2

from the file. Defendant SFR will identify the documents that it believes are missing in a revised

3

deposition notice. This topic is limited on the condition that Plaintiff BANA produces unprivileged

4

documents to Defendant SFR. In regard to Topic 4, the witness should be prepared to testify on this

5

topic only to the extent that there is any information in the file on the foreclosure of the first deed of

6

trust that relates to the HOA assessment lien.

7

The Court will allow Plaintiff’s witness to testify from Dallas, Texas. Defendant SFR has the

8

option to take the deposition in Dallas, Texas or by video conference. The parties are not precluded,

9

however, from agreeing to conduct depositions in Nevada.

10

Plaintiff BANA argues that it is entitled to fees and costs pursuant to Rule 37(a)(5) of the

11

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Motion for Protective Order, (ECF No. 62), pg. 16. Defendant

12

SFR argues that its position was substantially justified because of its desire to inspect the original

13

note and because it believes it was prejudiced by previous depositions conducted by video

14

conference. See Opposition, (ECF No. 67), pg. 20. Because reasonable minds could differ regarding

15

the location of the deposition and the relevance of the deposition topics, the Court therefore will not

16

award fees and expenses to Plaintiff BANA. See Aevoe Corp. v. AE Tech Co., Ltd., 2013 WL

17

5324787, *1 (D.Nev. Sept. 20, 2013). Accordingly,

18
19
20

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant SFR’s Emergency Motion to Stay (ECF No. 59)
is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff BANA’s Emergency Motion for a Protective

21

Order from its 30(b)(6) Deposition and Motion for Sanctions (ECF No. 62) is granted in part and

22

denied in part. Plaintiff’s Motion for a Protective Order from its 30(b)(6) Deposition is granted on a

23

limited basis as detailed above. Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions is denied.

24

DATED this 1st day of December, 2016.

25
26
27

______________________________________
GEORGE FOLEY, JR.
United States Magistrate Judge

28
4