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

Filing 113

ORDER granting ECF No. 110 Stipulation To Extend Time re ECF No. 90 Motion for Protective Order: BANA's reply due by 10/10/2018. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 10/10/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - LH)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

MELANIE D. MORGAN, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 8215
DARREN T. BRENNER, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 8386
VATANA LAY, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 12993
AKERMAN LLP
1635 Village Center Circle, Suite 200
Las Vegas, NV 89134
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Bank of America, N.A.
and Federal National Mortgage Association
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

AKERMAN LLP

1635 VILLAGE CENTER CIRCLE, SUITE 200
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89134
TEL.: [phone] – FAX: [phone]

10

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

11
12
13
14

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., successor by
merger to BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING,
LP fka COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS
SERVICING, LP and FEDERAL NATIONAL
MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION,
Plaintiffs,

15
16
17
18

Case No.: 2:16-cv-02768-MMD-CWH
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.’S DEADLINE TO
REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR
PROTECTION
[ECF NO. 90]

vs.
(First Request)
SANTA
BARBARA
HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION;
SFR
INVESTMENTS
POOL 1,
LLC;
and
ABSOLUTE
COLLECTION SERVICES, LLC,
Defendants.

19
20
21
22
23

Plaintiff and counter-defendants Bank of America, N.A. (BANA) and defendant SFR
Investments Pool 1, LLC hereby agree as follows:
1.

On August 31, 2018, Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) filed

24

a motion to stay discovery or in the alternative emergency motion to quash the notice of deposition

25

and/or for a protective order to limit defendant’s 30(b)(6) deposition topics. ECF Nos. 87-88.

26

BANA joined Fannie Mae’s motion to stay discovery (ECF No. 89) and in the alternative moved

27

for emergency protection limiting the deposition topics in its 30(b)(6) deposition (ECF Nos. 90).
-146623018;1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

AKERMAN LLP

1635 VILLAGE CENTER CIRCLE, SUITE 200
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89134
TEL.: [phone] – FAX: [phone]

10

2.

On September 24, 2018, Fannie, BANA, and SFR stipulated to extend SFR’s

deadline to respond to ECF Nos. 87-90 until Monday, September 24, 2018 at noon. ECF No. 95.
3.

On September 24, 2018, Fannie, BANA, and SFR stipulated to extend SFR’s

deadline to respond to ECF Nos. 87-90 until Monday, September 25, 2018 at noon. ECF No. 96.
4.

On September 25, 2018, SFR filed its response to Fannie Mae’s motion to stay

discovery or in the alternative emergency motion to quash the notice of deposition and/or for a
protective order to limit defendant’s 30(b)(6) deposition topics, Bank of America, N.A.’s joinder
to motion to stay AND countermotion to stay litigation. ECF Nos. 97, 98, 100 and 101.
5.

Duplicate copies of the same document addressing multiple issued were filed a

total of five times. SFR responded to Fannie Mae’s motion to stay (ECF No. 87) with ECF No.
97, Fannie Mae’s motion to quash (ECF No. 88) with ECF No. 98, BANA’s joinder to the motion

11
to stay (ECF No. 89) with ECF No. 100, and SFR’s counter motion to stay litigation (ECF No.
12
101). The same document was also inadvertently filed as ECF No. 99 and linked to ECF No. 90,
13
BANA’s motion for protective order. This was not correct as the document filed as ECF No. 99
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

did not address the points and authorities of BANA’s motion for protective order (ECF No. 90).
6.

On September 25, 2018, SFR also filed a different document with different points

and authorities in response to ECF No. 90, BANA’s motion for protective order as ECF No. 102.
At the time of drafting the reply in support of BANA’s motion for protective order, BANA’s
counsel did not realize the response had been filed as ECF No. 102 due to the other document
being improperly linked to ECF No. 90.
7.

On October 2, 2018, Fannie Mae filed its reply in support of its motion to stay

21

discovery and motion for protective order (ECF No. 105) and opposed SFR’s countermotion to

22

stay litigation (ECF No. 106). Also on October 2, 2018, BANA joined Fannie Mae’s reply in

23

support of the motion to stay discovery (ECF No 107), joined Fannie Mae’s opposition to the

24

countermotion to stay litigation (ECF No. 108), and replied in support of its motion for protective

25

order (ECF No. 109).

26
27

8.

BANA’s reply in support of its motion for protective order states SFR did not

respond to the motion for protective order. See ECF Nos. 107-109, at 2:6-15. Given the confusion
-246623018;1