Downs v. River City Group LLC et al
ORDER - Wells Fargo's # 261 Motion to clarify is GRANTED consistent with this order; Defendant's # 262 Request for expedited relief is DENIED AS MOOT. Signed by Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb on 10/9/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
RIVER CITY GROUP, LLC, et al.,
re: Motion to Clarify Order and
Request for Expedited Relief
(Doc. ## 261, 262)
Before the Court are two motions filed by Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, a Motion to Clarify
Order re Order on Remand [ECF No. 258] and a Request for Expedited Relief, filed as Docs. # 261 and
# 262, respectively.1 Both motions pertain to an apparent discrepancy which was contained in this court's
Order on Remand (Doc. # 258.), which was issued after District Judge Larry R. Hicks directed this court
to, as Wells Fargo has characterized it, "adjudicate Downs' [discovery] motion on the merits." (Doc. #
261 at 1-2.)
Motion to Clarify (Doc. # 261)
Wells Fargo expresses concern about that component of the court's order on remand which
seemingly requires Wells Fargo to not only submit to the court those documents it has produced to
Plaintiff, but also those which were placed into dispute by reason of the parties' discovery and discovery
responses. Wells Fargo contends,
The order continues "[i]f Plaintiff contends that additional documents remain to be
produced, Wells Fargo shall submit those documents with its memorandum, whether
Refers to court's docket number.
filed separately or jointly." Id. at p. 7. This language appears to require Wells Fargo to
attach all documents Downs contends need to be produced–including documents Wells
Fargo (1) agrees it has not produced but (2) believes it is not required to produce."
(Doc. # 261 at 2; emphasis in the original.)
Wells Fargo expresses no objection to providing copies of the documents it has already produced.
Instead, the objection is predicated as to producing documents about which the parties continue to
disagree, characterized as the "Second Category Documents." (Id. at 2.) Wells Fargo explains,
The court should not require Wells Fargo to attach the Second Category Documents to
its memorandum. The Second Category Documents consist of three subcategories: (1)
documents that are irrelevant, the production of which is unduly burdensome, and/or as
to which Wells Fargo has another valid objection; (2) documents relating to Rule 34
requests that Downs withdrew during the discovery phase; and (3) documents relating
to Dollens v. Wells Fargo Bank, Case No. D-202-CV-2011-05294, Second Judicial
District Court, State of New Mexico. Attaching these Second Category Documents to
Wells Fargo's memorandum would be exceedingly burdensome–to Wells Fargo and to
the court. It would also moot Wells Fargo's right to assert its objections on the merits.
The court should clarify that Wells Fargo does not need to attach the Second Category
Document to its memorandum * * *
(Id.; emphasis in the original.)
The Wells Fargo dilemma was unintentionally created by the court. To clarify, the court agrees
that at this time, Wells Fargo should only be required to submit the documents and materials comprising
the "First Category Documents." Otherwise, Defendants' objections to Plaintiff's discovery would be
mooted without hearing Defendant's arguments on the substantive discovery dispute pertaining to the
"Second Category Documents."
Accordingly, Wells Fargo's motion to clarify (Doc. # 261) is GRANTED consistent with this
Request for Expedited Relief (Doc. # 262)
Due to the impending deadline for the parties to comply with the court's order on remand, the
court has addressed and resolved Wells Fargo's motion to clarify. Therefore, the Defendant's request for
expedited relief (Doc. # 262) is DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: October 9, 2014.
WILLIAM G. COBB
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?