Drouin, et al v. American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc., et al
Filing
50
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 49 Motion for Protective Order. Parties to comply as outlined. Preliminary injunction against foreclosure is lifted. So Ordered by Chief Judge Joseph N. Laplante.(jb)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Michael Drouin et al.
v.
Civil No. 11-cv-596-JL
American Home Mortgage
Servicing, Inc., et al.
O R D E R
Defendants American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc. (“AHMSI”)
and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. moved this court to enter a protective
order excusing them from responding to plaintiffs’ Rule 30(b)(6)
deposition notices.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c).
This was in
violation of this court’s July 26, 2012 order setting forth its
discovery dispute resolution procedure.
Nonetheless, in light of
the recent close of discovery and the impending summary judgment
deadline, the court held a conference call with counsel for all
parties in an attempt to resolve the issues presented by that
motion, as well as other issues raised by the parties, as
expeditiously as possible.
On the call, the parties made the
following representations to the court:
<
Plaintiffs’ counsel represented that, based upon his
discussion with defendants’ counsel, the only areas of
inquiry in his 30(b)(6) deposition notices that he still
wished to pursue were those set forth in paragraphs 8-12,
14, 26, and 28 of the notices.
<
Plaintiff’s counsel acknowledged that the plaintiffs had
failed to establish the escrow account contemplated by the
court’s orders of July 26, 2012, and December 10, 2012.
<
Counsel for defendant Option One Mortgage Corporation
acknowledged that Option One had failed to respond to
plaintiffs’ discovery requests as contemplated by the
court’s order of December 10, 2012.
Based upon these representations, and the court’s discussion with
counsel on the call, the court orders as follows:
<
The motion for protective order (document no. 49) is granted
in part and denied in part. Rule 30(b)(6) depositions of
AHMSI, Wells Fargo, and their co-defendant Option One
Mortgage Corporation shall be taken on or before February
19, 2013. AHMSI and Wells Fargo shall produce a deponent on
topics 8-12 and 28, but need not produce a deponent on
topics 14 and 26. No expenses will be assessed under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5)(C).
<
Wells Fargo and AHMSI may select twelve (12) interrogatories
from their December 24, 2012 interrogatories to plaintiff
Michael Drouin, and twelve (12) interrogatories from their
December 24, 2012 interrogatories to plaintiff Kathleen
Drouin, to which they desire responses from the Drouins.
The Drouins shall provide objections and/or responses to
those interrogatories on or before February 19, 2013.
<
Option One shall provide full and complete responses to
plaintiffs’ discovery requests on or before January 31,
2013. By that date, Option One shall also file a memorandum
with the court showing cause why sanctions should not be
assessed against it pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 37(b)(2) for its failure to comply with the
court’s December 10, 2012 order.
<
To accommodate the additional discovery outlined above, the
Drouins’ objections to any summary judgment motions shall be
due ten (10) days from the date of the final Rule 30(b)(6)
deposition. Replies and sur-replies will be permitted
without leave of court. Any reply memorandum shall be due
four (4) days from the date on which the objection is filed.
Any sur-reply memorandum shall be due four (4) days from the
date on which the reply is filed.
<
Based upon the Drouins’ failure to establish the escrow
account contemplated by the court’s July 26, 2012 and
2
December 10, 2012 orders–-and initially ordered by the
Superior Court in December 2011--the preliminary injunction
against foreclosure is lifted.
SO ORDERED.
____________________________
Joseph N. Laplante
United States District Judge
Dated: January 23, 2012
cc:
Robert M.A. Nadeau, Esq.
Paula-Lee Chambers, Esq.
Geoffrey M. Coan, Esq.
Thomas C. Tretter, Esq.
Victor Manougian, Esq.
3
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?