Roundpoint Mortgage Servicing Corporation v. Five Brothers Mortgage Company Services and Securing, Inc.

Filing 33

ORDER denying without prejudice 29 Motion To Quash or in the alternative Motion Protective Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge David Keesler on 8/8/16. (mga)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:15-CV-559-RJC-DCK
ROUNDPOINT MORTGAGE SERVICING
CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
v.
FIVE BROTHERS MORTGAGE COMPANY
SERVICES AND SECURING, INC.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT on Defendant’s “Motion To Quash or in
the alternative Motion For Protective Order” (Document No. 29) filed June 23, 2016. This motion
has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), and is ripe
for disposition. Having carefully considered the motion and the record, the undersigned will deny
the motion.
By its motion, Plaintiff Five Brothers Mortgage Company Services And Securing, Inc.
(“Plaintiff” or “Five Brothers”) seek to quash a subpoena duces tecum (Document No. 29-1) (the
“Subpoena”) issued to Jeffrey Bunda (“Bunda”) of the Hutchens Law Firm. (Document No. 29).
The Subpoena commanded that on July 7, 2016, Mr. Bunda should
Produce any and all documents, correspondence and/or pleadings
related to the following case: Annette M. Hayes v. Roundpoint
Mortgage Servicing Corporation, et. al., Case No. 1:13-cv-00880CCE-JLW, in the United States District Court, Middle District of
North Carolina (Durham Division).

(Document No. 29-1). Bunda and the Hutchens Law Firm were the attorneys of record for Five
Brothers in Case No. 1:13-cv-00880-CCE-JLW (the “underlying lawsuit”). (Document No. 29,
p.1).
Five Brothers contends that the Subpoena commands the production of pleadings that are
equally available to Plaintiff Roundpoint Mortgage Servicing Corporation (“Plaintiff” or
“Roundpoint”), and that it commands “overly broad” document production. (Document No. 29,
p.2). In addition, Five Brothers argues that correspondence sought from the underlying lawsuit
will include privileged communications. Id.
“Plaintiff’s Response…” (Document No. 30) was filed on July 8, 2016.

Plaintiff

Roundpoint first argues that Defendant Five Brothers’ failure to confer with Plaintiff before filing
the instant motion is sufficient cause for denial. (Document No. 30, pp.1-2). Plaintiff also argues
that Defendant is not entitled to seek a protective order for Bunda, and has failed to show that any
of the requested documents are privileged. (Document No. 30).
Based on Defendant’s failure to abide by the Local Rules of this Court, as well as Plaintiff’s
other arguments, the undersigned finds good cause to deny the pending motion. Defendant failed
to satisfy the consultation requirement pursuant to Local Rule 7.1 (B), and failed to file a reply
brief, or notice of intent not to reply, pursuant to Local Rule 7.1 (E).

Moreover, recent

correspondence with the undersigned’s staff suggests that at least some of the requested production
has already been made by Mr. Bunda. As such, it is unclear whether any, or all, of the pending
motion is now moot.
The motion will be denied without prejudice. If appropriate and necessary, Defendant may
file a renewed motion that is consistent with the Local Rules of this Court. The Court will take
Plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees and costs under advisement. The undersigned agrees that

2

proper consultation might have eliminated, or at least narrowed, the issues in the pending motion.
Defendant is respectfully advised that failure to abide by the “Pretrial Order And Case
Management Plan” (Document No. 23) or the Local Rules may result in sanctions.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Defendant’s “Motion To Quash or in the
alternative Motion For Protective Order” (Document No. 29) is DENIED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.
SO ORDERED.

Signed: August 8, 2016

3