Castellanos et al v. Deutsche Bank, Trustee for Long Beach Mortgage

Filing 50

ORDER denying 45 Plaintiff's Motion for order to further Compel discovery. Signed by Chief Judge Susan J. Dlott. (wam1)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
Michelle Castellanos, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Deutsche Bank, Trustee for Long Beach
Mortgage,
Defendant.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Case No. 1:11cv815
Chief Judge Susan J. Dlott
Order Denying Plaintiff Orlando Carter’s
Motion for Order to Further Compel
Discovery

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Orlando Carter’s Motion for Order to Further
Compel Discovery (“Motion to Compel”) (Doc. 45). The Court held a discovery conference on
this issue on September 4, 2013. Defendant Deutsche Bank, Trustee for Long Beach Mortgage
(“Deutsche Bank”) filed a Memorandum in Opposition (Doc. 49) on October 2, 2013. Carter did
not file a reply brief. The Motion to Compel is ripe for adjudication.
I.

ANALYSIS
The Court will address each of Carter’s primary arguments seriatim as they are presented

in his brief.
A.

Documents Filed with the Foreclosure Complaint
Carter seeks Deutsche Bank to produce “all documents filed with its foreclosure

complaint of July 24, 2009 which includes the note, mortgage and any endorsements or
assignments thereof, and any document related to its complaint which is in JMPC’s [JPMorgan
Chase’s] possession, as attorney in fact to Defendant.” (Doc. 45 at PageID 498.) Deutsche Bank
responds that it produced the Note, Mortgage, Assignment, and Certificate of Incumbency to
Carter on May 29, 2013. (Doc. 49-1 at PageID 589; Doc. 49-4 at PageID 627–55.) Carter has

1

not identified any documents relevant to Deutsche Bank’s foreclosure complaint which Deutsche
Bank had in its possession and failed to produce. The Court will not grant the Motion to Compel
on this issue.
B.

Identity of Persons with Information Regarding Interrogatories
Carter seeks Deutsche Bank to “provide, as specifically requested in Interrogatory

Numbers 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, the name, address, and telephone number of any individual with
information regarding the specific request of the interrogatory.” (Doc. 45 at PageID 499.)
Deutsche Bank first responds that Carter failed to identify the specific Interrogatories at issue
when the parties attempted to extra-judicially resolve these disputes. Deutsche Bank contends
that it could have resolved these discovery disputes with Carter if he had provided the relevant
information.
In Interrogatory 1, Carter sought the “name and address, job title, employer, business
address and phone number of the person answering these interrogatories for DBNTC.” (Doc. 4912 at PageID 670.) Deutsche Bank responded to this Interrogatory by stating that the
Interrogatory Answers were provided by JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., attorney in fact for
Deutsche. (Id.) The Answers were verified by Vicki Jo Autrey, Assistant Secretary for
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (Id. at PageID 679.) It is not clear what additional information
Carter now seeks.
In Interrogatory 2, Carter sought information concerning the “Affidavit of Lost
File/Collateral Documents” email allegedly sent by Deutsche Bank to the United States
Attorney’s Office. (Id. at PageID 671.) Deutsche Bank previously admitted in its Responses to
Plaintiff’s Second Set of Requests for Admission dated July 22, 2013 that L’Tonya Andujar with
Washington Mutual emailed an Affidavit of Lost File/Collateral Documents to AUSA Richard

2

Chema on April 10, 2009. (Doc. 49-13 at PageID 689.) Deutsche Bank now responds that the
information sought in Interrogatory 2 is irrelevant to Carter’s FDCPA claim, the sole claim
pending in the current action. It further responds that it does not know the names, addresses, or
phone numbers of individuals with knowledge of the “Affidavit of Lost File/Collateral
Documents.” (Doc. 49 at PageID 583.) Carter has not provided the Court with an evidentiary
basis to challenge Deutsche Bank’s representation.
In Interrogatory 3 and 4, Carter sought information concerning the endorsement of the
Note by Jess Almanza and Angela Shepard. (Doc. 49-12 at PageID 672.) Based on the
indications on the face of the Note, Almanza and Shepard were executive employees of Long
Beach Mortgage Company, the original lender in regards to the Note. (Doc. 49-4 at PageID
630.) Deutsche Bank states that it does not have information pertaining to Long Beach Mortgage
Company’s employees or their authority to endorse the Note. Carter has not provided the Court
with an evidentiary basis to challenge Deutsche Bank’s representation.
In Interrogatory 5, Carter sought information concerning the physical transfer of the Note
to Deutsche Bank. (Doc. 49-12 at PageID 673.) Deutsche Bank originally responded that the
information sought was irrelevant. (Id.) However, Deutsche Bank produced a supplemental
response on September 19, 2013 stating that Note was deposited with Chase, as servicer for
Deutsche Bank on July 18, 2009. (Doc. 49-18 at PageID 712–16.) Deutsche Bank provided this
supplemental response after Carter filed the Motion to Compel on September 3, 2013. Carter has
not explained what additional information he seeks, if any.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will not grant the Motion to Compel as to
Interrogatories 1 through 5.

3

C.

JPMC as Attorney-in-Fact for Deutsche Bank
Carter seeks “the corporate and legal documents including the corporate minutes and

resolution which establishes JPMC as attorney in fact for Deutsche Bank.” (Doc. 45 at PageID
499.) On September 10, 2013, Deutsche Bank produced to Carter the Limited Power of Attorney
identifying Chase as the attorney in fact for Deutsche Bank. (Doc. 49-1 at PageID 592; 49-16 at
PageID 701–11.) The Court will not grant the Motion to Compel on this issue because Deutsche
Bank has satisfied Carter’s request.
D, E. Jess Almanza and Angela Shepard
Carter again seeks information regarding Almanza and Shepard. (Doc. 45 at PageID
499.) The Court will not grant the Motion to Compel on this issue because there is no
evidentiary basis for the Court to conclude that Deutsche Bank has information concerning
Almanza and Shepard.
F.

Privilege/Work Product Doctrine Log
Carter seeks Deutsche Bank to produce a privilege or work product doctrine log. (Doc.

45 at PageID 499.) Deutsche Bank informed Carter via an email dated July 30, 2013 that it did
not withhold the production of any responsive documents on the basis of privilege or the work
production doctrine. (Doc. 49-1 at PageID 591; Doc. 49-15 at PageID 696.) The Court will not
grant the Motion to Compel on this issue because Deutsche Bank has no duty to produce a log in
these circumstances.
G.

Requests for Admissions
Carter seeks Deutsche Bank to “specifically deny, admit or state in detail why Defendant

cannot truthfully admit or deny Request Numbers 12, 20, 21, 23, 24, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 46,
and 49 of the First Set of Request for Admissions, or deem the specific Request Number

4

admitted as stated.” (Doc. 45 at PageID 499.) Deutsche Bank supplemented its responses to the
each of the specified Requests for Admissions except Number 42 on September 27, 2013, after
the Motion to Compel was filed. (Doc. 49-19 at 718–25.) Carter has not set forth any arguments
asserting that these supplemental responses were insufficient.
Request for Admission 42 requests Deutsche Bank to admit that it has “settled lawsuits
against you regarding the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).” (Doc. 49-2 at PageID
605.) Deutsche Bank responds that the Request seeks information that is neither relevant nor
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The Court agrees that this
Request seeks information that is overly broad and outside the scope of Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 26. The Motion to Compel will not be granted on this basis.
II.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will DENY Plaintiff Orlando Carter’s Motion for

Order to Further Compel Discovery (Doc. 45).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

S/Susan J. Dlott____________________
Chief Judge Susan J. Dlott
United States District Court

5