Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Fifth Third Bank

Filing 58

ORDER resulting from telephone discovery conference. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman on 9/25/13. (jl1)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,

Case No. 1:12-cv-794

Plaintiff,

Beckwith, J.
Bowman, M.J.

v.

FIFTH THIRD BANK,
Defendant.

ORDER
On September 24, 2013, the Court convened a telephonic conference at
Defendant Fifth Third’s request in order to resolve three discrete discovery disputes.
Pursuant to the practice of the undersigned, both parties tendered very short
memoranda setting forth their respective positions on the issues before the Court, which
memoranda have not been filed of record.
The Court having reviewed the parties’ informal written submissions, and having
heard oral argument, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1.

Fifth Third shall disclose the identity of its experts by September 27,
2013, but need not disclose the reports of those experts until
November 1, 2013;

2.

Wells Fargo shall have a corresponding extension of time in which to
disclose any rebuttal experts, including any reports, until December 2,
2013;

3.

The extensions to the expert disclosure deadlines have been made
conditioned on the good faith representations of the parties that the
reports will not be required to prepare dispositive motions. Therefore,
no other deadlines, including but not limited to the dispositive
motion deadline, shall be affected by this Order;

4.

Fifth Third shall immediately restate in writing its prior requests for Well
Fargo’s written policies and procedures, in order to narrow the scope of
those requests to the time frame of 2009 or later, based on Wells
Fargo’s acknowledgement that it is not claiming gross negligence prior
to that time frame. In addition, the requests should be narrowed by
subject matter as discussed during the conference with the Court;

5.

Fifth Third’s request to take an eleventh deposition, either of Ms. May or
Mr. Golownia, shall be taken under submission until following the
completion of the previously noticed Rule 30(b)(6) deposition. Should
the parties be unable to amicably resolve the issue after that time, they
should promptly contact the Court for an additional conference;

6.

Wells Fargo’s oral request to unseal Fifth Third’s reply in support of its
motion to amend its complaint (Doc. 31) will not be considered at this
time, given Fifth Third’s position that the issue has been rendered moot,
and the lack of full exhaustion of extrajudicial efforts to resolve this
issue since last presented to the Court.

To the extent that further

discussions between counsel reveal continuing disagreement, the

2

parties should contact the Court for an additional telephonic conference
in lieu of filing formal motions.

s/ Stephanie K. Bowman
Stephanie K. Bowman
United States Magistrate Judge

3