Hancock v. Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC et al

Filing 103

ORDER denying 85 Motion to Compel; denying 86 Motion to Compel; denying 87 Motion to Compel; denying 88 Motion to Compel. Signed by Honorable Timothy D. DeGiusti on 1/5/2016. (mb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
BRUCE A. HANCOCK, JR.,
Plaintiff,
vs.
OCWEN LOAN SERVICING,
LLC, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CIV-14-1380-D

ORDER
Before the Court are four motions to compel [Doc. Nos. 85, 86, 87, 88] (collectively,
“Motions”)1, filed on November 30, 2015, by Plaintiff Bruce A Hancock, Jr., who appears
pro se. Although not a party to this action, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau filed
a response [Doc. No. 97] on December 23, 2015. Defendant Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC’s
objection [Doc. No. 98] was untimely filed on December 27, 2015.2
As previously stated in a March 5, 2015, Order of the Court, “[a]lthough Plaintiff is
a pro se litigant, this Court may properly insist that he ‘follow the same rules of procedure
that govern all other litigants.’” See Order [Doc. No. 54] (quoting Garrett v. Selby Connor
Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005) (further citations omitted)). The

1

Doc. Nos. 85, 86, and 87 seek to compel document production from nonparty sources, Money
Management International, Bank of America, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau,
respectively. Doc. No. 88 seeks to compel document production from Defendant Ocwen Loan Servicing,
LLC.
2

“Each party opposing a motion shall file a response within 21 days after the date the motion
was filed.” LCvR 7.1(g).

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are designed to “secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive
determination of every action and proceeding.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. The same is true of the
Local Rules of the Western District of Oklahoma. It is therefore essential that Plaintiff
familiarize himself with and adhere to these rules.
Each of Plaintiff’s Motions fails to comply with LCvR 37.1 and Fed. R. Civ. P.
37(a)(1), which both require certification of a good faith conference prior to filing discovery
motions. Plaintiff’s Motions contain no such certification. Additionally, Plaintiff’s motion
seeking to compel documents and information from the Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau [Doc. No. 87] fails to comply with established case law requirements regarding third
party discovery from a governmental agency. See U.S. ex rel. Touhy v. Ragen, 340 U.S. 462
(1951); 12 C.F.R. §§ 1070.30-10.70.38.3 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motions are DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 5th day of January, 2016.

3

See also the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s response [Doc. No. 97] at 7 (“The
Supreme Court has long held that a party who subpoenas records from a nonparty agency of the United
States government must comply with the regulations of that agency governing the release of information
in response to discovery for third party litigation. The Bureau has promulgated such so-called Touhy
regulations for determining when to accept the burden of providing discovery for litigation between
others. The Bureau’s Touhy rules require that a party seeking discovery inform the Bureau of the
circumstances relevant to the request . . . .” (citations omitted)).