Pike et al v. Wells Fargo Bank National Association

Filing 49

MEMORANDUM DECISION and Order-denying 47 Motion for Discovery; terminating 47 Motion to Expedite; granting in part and denying in part 28 Motion to Compel; granting 32 Motion for Protective Order. See Order for details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead on 4/7/16. (jmr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
CENTRAL DIVISION
ADAM PIKE, an individual, BRET
BERRY, an individual, REVA COOK, an
individual, RELIANCE MEDICAL
SYSTEMS, LLC, a Utah limited liability
company, and PIKE INDUSTRIES, Inc., a
Utah corporation,
Plaintiffs,

MEMORANDUM DECISION & ORDER
Case No. 1:15-cv-00057
United States District Court Judge Clark
Waddoups

v.
Magistrate Judge Dustin Pead
WELLS FARGO BANK, N. A.,
Defendant.

This case is before the above entitled Court pursuant to a 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A)
referral from District Court Judge Clark Waddoups (doc. 4). On July 13, 2015, Judge Waddoups
issued a Short Form Discovery Motion Order setting forth the expedited procedure to be
followed in all discovery disputes in this case (doc. 15).
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs Adam Pike, Bret Berry, Reva Cook, Reliance Medical Systems and Pike
Industries (collectively “Plaintiffs”) are individuals and entities who had personal banking
relationships with Defendant Wells Fargo Bank (“Wells Fargo”). As set forth in the complaint,
Plaintiffs contend they received form letters indicating that Wells Fargo had “decided to close
[Plaintiffs’] above referenced accounts” (doc. 2-2). Wells Fargo failed to provide Plaintiffs with
further explanation for the account closure and instead informed third parties that Plaintiffs
“were guilty of alleged criminal activities and those activities formed the basis of Wells Fargo’s”
decision to close the accounts (doc. 2, ¶21). Based thereon, Plaintiffs filed claims against Wells

Fargo for breach of implied contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing,
tortious interference with economic relations, slander and intentional infliction of emotional
distress (doc. 2).
II. DISCOVERY DISPUTES
a) Plaintiffs’ Motion To Compel
On February 12, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel discovery seeking an order of
the court requiring Wells Fargo to fully respond to Plaintiffs’ First Set of Discovery Requests
(“Discovery Requests”) (doc. 28). Plaintiffs assert that Wells Fargo’s blanket objections to
Interrogatories 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 13, 17 and 18 and Requests For Production 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
and 11 are improper because Wells Fargo fails to provide a basis for the objections or to indicate
what privilege applies (doc. 28-2, e.g. “responsive information may include confidential
supervisory or governmental information which Wells Fargo will not disclose.”).
b) Wells Fargo’s Motion For Protective Order
Wells Fargo filed its initial motion for protective order on February 22, 2016 (doc. 32)
and, pursuant to this court’s request (doc. 40), filed a supplemental sealed ex parte motion for
protective order on March 27, 2016 (doc. 45). Wells Fargo seeks to prohibit Plaintiffs from
inquiring about or obtaining documents that implicate privileged and other statutorily protected
information. Wells Fargo contends that due to the nature of the privileges claimed, it is unable
to identify those specific privileges or statutory protections relied upon in support of its motion.
c) Plaintiffs’ Motion For Discovery
Plaintiffs seek an order granting them access to the Declaration of FBI Special Agent
(“FBI Declaration) filed under seal by Wells Fargo on March 28, 2016 (doc. 47)
2

III. ANALYSIS
Upon review the court finds, while unusual, under these circumstances Wells Fargo is
prohibited from fully responding to the discovery requests at issue in Plaintiffs’ motion to
compel.1 Such prohibitions restrict Wells Fargo both from providing the contents of documents
sought in addition to acknowledging the existence of documents, if any. Further, the court’s own
ability to provide Plaintiffs with additional detailed information regarding the relevant privileges
and protected information is similarly limited. If at any point, a privilege no longer has relevance
or fails to apply to the discovery sought, Wells Fargo has an ongoing obligation to supplement its
responses. For these reasons, Plaintiffs’ motion to compel is granted, in part, as to
Interrogatories 17 and 18 and Requests For Production 10 and 11, and Wells Fargo’s motion for
protective order is granted.
Wells Fargo’s request to extend coverage under the protective order to the parties’
depositions is granted to the extent that a deponent’s invocation of the same privileges and
protections raised by Wells Fargo in the protective order, where relevant, will be granted. See
generally Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(d)(3)(B) (allowing court to limit the scope of a deposition as
provided under Rule 26(c); Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1)(C) (protective order issued to “forbid inquiry
into certain maters, or limiting the scope of disclosure or discovery to certain matters”).
Finally, Plaintiffs motion for discovery seeking access to the FBI Declaration is denied.
The FBI Declaration was filed in conjunction with and directly relates to Wells Fargo’s sealed,
ex parte motion for protective order addressing the source of the privileges and protections relied

1

Wells Fargo does not assert any privilege or statutory protection with respect to
Interrogatories 17 and 18 and Requests For Production 10 and 11 (doc. 45).
3

upon by Wells Fargo.
IV. ORDER
Based on the foregoing, the court:
GRANTS, IN PART, Plaintiffs’ motion to compel as to Interrogatories 17 and 18 and
Requests For Production 10 and 11 (doc. 28);
GRANTS Wells Fargo’s motions for protective order as to Interrogatories 2, 4, 6, 8, 10,
12, 13 and Requests For Production 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 (doc. 32, 45); and
DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion for discovery (doc. 47).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated this 7th day of April, 2016
_______________________________
Dustin Pead
U.S. Federal Magistrate Judge

4