Campidoglio LLC et al v. Wells Fargo & Company et al

Filing 249

MINUTE ORDER denying deferred portion of pltfs' 129 Motion for Relief; striking pltfs' 210 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting pltf's 239 Motion for Relief; renoting dfts' 72 MOTION for Summary Judgment or, Alternatively, Partial Summary Judgment along with motions at 37 and 220 for 7/18/14, by Judge Thomas S. Zilly.(RS)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

4
5

CAMPIDOGLIO LLC, et al.,

6

Plaintiffs,
C12-949 TSZ

7

v.
MINUTE ORDER

8

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., et al.,

9
10
11

Defendants.
The following Minute Order is made by direction of the Court, the Honorable
Thomas S. Zilly, United States District Judge:

(1)
The deferred portion of plaintiffs’ motion for Rule 37(b) relief, docket
12 no. 129, is DENIED. The Court is satisfied that, contrary to plaintiffs’ contention,
defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Wells Fargo”) has not invoked the attorney-client
13 privilege too broadly. 1 The Court DECLINES to award attorney fees or costs to Wells
Fargo. 2
14
15
1

With respect to the e-mail from attorney Shawn Sax (ADI000018346), as to which Wells Fargo

16 has withdrawn its assertion of the bank examination privilege, see Minute Order at n.1 (docket
no. 236 at 2), both sides have clarified that Wells Fargo continues to invoke the attorney-client
privilege. Having reviewed the document again in camera, the Court is persuaded that it was
17
properly withheld. With regard to the attachments to e-mails identified in the previous Minute
18 Order (ADI000028439, 84166, 28988, 84505, 85341, and 84422), Wells Fargo has explained
that some of these materials were produced and other documents were not disclosed as either not
responsive to the discovery requests at issue or protected by attorney-client privilege, as reflected
19
in a separate privilege log entry. The Court is satisfied that Wells Fargo has complied with its
discovery obligations.

20

2

Wells Fargo has acknowledged that, in response to plaintiffs’ motion for Rule 37(b) relief, it
undertook a review of its privilege assertions and, as a result, produced additional documents to
21
plaintiffs. See Supp. Resp. at 2 (docket no. 247). Thus, although plaintiffs did not prevail on the
motion, see Minute Orders (docket nos. 185 & 236), the Court is of the opinion that an award of
22 expenses in opposing the motion would be “unjust.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(B)&(b)(2)(C).

23
MINUTE ORDER - 1

1

(2)
Plaintiffs’ unopposed motion for extension, docket no. 239, is GRANTED
as follows. The deadline set forth in the Minute Order entered March 11, 2014, docket
2 no. 236, for plaintiffs to file a supplemental response to defendants’ motion for summary
judgment is extended to July 11, 2014. Defendants’ supplemental reply is due on July
3 18, 2014.
(3)
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, docket no. 72, is RENOTED to
July 18, 2014. Plaintiffs’ motion to certify class, docket no. 37, and defendants’
5 alternative motion to dismiss, docket no. 220, are also RENOTED to July 18, 2014. Both
of these motions, however, will be decided after the Court rules on defendants’ motion
6 for summary judgment.
4

(4)
Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, docket no. 210, is STRICKEN
without prejudice as prematurely filed. See Hartley v. Suburban Radiologic Consultants,
8 Ltd., 295 F.R.D. 357, 367-69 (D. Minn. 2013); see also Weir v. Joly, 2011 WL 6043024
(D. Ore. Dec. 2, 2011); Gomez v. Rossi Concrete Inc., 2011 WL 666888 (S.D. Cal. Feb.
9 17, 2011). If the Court grants the pending motion to certify class, plaintiffs may refile
their motion for summary judgment after notice has been given and the period for class
10 members to exclude themselves has expired.
7

11
12

(5)
record.

The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Minute Order to all counsel of

Dated this 11th day of June, 2014.

13

William M. McCool
Clerk

14

s/Claudia Hawney
Deputy Clerk

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
MINUTE ORDER - 2