Weber et al v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

Filing 52

ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFFS' MOTION 27 , 28 TO COMPEL. Deft. is ORDERED to supplement its response to document request 22 and fully respond to interrogatory six and document request 24. Objections may be filed within 14 days of this Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge James E. Seibert on 4/22/2014. (tlg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
MARTINSBURG
DONALD WEBER and
JANE WEBER,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Civil Action No. 3:13CV158
(JUDGE BAILEY)

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,
d/b/a WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE,
Defendant.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL
I. INTRODUCTION
On April 15, 2014, came the above named Plaintiffs, by Garry G. Geffert, Esq., by
telephone, and Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Defendant”), by Matthew D. Patterson, Esq.,
by telephone, for an evidentiary hearing and argument on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Answers to
Interrogatories [28] and Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Production of Documents [27]. Defendant
filed a Response [42] on April 3, 2014. Plaintiffs filed a Reply [43] and [44] on April 11, 2014 and
then a Supplemental Reply [45] and [46] on April 14, 2014. No additional testimony or evidence
was presented at the hearing. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court deferred ruling on the
motion. Based on the record and the argument of the parties, the Court now issues the following
ruling.
II. DISCUSSION
This case revolves around Defendant’s handling of Plaintiffs’ home mortgage loan account
and attempted modifications thereof. On March 10, 2014, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Compel
1

Interrogatories [28] and a Motion to Compel Requests for Production of Documents [27]. The
parties have since resolved all discovery issues in those motions except for the Response to
Interrogatory 6 and Responses to Document Requests 22 and 24.
A. Interrogatory #6 and Request for Production of Documents #24
With this framework established, the Court will address interrogatory number six (6) and
request for production twenty-four (24) as those discovery issues relate to each other.

Interrogatory 6: For each lawsuit filed against defendant during
the period beginning January 1, 2006 and continuing to the present
in which a plaintiff has alleged that an agent of defendant told a
borrower that the borrower should stop making monthly payments
while a request for a mortgage loan modification was pending,
state the name of each plaintiff, the court in which the complaint
was filed, the case number assigned to the case, the name and
address of each attorney for each plaintiff, and the current status of
the litigation.
Defendant’s Answer: As a result of this Court's recent dismissal
order, punitive damages are no longer at issue in this case. Thus,
Wells Fargo objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is
overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence. Wells Fargo further objects on
the basis that the information sought in this interrogatory may be
publicly available.
Defendant’s Supplemental Answer: As a result of this Court's
recent dismissal order, punitive damages are no longer at issue in
this case. Thus, per its earlier objections, Wells Fargo objects to
this interrogatory on the grounds that it does not seek relevant or
admissible information. While other claims and lawsuits might be
relevant under certain circumstances where punitive damages are
at issue, since they are absent here as a result of this Court's
dismissal, the putative relevance of such information has now been
removed. See e.g., Caton v. GreenTree Services, LLC, 2007 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS [56515] (N.D.W.Va. 2007) (finding specifically that
requests for other lawsuits become relevant only on issue of
punitive damages.) Furthermore, per its earlier objections
regarding over breadth, there is no geographic limitation on the
requested information and the temporal scope is overly broad
2

inasmuch as it requests information stretching back for nearly a
decade. Finally, Wells Fargo maintains its objection that some of
the information sought in this interrogatory may be publicly
available.

Request 24. For each lawsuit filed against defendant during the
period beginning January 1, 2006 and continuing to the present in
which a plaintiff has alleged that an agent of defendant told a
borrower that the borrower should stop making monthly payments
while a request for a mortgage loan modification was pending, a
copy of the complaint and, if the litigation has been completed, of
any judgment or other order terminating the litigation and of any
settlement agreement, release of claims or similar document
resolving the dispute.
Defendant’s Response: As a result of this Court’s recent dismissal
order, punitive damages are no longer at issue in this case. Thus,
Wells Fargo objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly
broad, unduly burdensome, and not calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence. Wells Fargo further objects on
the basis that the information sought in this request may be
publicly available
Defendant’s Supplemental Response: As a result of this Court's
recent dismissal order, punitive damages are no longer at issue in
this case. Thus, per its earlier objections, Wells Fargo objects to
this interrogatory on the grounds that it does not seek relevant or
admissible information. While other claims and lawsuits might be
relevant under some circumstances where punitive damages are at
issue, since they are absent here as a result of this Court's
dismissal, the relevance of such information has now been
removed. See e.g., Caton v. GreenTree Services, LLC, 2007 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS (N.D.W.Va. 2007) (finding specifically that requests
for other lawsuits becomes relevant only on issue of punitive
damages.) Furthermore, per its earlier objections regarding
overbreadth, there is no geographic limitation on the requested
information and the temporal scope is overly broad inasmuch as it
requests information stretching back for nearly a decade. Finally,
Wells Fargo maintains its objection that some of the information
sought in this interrogatory may be publicly available.

Plaintiffs further asserted during the hearing that there is a particular allegation in their
3

complaint that a Wells Fargo agent told them to stop making payments on their mortgage loan
while their request for modification was pending. Plaintiffs believe that identifying information
about any litigation filed against defendants in which the same situation occurred are relevant to
Plaintiffs claims and may lead to discovery of admissible evidence.
First, the Defendant asserts that other law suits are not relevant Plaintiffs’ claims, as there
are no allegations of fraud. Additionally, punitive damages are no longer at issue in this case
after this courts recent dismissal order. This information is simply not relevant to the claims of
the party. Second, the Defendant asserts discovery request is too broad and can not be tailored to
make them narrow. There is no geographic scope or time limitations. When asked by the Court,
Defendant asserts that the relevant time period would be late 2011.
The Court finds that the inquiries regarding similar lawsuits are relevant but that they
should be limited in scope. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion with respect to Interrogatory 6 and
Document Request 24 is GRANTED in part. The Court will limit the geographic area of
the discovery requests to West Virginia and will limit the time period to the five years prior
to the institution of this action. Plaintiff shall file a supplemental response to interrogatory six
(6) and request twenty-four (24) under those additional limitations by May 5, 2014.
C. Document Request #22
Request 22. All documents setting out defendant's policies and
procedures regarding the receipt, organization and preservation of
documents submitted by borrowers in connection with requests for
mortgage modification, hardship, forbearance or other relief from
foreclosure.
Defendant’s Response: Wells Fargo objects to this request on the
grounds that it is not calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence. Wells Fargo further objects on the basis that
the request seeks information which may be of a confidential and
proprietary nature in the absence of a protective order. Subject to
4

these objections, Wells Fargo is producing herewith all documents
which relate to its actual communications with Plaintiffs.
Defendant’s Supplemental Response: [None]

Defendant’s counsel represented at the hearing that Defendant has already provided this
information to the Plaintiff and that he does not believe that any further policies exist. However,
Defendant agrees to specifically check on the reference to document handling contained in the
discovery already supplied to Plaintiff to see if there is any additional material that should be
supplemented to this request.
The court finds that the Defendant has agreed to supplement this request. Accordingly,
Plaintiff’s Motion with respect to Document Request 22 is GRANTED. Defendant shall
supply this supplemental information by May 5, 2014.
III. CONCLUSION
The Plaintiff’s Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories [28] and
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Production of Documents [27] are GRANTED IN PART.
Defendant is ORDERED to supplement its response to document request twenty-two (22) as it
represented it would in court and to fully respond to Interrogatory six (6) and Document Request
twenty-four (24) limiting the scope of that response to West Virginia and the five years prior to
the institution of this action, no later than May 5, 2014.
Filing of objections does not stay this Order.
Any party may, within fourteen [14] days of this Order, file with the Clerk of the Court
written objections identifying the portions of the Order to which objection is made, and the basis
for such objection. A copy of such objections should also be submitted to the District Court
Judge of Record. Failure to timely file objections to the Order set forth above will result in
5

waiver of the right to appeal from a judgment of this Court based upon such order.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to transmit a copy of this Order to parties who appear
pro se and any counsel of record, as applicable.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: April 22, 2014

/s/ James E. Seibert
JAMES E. SEIBERT
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

6