Bartold v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA
3:14-cv-00865
D. Conn.Dec 30, 2016Background
- Plaintiff Vincent Bartold (then 67) obtained a Wells Fargo reverse mortgage in 2009, expecting a "modified tenure" payment of $600/month for life; Wells Fargo misclassified it as a "modified term" plan providing payments for a limited number of years.
- Wells Fargo admitted an onboarding error caused the misclassification and later corrected the loan to reflect lifetime $600 monthly payments during the litigation.
- Bartold sued for CUTPA violations, breach of contract, and negligent misrepresentation, and sought broad discovery about Wells Fargo’s policies, database/system notes, communications, documents relied on interrogatory answers, and 30(b)(6) deposition testimony on numerous topics.
- Wells Fargo resisted, arguing requests were overbroad, irrelevant, burdensome, confidential, and potentially usable in other lawsuits by plaintiff’s counsel; it moved for a protective order limiting 30(b)(6) topics.
- The Court, observing prolonged discovery disputes and an accelerated trial schedule, granted in part and denied in part both the motion to compel and the motion for a protective order, ordering targeted productions and permitting most 30(b)(6) topics with narrowings to protect privacy and proportionality.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Production of policies/procedures governing customer-dispute resolution for reverse mortgages | Seeks policies and manuals to show systemic practices relevant to CUTPA claims | Requests are irrelevant or overbroad; many policies unnecessary | Ordered to produce policies limited to those governing resolution of customer complaints about reverse mortgages; other policies denied |
| Production of system notes/database entries/communications about Bartold’s loan | System notes and communications directly relating to Bartold’s loan are relevant to how Wells Fargo handled and corrected the loan | Requests are irrelevant and disproportional/burdensome | Ordered to produce non-privileged system notes, database entries, communications directly pertaining to Bartold’s loan and recalculations |
| Documents relied on interrogatory responses and outstanding interrogatories (Nos. 20–24) | Seeks documents underlying Wells Fargo’s interrogatory answers and full answers to outstanding interrogatories | Premature for documents tied to unanswered interrogatories; objections re: compound/interrogatory limits | Ordered to produce non-privileged documents relied upon for listed interrogatories; Court granted leave for additional interrogatories and ordered responses to Interr. 20–24 |
| Scope of Rule 30(b)(6) deposition topics and employee records/privacy | Seeks corporate testimony on policies, record-keeping, servicing, investigations, employee disciplinary history, and awareness of similar complaints | Topics are overbroad, burdensome, invade employee privacy; compliance with state personnel confidentiality law | Protective order granted in part: topics narrowed to customer-dispute policies, some topics limited; but Court denied protection for record-keeping, employment/discipline (limited to employees involved in onboarding) and topics about similar complaints known to compliance; sensitive employee details may be sealed and parties to propose protective order |
Key Cases Cited
- Dietz v. Bouldin, 136 S. Ct. 1885 (2016) (recognizing court’s inherent authority to manage its docket and ensure orderly, expeditious disposition)
- Grand Cent. P’ship, Inc. v. Cuomo, 166 F.3d 473 (2d Cir. 1999) (district court has broad discretion in discovery rulings)
- Cole v. Towers Perrin Forster & Crosby, 256 F.R.D. 79 (D. Conn. 2009) (party resisting discovery bears burden to justify denial)