Patrick v. PHH Mortgage Corp.
2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9438
N.D.W. Va.2014Background
- Plaintiffs filed suit in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, WV, alleging WVCCPA and FDCPA violations and later added claims for FDCPA, tortious interference, trespass, fraud, and breach of contract after removal to NDWV.
- Defendant PHH Mortgage moved to dismiss; the court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint.
- Discovery followed; Plaintiffs moved to compel on Sept. 27, 2013, leading to Magistrate Judge Seibert’s Oct. 25/Oct. 31, 2013 orders to re-answer interrogatories and document requests.
- Defendant filed objections to the Oct. 31, 2013 order and the Dec. 12, 2013 order; the district court is reviewing these objections.
- Magistrate Judge Seibert limited discovery to a time period Jan. 1, 2010 to Nov. 9, 2012 (except for Request for Production No. 4) and ordered broader responses where appropriate.
- The district court AFFIRMS Seibert’s orders and overrules Defendant’s objections.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether general objections were improper under discovery rules. | Plaintiffs – general objections were insufficiently specific. | PHH – objections were specific and compliant. | Objections overruled; general objections deemed willful violations. |
| Timeliness of Plaintiffs’ motion to compel. | Motion timely due to late supplementation and assurances of forthcoming responses. | Motion untimely under Local Rule 37.02(b). | Objection overruled; motion timely given the parties’ dealings. |
| Disclosure of PHH employees’ home addresses. | Addresses fall within discoverable information under 26(b)(1) and protective order limits use. | Privacy concerns under the protective order. | Objection overruled; addresses ordered disclosure. |
| Disclosure of entire mortgage loan file. | Entire file relevant to breach of contract claim; may lead to admissible evidence. | Too broad; fishing expedition beyond the time period alleged. | Objection overruled; entire file deemed relevant. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States Gypsum Co. v. United States, 333 U.S. 364 (U.S. 1948) (clear standard for review of nondispositive rulings; defers to magistrate discretion but requires clear error)
- Hannan v. Levin, 772 F.2d 1150 (4th Cir. 1985) (overturns to the extent necessary when magistrate discretion is abused in nondispositive matters)
- Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 (U.S. 1947) (broad discovery rules; information gathering governed by liberal discovery principles)