Patrick v. Teays Valley Trustees, LLC
297 F.R.D. 248
N.D.W. Va.2013Background
- Plaintiffs allege WVCCPA and related claims arising from PHH's handling of their mortgage loan after a HAMP modification.
- Defendant PHH Mortgage Corporation filed discovery responses and objections; multiple discovery disputes led to motions to compel, strike, and a motion to compel by PHH.
- The court held a November 26, 2013 evidentiary hearing and issued rulings on the motions to compel, strike, and the related motions to compel.
- The court limited most discovery requests to Jan. 1, 2010, through Nov. 9, 2012, and granted several requests in part while denying others.
- PHH was ordered to supplement discovery responses and produce documents, including communications, third-party disclosures, internal policies, and the complete Plaintiffs’ file from origination to Nov. 9, 2012.
- The court denied PHH's Motion to Compel and granted Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike Defendant’s Response; expenses may be awarded after submitted affidavits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope and timeliness of discovery requests | Plaintiffs seek comprehensive discovery within the relevant period | Requests are untimely and boilerplate objections lack specificity | GRANTED in part; requests limited to 2010-01-01 to 2012-11-09 |
| Boilerplate objections and relevance | Defendant's boilerplate objections should be struck | Boilerplate defenses appropriate to limit scope | GENERAL boilerplate objections struck; information deemed relevant under Rule 26(b)(1) |
| Production of communications with plaintiffs and third parties | All such communications are discoverable and relevant to WVCCPA claims | Limitations or privacy concerns; not all communications are relevant | GRANTED; produce all communications with Plaintiffs and third parties from 2010-01-01 to 2012-11-09 (or date of Third Amended Complaint) with privilege log if applicable |
| Internal policies and processes and bona fide error defense | Policies are relevant to defenses and counterclaims | Policies are confidential and burdensome | GRANTED IN PART; provide responsive policies or state none; policies relevant to bona fide error defense and WVCCPA claims |
| Plaintiffs’ complete account file (Request for Production 4) | Complete file relevant to contract and WVCCPA defenses | Overbroad; time period misaligned; burdensomeness | GRANTED; produce complete file from origination to 2012-11-09 |
Key Cases Cited
- Ayers v. Continental Cas. Co., 240 F.R.D. 216 (N.D.W. Va. 2007) (court may consider excusable neglect on motions to compel)
- Hager v. Graham, 267 F.R.D. 486 (N.D. Va. 2010) (boilerplate objections to discovery are disfavored)
- Mills v. East Gulf Coal Preparation Co., LLC, 259 F.R.D. 118 (S.D. W. Va. 2009) (general objections to discovery insufficient; require specificity)
- In re PE Corp. Securities Litigation, 221 F.R.D. 20 (D. Conn. 2003) (relevance in discovery extends to facts bearing on claims/defenses)
- Shuffle Master, Inc. v. Bally's Grand, Inc., 170 F.R.D. 166 (D. Nev. 1996) (good faith meet-and-confer requirement; not mere lip service)
- Mancia v. Mayflower Textile Svcs. Co., 253 F.R.D. 354 (D. Md. 2008) (discourages boilerplate objections; emphasizes specific showings)