The Federal Housing Finance Agency v. First Horizon Home Loan Corporation
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56140
| D.D.C. | 2012Background
- FHFA, as conservator for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, seeks to enforce subpoenas duces tecum against First Tennessee Bank under the Recovery Act.
- The subpoenas, issued July 8, 2010, request documents related to six securitizations in which the Enterprises invested, including underwriting and servicing guidelines.
- First Tennessee and FHFA executed a confidentiality agreement on July 22, 2011 due to third‑party privacy concerns.
- The respondent halted document production after the Securities Action was filed in SDNY, citing PSLRA discovery stay and Rule 34 discovery concerns.
- FHFA filed a petition to enforce the subpoenas on December 28, 2011; respondent moved to transfer the case to SDNY under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
- The court held that the case should be transferred to the Southern District of New York to align with related securities actions and avoid duplicative or inconsistent rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §1404(a) transfer is proper. | FHFA argues SDNY is appropriate due to related actions. | First Tennessee contends venue should remain in DC under the Recovery Act. | Transfer granted to SDNY. |
| Effect of the Recovery Act's venue provision on §1404(a) analysis. | Recovery Act venue in DC should be respected. | Special venue does not bar transfer under §1404(a). | Special venue provision does not prevent transfer; §1404(a) may apply. |
| Impact of parallel actions on forum selection. | Related SDNY Securities Action implicates same documents. | Avoids duplicative proceedings; related actions exist in SDNY. | Transfer favored to avoid duplicative/inconsistent rulings and coordinate discovery. |
| Public interests and judicial economy in transferring. | Neutral local interests; preservation of FHFA’s forum choice. | SDNY better aligns with related action; potential PSLRA stay coordination. | Public interest factors support transfer; efficiency and consistency justify transfer. |
Key Cases Cited
- New Hope Power Co. v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 724 F. Supp. 2d 90 (D.D.C. 2010) (plaintiff’s forum choice deference limited when nexus weak)
- SEC v. Savoy Indus., Inc., 587 F.2d 1149 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (special venue provisions and transfer analysis)
- Bederson v. United States, 756 F. Supp. 2d 38 (D.D.C. 2010) (public/private factors balancing in §1404(a))
- Reiffin v. Microsoft Corp., 104 F. Supp. 2d 48 (D.D.C. 2000) (avoid duplicative proceedings; transfer favored for efficiency)
- Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 455 F. Supp. 1072 (D.D.C. 1978) (summary enforcement context; limits of convenience factors)
- Comptroller of Currency v. Calhoun First Nat’l Bank, 626 F. Supp. 137 (D.D.C. 1985) (judicial economy in coordinating related discovery)
- Wyndham Assocs. v. Bintliff, 398 F.2d 614 (2d Cir. 1968) (policy favoring same-trial handling of related claims)