Flores et al v. Bank of America, N.A. et al, No. 3:2011cv01817 - Document 31 (S.D. Cal. 2012)
Court Description: ORDER Denying Plaintiffs' Application to Compel Further Responses to Interrogatories; ORDER Sustaining Defendants' Objections to Plaintiffs' Interrogatories Nos. 20-24 re 30 Joint Hearing Statement filed by Sonya Quanesysouk, John Flores. Signed by Magistrate Judge William V. Gallo on 12/27/2012.(sjt)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Flores et al v. Bank of America, N.A. et al Doc. 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOHN FLORES, et al., 12 Plaintiffs, 13 v. 14 BANK OF AMERICA, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil No. 11-1817-JM(WVG) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ APPLICATION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES ORDER SUSTAINING DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ INTERROGATORIES NOS. 20-24 17 18 Plaintiffs and Defendants have informed the Court of a 19 discovery dispute regarding Plaintiffs’ interrogatories nos. 20-24 20 and Defendants’ responses thereto. They have submitted a Joint 21 Statement for Determination of Discovery Disputes (“Joint State22 ment”). The Court, having reviewed the Joint Statement, the 23 authorities cited therein, the interrogatories at issue and the 24 responses thereto, and GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, HEREBY DENIES Plain25 tiffs’ application to compel further responses to the interrogato26 ries and SUSTAINS Defendants’ objections to the interrogatories. 27 28 1 11cv1817 Dockets.Justia.com 1 A. Arguments 2 In Flores, Plaintiffs define the putative class as: “All 3 persons in the United States who entered into a Loan Agreement 4 (Interest Only to Fixed Rate) with Defendants but were not provided 5 the agreed to loan modifications.” 6 In Jones, Plaintiffs define the putative class as: “All 7 persons in the United States who entered into a Loan Agreement (5-1 8 ARM 10 Year IO) with Defendants but were not provided the agreed to 9 loan modifications.” 10 Plaintiffs argue that the interrogatories seek information 11 that is relevant to the class certification issues of numerosity, 12 commonality and typicality. Plaintiff cites several cases that they 13 believe supports the propriety of the discovery they seek. These 14 cases are Bell v. Lockheed Martin, 270 F.R.D. 186 (D. NJ 2010), In 15 re Bank of America Wage & Hour Litigation, 275 F.R.D. 534 (D. KS 16 2011), Vallabharpurapu v. Burger King, 276 F.R.D. 611 (N.D. Cal. 17 2007), and Putnam v. Eli Lilly, 508 F. Supp 2d 812 (C.D. Cal. 2007). 18 Plaintiffs argue that these cases support their assertions that 19 discovery outside of the putative class definition is proper and 20 appropriate. 21 Defendants argue that the interrogatories are vague, 22 overbroad, unduly burdensome, seek information outside the class 23 definition, 24 Further, Defendants contend that Plaintiffs have not shown good 25 cause for the discovery they seek. and implicate their customers’ privacy interests. 26 B. Ruling 27 When a court manages pre-class certification discovery, it 28 must balance the need to promote effective case management, the need 2 11cv1817 1 to prevent potential abuse and the need to protect the rights of all 2 parties. Consequently, the discovery must be broad enough to give 3 plaintiffs a ‘realistic opportunity to meet (the certification) 4 requirements.’ However, it must also protect the defendants against 5 discovery that is irrelevant or invades privileged and confidential 6 areas. Pre-certification discovery is within the discretion of the 7 court, and limitations may be imposed within the court’s discretion. 8 U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. ABM Industries, 9 Inc., 2008 WL 5385618 at *4 (E.D. Cal. 2008) (citations omitted). A 10 class representative engaging in pre-certification discovery must 11 show good cause that warrants expansion of discovery beyond the 12 class, as defined in the complaint. Martinet v. Spherion Atlantic 13 Enterprises, 2008 WL 2557490 (S. D. Cal. 2008). 14 Here, the interrogatories are vague, overbroad and unduly 15 burdensome. Further, its appears to the Court that the only purpose 16 of Plaintiffs’ interrogatories in issue in the Joint Statement is to 17 allow Plaintiffs to search for other customers of Defendants with 18 claims similar to those of the Plaintiffs in Flores and Jones, 19 without any factual connection to the Plaintiffs in Flores and Jones 20 other than that they are Defendants’ customers who did not receive 21 loan modifications. In the Court’s view, the type of discovery 22 sought by Plaintiffs constitutes a “fishing expedition” which would 23 be unduly burdensome for Defendants to further respond. Moreover, 24 Plaintiffs 25 discovery. have failed to show good cause for the requested 26 Plaintiff’s cited cases do not apply in this case. Bell, 27 supra, is an employment discrimination class action in which the 28 discovery requests fell within the class definition or within the 3 11cv1817 1 general allegations of the complaint. Further, the court noted that 2 “‘ in employment discrimination cases, Courts generally grant wide 3 latitude to... plaintiffs who seek to conduct company wide discov- 4 ery, and the relevant issue is the extent to which the case involves 5 a common policy or practice.’” [citing Gutierrez v. Johnson & 6 Johnson, 2002 US Dist. LEXIS 15418 at *1 (D. NJ 2002). 7 Here, this case does not involve employment discrimination, 8 where the parties are afforded wide latitude to conduct discovery 9 and the requests fall outside the class definition. Further, 10 Plaintiffs do not allege a common practice or policy with regard to 11 Defendants’ loan modification agreements. 12 binding on this Court. Moreover, Bell is not 13 Bank of America Wage & Hour Employment Practices Litigation, 14 supra, is a class action regarding Bank of America’s wage and hour 15 practices. The discovery requests in that case fell within the class 16 definition or within the general allegations of the complaint. 17 Plaintiffs in that case argued that the discovery sought would 18 likely provide relevant information regarding their claims. Bank of 19 America did not assert that it would be unduly burdensome to produce 20 the requested information. 21 Here, this case does not involve claims regarding wage and 22 hour practices and Defendants objected to the requested discovery 23 as, inter alia, unduly burdensome. Further, this case is not binding 24 on this Court. 25 Vallabharpurapu was a case arising under the Americans With 26 Disabilities Act (“ADA”) in which Plaintiffs sought to certify a 27 class of persons who use wheelchairs or scooters for mobility. 28 Plaintiffs sought relevant discovery that was within the definition 4 11cv1817 1 of the class. The plaintiffs in this case asked the defendant to 2 document the conditions of its restaurants before it made any 3 alterations to them (to make them accessible to physically chal- 4 lenged customers), or to give them notice before such alterations 5 were made. The defendants documented the conditions of the restau- 6 rants prior to making the alterations, but refused to provide the 7 plaintiffs with the documentation or allow them to make their own 8 inspections. The plaintiffs later learned that the defendant had 9 made the alterations in its restaurants without giving the plain- 10 tiffs notice, so they could inspect the restaurants prior to the 11 alterations being made. The only available evidence to document the 12 conditions of the restaurants prior to the restaurants’ alterations 13 was in the defendant’s possession. The court ruled that since the 14 defendant 15 inspections, it was unfair for the defendants to withhold from the 16 Plaintiffs the documentation of the pre-alteration inspections. 17 precluded Here, this the is not plaintiffs an ADA from performing accessibility their case. own Further, 18 Defendants have not prevented Plaintiff from obtaining relevant 19 evidence related generally to the defined class. 20 Putnam, supra, is another class action regarding the 21 defendants’ wage and hour practices. In that case, the plaintiffs’ 22 requests were within the class definition. Further, the defendants 23 did not offer any adequate explanation why the requested information 24 was not relevant and discoverable. 25 26 Here, this is not a wage and hour practices case, and Defendants interposed valid objections to Plaintiffs’ requests. 27 In each of the cases cited by Plaintiffs, the salient and 28 distinguishing fact present, which is not present here, is that the 5 11cv1817 1 plaintiffs requested discovery that was within the class definition 2 or the factual assertions generally asserted in the complaint. In 3 this case, Plaintiffs seek discovery pertaining to categories of 4 Defendants’ customers, who may have applied for loan modifications 5 under other programs, that fall well outside the class definition or 6 any general allegations in the Complaint. This distinguishing factor 7 is critical and, at this stage of discovery, militates against the 8 broad discovery that Plaintiffs desire. 9 1. The Interrogatories and Responses a. Interrogatory No. 20 states:1/ The name(s) given by you to 10 11 all 12 customers were sent a loan modification agreement that was effective 13 once 14 agreement. of your the 15 home customer Defendants loan modification signed, responded programs notarized to the and under timely which your returned interrogatory as the being 16 overbroad, unduly burdensome, and is vague as to the terms “all home 17 loan 18 customer signed, notarized and timely returned the agreement.” modification programs” and “that was effective once the 19 The Court finds that the interrogatory is vague as to the 20 meanings of the terms “all home loan modification programs” and 21 “that was effective once the customer signed, notarized and timely 22 returned the agreement.” Further, the interrogatory, as stated, is 23 overbroad and unduly burdensome for Defendants to further respond. 24 Defendants’ objections to this interrogatory are SUSTAINED. 25 b. Interrogatory No. 21 states: Identify the documents you 26 provide to your customers in conjunction with home loan modification 27 1/ 28 The Court notes that counsel did not provide it with the actual interrogatories and responses at issue. The Court assumes that the interrogatories and responses stated in the Joint Statement are accurate. 6 11cv1817 1 requests or applications for all of your home loan modification 2 programs under which your customers were sent a loan modification 3 agreement that was effective once the customer signed, notarized and 4 timely returned the agreement. 5 Defendants responded to the interrogatory as being 6 overbroad, unduly burdensome, and vague as to the terms “all home 7 loan 8 customer signed, notarized and timely returned the agreement.” modification programs” and “that was effective once the 9 The Court finds that the interrogatory is vague as to the 10 meanings of the terms “all home loan modification programs” and 11 “that was effective once the customer signed, notarized and timely 12 returned the agreement.” Further, the interrogatory, as stated, is 13 overbroad and unduly burdensome for Defendants to further respond. 14 Defendants’ objections to this interrogatory are SUSTAINED. 15 c. Interrogatory No. 22 states: Identify the documents and 16 information 17 modifications for all of your home loan modification programs under 18 which your customers were sent a loan modification agreement that 19 became effective once the customer signed, notarized and timely 20 returned the agreement. 21 you require Defendants from responded your to customers the to process interrogatory as loan being 22 overbroad, unduly burdensome, and vague as to the terms “all home 23 loan 24 customer signed, notarized and timely returned the agreement.” modification programs” and “that was effective once the 25 The Court finds that the interrogatory is vague as to the 26 meanings of the terms “all home loan modification programs” and 27 “that was effective once the customer signed, notarized and timely 28 returned the agreement.” Further, the interrogatory, as stated, is 7 11cv1817 1 overbroad and unduly burdensome for Defendants to further respond. 2 Defendants’ objections to this interrogatory are SUSTAINED. 3 d. Interrogatory No. 23 states: For all of your home loan 4 modification programs identified in Interrogatories nos. 19 and 20, 5 state the total number of customers who were sent a loan modifica- 6 tion agreement, signed and returned the agreement, and were not 7 provided a loan modification. 8 9 Defendants responded to the interrogatory (and interrogatory no. 20) as being overbroad, unduly burdensome, and vague as to the 10 terms “all home loan modification programs” and “that was effective 11 once 12 agreement.” the customer signed, notarized and timely returned the 13 As the Court found with interrogatory no. 20, the interroga- 14 tory is vague as to the meanings of the terms “all home loan 15 modification programs” and overbroad as to the terms “signed, 16 notarized returned the agreement.” Further, the interrogatory, as 17 stated, is unduly burdensome for Defendants to further respond. 18 Defendants’ objections to this interrogatory are SUSTAINED. 19 e. Interrogatory No. 24 states: For each customer identified 20 in interrogatory no. 23, state each customer’s name, telephone 21 number and address. 22 Defendants responded to the interrogatory as being 23 overbroad, unduly burdensome, implicates the privacy interests of 24 its customers, and vague as to the terms “all home loan modification 25 programs” 26 notarized and timely returned the agreement.” and “that was effective once the customer signed, 27 28 8 11cv1817 1 Since this interrogatory relates to interrogatory no. 23, and 2 the Court has sustained Defendants’ objections to interrogatory no. 3 23, it SUSTAINS Defendants’ objections to interrogatory no. 24. 4 Therefore, Defendants’ objections to interrogatories nos. 20- 5 24 are SUSTAINED and Plaintiffs’ application to compel further 6 responses to interrogatories nos. 20-24 is DENIED. 7 8 9 10 DATED: December 27, 2012 11 12 Hon. William V. Gallo U.S. Magistrate Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 9 11cv1817
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
