Dixon et al v. Green Tree Servicing,LLC, No. 9:2019cv80022 - Document 113 (S.D. Fla. 2019)
Court Description: ORDER granting in part and denying in part 94 Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Production of Documents Responsive to Plaintiff's First Request for Documents. Signed by Magistrate Judge William Matthewman on 10/8/2019. See attached document for full details. (kza)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Dixon et al v. Green Tree Servicing,LLC Doc. 113 UN ITED STA TES DISTR ICT COU RT SOU THERN D ISTRICT O F FLORIDA CivilN o.19-80022-C1V -M an' a/M atthew m an ROY J.DIXON ,m .andBLANCHE L.DIXON , Plaintiffs, FILED BY D.C. VS. BANK OF AM ERICA,N .A .,assuccessorby 02I 28 2215 m ergerto BA C H OM E LOA N S SERV ICIN G,LP, ANGELA E.NOBLE CLERK U S DISI C:: s.D.oFFkZ.-w.Ra. D efendant. / O RD ER G R AN TIN G IN PA RT A ND DEN Y IN G IN PA R T PLAIN TIFFS'M O TION TO C O M PEL PR O DU C TIO N O F DO CU M ENT S R ESPO N SIV E T O PLA IN TIFFS'FIRST REOUEST FOR DO CUM ENTS IDE 941 TH IS CAUSE is before the Courtupon Plaintiffs,Roy J.Dixon Jr.and Blanche L. Dixon's(CGplaintiffs'')M otiontoCompelProductionofDocllmentsResponsivetoPlaintiffs'First RequestforDocuments(DE 944.Thismatterwasreferredto the tmdersigned by United States DistrictJudgeKezmethA.M arra.SeeDE 71.Defendant,Bank ofAmerica,N.A.('O efendanf), hasfiled a Notice ofServing Responses and Objectionsto Plaintiffs'Amended Requests for Production ofDocuments(DE 95),aNoticeofServingResponsesand Objectionsto Plaintiffs' AmendedFirstSetoflnterrogatoriestoDefendants(DE 961,andaResponsetoPlaintiffs'M otîon toCompel(DE 105).PlaintiffshavefiledaReply (DE 110!.Thismatterisnow ripeforreview. BA C K G R O U ND OnFebruary6,2019,PlaintiffstiledtheirVerifiedAmendedComplaint(DE4).OnJuly3, 2019,Judge M arra entered atlOrderand Opinion on Third M otion to Amend.(DE 59).He Dockets.Justia.com dismissed severalofPlaintiffs'claims with prejudice and provided Plaintiffs with one final opporttm ity to am end their com plaint.1d.atp.31.Judge M arra specified thatPlaintiffs'Second Am ended Complaintcould only allege cotmtsofaviolation ofthe FairDebtCollection Practices A ct, civil theft, and/or quiet title.1d.In their Second A m ended Com plaint, Plaintiffs allege-a violation oftheFairDebtCollection Act(Count1)and civiltheftunderFlorida1aw (Count2) againstDefendant.(DE 691.Defendanthasfiled aM otion to Dismiss(DE 831,which remains pending.The M otion to D ism issisfully briefed. x , A fterPlaintiffs s:rved theirFirstSetofInterrogatories,D efendantconferred w ith Plaintiff in anefforttotsnarrow thediscoveryrequestsandaddressdeficienciestherein.''gDE 95,p.1,f.n. Plaintiffs then served upon Defendant their Am ended First Requests for Production of D ocum ents and theirAm ended FirstSetofInterrogatorieson July 31,2018.See DEs95,96.U pon receiptofDefendant'sAugust30,2019 discoveryresponses,Plaintiffsfiled theirM otion (DE 94j1 In theM otion,Plaintiffsexplain thatDefendantobjectedtoevery documentrequestand refused to answ er all interrogatories on the basis that the discovery requests sought irrelevant information.(DE 94,p.1J.Plaintiffscontendthatthediscoverysoughtisnecessarytosupporttheir response in opposition to D efendant's m otion to dism iss.1d.atp.2. In response,D efendantarguesthatPlaintiffs'discovery requestsare yetanotherdçirpproper effortto collaterally attack a state foreclosure action''and thatthe requests have ttno basis in or relevancytotheclaimsPlaintiffsattempttoassertintheSecondAmendedComplaint.''(DE 105, p.1q.DefendantassertsthatthediscoverysoughtisnotrelevanttotheM otiontoDismissbecause . ' tW hiletheM otion'stitleonly seeksbetterresponsestorequestsfordocuments,in thebody ofthem otion,Plaintiffs requestthattheCourtalsocompelinterrogatoryresponses.(DE 94,pp.1-2). 2 theCourtislim itedtothefourcornersofthe SecondAmendedComplaintin nllingon theM otion toDism iss.Id atp.2.AccordingtoDefendant,Plaintiffs'M otion failsto comply with LocalRule 26.1(g)(2).Id atp.3. Inreply,PlaintiffsfirstobjecttoDefendant'sResponseonthebasisthatattorneyReidAlan SchaefferneverfiledaNoticeofAppearanceon Defendant'sbehalfin tlziscase.(DE 110,p.1q. N ext,Plaintiffs seek leave to file a Third Am ended Com plaintçtto add a cause ofaction underFS 494.00296againstBanagsic)andclaim againstnonpartyFarmieM ae.''Id atp.4. 1I. DISCU SSIO N Defendanthasmade specificobjectionsto each discovery request.Defendantobjectsto several discovery requests on the basis that they are vague,am biguous, Qverboard, or unduly blzrdensome.See DEs95 and 96.Additionally,Defendantobjectsto thevastmajority ofthe requestson thebasisthatthediscovery requestsseek irrelevantinform ation. Rule26(b)(1)oftheFederalRulesofCivilProceduredetinesthe scopeofdiscovery as (tany non-privileged m atterthatisrelevantto any party'sclaim ordefense and proportionalto the P needsofthe case,''cönsidering the im portance ofthe issuesatstake,the parties'relative accessto relevantinform ation,the parties'resources,the importance of the discovery,and whether the btlrden of the discovery outweighs the likely benetk .It is w ellestablished thatthe cotu'ts m ust em ploy a liberal standard in keeping with the purpose of the discovery rules.Fed. R. Civ. P.26(b)(1). However,Rule 26(b)allows discovery C'through increased reliance on the com m onsenseconceptofproportionality.''In re:TakataAirbag prod Liab.L itig.,15-2599-M D - M oreno,2016W L 1460143,at*2 (S.D.Fla.Mar.1,2016)(quoting ChiefJusticeJolm Roberts, 2075 Year-End Reporton the FederalJudicialy 6(2015));Reuter v.Physicians Cas.Risk RetentionGroup,No.16-80581-CV,2017W L395241,(S.D.Fla.2017).(Tropodionalityrequires counseland the courtto considerwhetherrelevantinform ation isdiscoverable in view ofthe needs ofthecase.''Tigerv.DynamicSportsNutrition,LLC,CaseNo.6:15Qv-1701-ORI.-41TBS,2016 R 1408098,at*2(M .D.Fla.Apr.11,2016). Ct-f' he respondentbears the btlrden ofestablishing a lack of relevancy or som e otherbasis forresisting production.''G latterv,M SC Cruises S.A.,N o.18-62219-C1V ,2019 W L 1300896,at *2 (S.D.Fla.Feb.7,2019);seealsoBroadbandone,Inc.v.Hostnet,Inc.,No.12-80604-CIV, 2013W L'12096358,at*1(S.D.Fla.M ay30,2013);Dunkin'Donuts,Inc.v.M aly'sDonuts,Inc., No.01-0392-CIV-Go1d,2001W L 34079319,*2 (S.D.Fla.Nov.1,2001).ln otherwords,the respondentçsmustshow eitherthattilerequesteddiscovery (1)doesnotcomewithinthebroad scopeofrelevanceasdefinedunderRule26or(2)isofsuchmarginalrelevancethatthepotential harm occasioned by discovery w ould far outweigh the ordinary presum ption in favor of broad disclosure.''Jeld-Wen,Inc.v,NebulaGlass1nt'(Inc.,No.05-60860-CIV,2007W L 1526649,at *2 (S.D.Fla.M ay 22,2007)(citingGiardina v.fockheed Martin Corp.,No.Civ.A.02-1030, 2003W L 21276348 (E.D.La.M ay30,2003);Goberv.City ofLeesburg,197F.R.D.519 (M .D. 7 Fla.2000)). The Courthas carefully review ed the M otion,Response,R eply,and Plaintiff sdiscovery requestsand Defendant'sresponses and objectionsthereto.As explained above,Judge M arra previously lim ited and specified the causes of action that Plaintiffs could plead in their Second A m ended Com plaint.Plaintiffs then only alleged civiltheftunderFlorida 1aw and a violation of the FairD ebtCollection PracticesA ctagainstD efendantin the Second A m ended Com plaint. Plaintiffs claim thatthe discovery soughtis relevant and necessary to assistthem in fully 4 responding to thependingm otion to dism iss.Thisargum entiswithoutm eritfortwo reasons.First, them otion to dism iss isalready fully briefed.Second,the argum entin them otion to dism issisthat Plaintiffs' Second Am ended Com plaint fails to plead sufficient facts to state a claim that is plausibleonitsface.(DE 83,p.4J.Thus,noinformationoutsideofthefourcornersoftheSecond A m ended Com plaintisrelevant. In light of the fact that only FD CPA gnd civil theft claim s rem ain pending against Defendant,theCourtfindsthatDefendanthassuccessfully establishedalack ofrelevancy foreach discoveryrequestforwhichDefendantobjectedonthebasisofrelevancy.Thevastmajorityofthe discovery requests do appearto be an attem pt by Plaintiffs to gather inform ation to collaterally attack a state foreclosure action;such discovery requests seek irrelevant and disproportionate inform ation.z A dditionally,som e ofthe discovery requestsare difficultto decipherorare overbroad or overlyburdeqsome.Defendanthasproperly provided specificobjectionstoeach suchrequest.In sum,Defendanthasassertedan appropriatebasisin each ofitsresponsesandobjectionstoeach interrogatory and requestforproduction propounded by Plaintiffs.3 Based on the foregoing,itishereby O RD ERE D asfollow s: 1. Plaintiffs'M otion to Com pelProduction ofD ocum ents Responsive to Plaintiffs'First 2TheCoul' talertedthepartiestothisissuein itsOrderDenying FederalN ationalM ortgageAssociation'sM otionto Qu4shSubpoenagDE824.Thethird-partysubpoenasoughtdiscoveq thatissimilarinnaturetothediscoverysought in Plaintiffs'lnterrogatoriesand RequestsforProductioncurrently atlssue.TheCoul. texplained in itsAugust9,2019 Orderthatitiçhassomedoubtsaboutwhetherthesubpoenaed informationisactuallyrelevantandpropofionalin light oftheallegationsintheSecond Amended Com plaint.''Id atp.4.However,theCourtdeniedthem otionto quash becauseFannieM aehadwaivedanyargumentsastooverbreadth,burdensomeness,relevance,andproportionalityffz Here,Defendanthasnotwaivedsuchobjections. 3TotheextentthatPlaintiffsobjecttoDefendant'sResponseonthebasisthatAttorneyReidAlanSchaeffernever filedaNoticeofAppearanceonDefendant'sbehaltthatobjectionisrejected.Mr.Schaefferdoesappearonthecoul 't docketinthiscase,andhissigningtheResponseEDE 105)wasperfectlyproper. RequestforDocuments(DE 94)isGRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. 2. This M otion is GR AN TED to the extent that the Coul't w ill require D efendant to respond to Inteaogatory #1,as amended by the Courtas follow s.As m itten in the discovery propounded by Plaintiffs,Interrogatory //1 requests identification of (Call persons having m aterial know ledge of the facts and circum stances of this case including their last known address and telephone num ber'',as w ellas a sum m ary of (twhatknowledge each such person has.''(DE 96,p.2).Plaintiffs are entitled to inform ation thatw illhelp them identify prospective w itnesses in thiscase.Therefore, on or before O ctober 21,2019,D efendant shallidentify Gtallpersons thatD efendant and/oritsattorneybelievets)may haveanyknowledgeorinformationconcerningthe facts and circum stances surrounding the incidents described in the pending Second Amended Complaint.'' See Bush Gz//f Coast Elec. Co-op., No. 5:13-CV-369-RS-GRJ,2015W L 3422336,at*2 (N.D.Fla.M ay27,2015)(GThisisa standardinterrogatory,includedinmostcivilcases,whichisdesignedto (enstlrejthat m aterialw itnesses are identified so that counsel can determ ine w hether discovery or investigationneedsto beinitiatedwithregard tothosewitnesses.').Defendantshall also provide contactinform ation forthese individuals,to the extentthatD efendanthas such contactinform ation in itspossession,custody,orcontrol. TheM otionisDENIED ina11otherrespects.However,thisdenialiswithoutprejudice to Plaintiffs having the ability,ifnecessary,to sel' ve am ended discovery requests that seek relevant and proportionate infonnation and are notunduly burdensom e,vague, am biguousoroverbroad,ifthey can do so in a tim ely m arm er and ifthey com ply with a11applicable l'ulrsand orders,including S.D.Fla.L.R.26.1 and the Court's Order SettingDiscoveryProceduregDE 741.Thatis,PlaintiffsmustabidebytheDecember t1,2019 discovery cutoffin thiscaseànd al1applicablerulesand orders. The Clerk ofCourtisDIRECTED t9m aila copy ofthisOrderto therro sePlaintiffs, Roy J.Dixon,Jr.,and BlancheL.Dixon,at163 RivieraCoult RoyalPalm Beach,FL 33411. fv DONE and ORDERED in Cham bersthis dayofOctober,2019,atW estPalm Beach, Palm Beach County in the Southern D istrictofFlorida. 9 1- ' W ILLIAM M A TTH W M A U N ITED STA TES A G ISTR ATE JUD GE v. 7
]]>
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.
