Schneider et al v. CitiMortgage, Inc. et al, No. 5:2013cv04094 - Document 473 (D. Kan. 2017)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 463 Objections and Motion for Review. See order for details. Signed by U.S. District Senior Judge Sam A. Crow on 6/6/17. (msb)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Schneider et al v. CitiMortgage, Inc. et al Doc. 473 I N THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE DI STRI CT OF KANSAS RANDALL A. SCHNEI DER and AMY L. SCHNEI DER Plaint iffs, v. No. 13- 4094- SAC CI TI MORTGAGE, I NC., et . al., Defendant s. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This case com es before t he court on t he plaint iffs’ “ Obj ect ions and Mot ion for Review” ( ECF# 463) of t he Magist rat e Judge’s Orders ( ECF# 455 and # 456) , bot h of which were filed April 14, 2017. As t his m at t er has been fully briefed by t he part ies, t he court will rule expedit iously. The plaint iffs have filed a m ot ion of seven pages, a m em orandum in support of 32 pages, and a reply m em orandum of 15 pages. Considering t he Magist rat e Judge’s orders t ot al six pages and t he defendant s’ opposit ion is 12 pages, t he plaint iff’s filings t ot al t hree t im es m ore pages. The dist rict court in it s prior order com m ent ed on t he plaint iffs’ “ excessive and ext ended filings and briefing in t his case.” ( ECF# 433, p. 4) . Because t he plaint iffs’ pract ice has gone unabat ed, t he dist rict court gives t his final warning and not ice t hat it Dockets.Justia.com reserves t he right t o st rike sum m arily all fut ure filings of excessive and/ or unwarrant ed lengt h. ECF# 4 5 5 I n his order ( “ ECF# 455” ) , t he Magist rat e Judge sum m arized t he ongoing conflict t hat has m arked t he t aking of Rule 30( b) ( 6) deposit ions for Cit igroup and ot her defendant s. This sum m ary included: The court direct ed t he part ies t o com plet e t he Rule 30( b) ( 6) deposit ions by Decem ber 31, 2016. Plaint iffs filed a m ot ion for review on Novem ber 14, 2016. The part ies t hen consent ed t o an ext ension of t im e t o ext end t he Rule 30( b) ( 6) deposit ions. On Decem ber 19, 2016, t he court grant ed t he ext ension and allowed t he part ies unt il fort y- five ( 45) days following a ruling by t he dist rict court on t he aforem ent ioned m ot ion for review and ot her m at t ers t o com plet e t he Rule 30( b) ( 6) deposit ions. On February 17, 2017, Judge Crow denied plaint iffs’ m ot ion for review. Following Judge Crow’s order, plaint iff’s counsel sought t o schedule Cit igroup’s Rule 30( b) ( 6) deposit ion. Various discussions were t hen had bet ween counsel. On March 3, 2017, counsel for defendant s provided dat es and a locat ion for t he Rule 30( b) ( 6) deposit ions for Cit iMort gat e, I nc. and Cit ibank, N.A. Plaint iff’s counsel was not happy wit h t he proposed dat es, but failed t o suggest alt ernat ive dat es. On March 7, 2017, counsel for defendant s suggest ed a st ipulat ion t o plaint iff’s counsel t hat would elim inat e t he need for Cit igroup Rule 30( b) ( 6) deposit ion. Plaint iffs im m ediat ely rej ect ed t he proposed st ipulat ion. Plaint iffs filed it s m ot ion for cont em pt t he next day. ECF# 455, p. 2. This order furt her describes t hat t he defendant s were grant ed leave t o file a supplem ent in which t hey disclose having since provided a locat ion and ot her dat es for t he Cit igroup Rule 30( b) ( 6) deposit ion. I n ruling on t he plaint iffs’ obj ect ion t hat Rule 30( b) ( 6) was violat ed by t he defendant s’ conduct , t he Magist rat e Judge succinct ly ruled: 2 The court is concerned t hat counsel have once again failed t o reach agreem ent on a m at t er wit hout t he int ervent ion of t he court . Counsel for bot h sides are responsible for what occurred here. Counsel for defendant s could have act ed in a m ore efficient m anner in responding t o plaint iffs’ counsel’s request s. However, t here was no need for filing of t he inst ant m ot ion. The part ies should have com e t o t erm s on t he issues concerning t he Rule 30( b) ( 6) deposit ion. The act ions of defendant s’ counsel, while som ewhat dilat ory, cert ainly do not warrant sanct ions. Plaint iffs’ m ot ion is denied. Wit h an undying sense of opt im ism and hope, t he court again request s t hat counsel work in cooperat ion t o com plet e discovery in t his case. ECF# 455, p. 3. This ruling correct ly assessed t he part ies’ respect ive posit ions and right ly expressed disappoint m ent wit h bot h counsel for not cooperat ing but rat her invit ing conflict t hrough t he defendant s’ quest ionable delay and t he plaint iffs’ cont ent ious m ot ion. The Magist rat e Judge again urged counsel t o cooperat e in com plet ing discovery. The order displays a j udicious exercise of discret ion over one episode in a cont inuing spat e of discovery disput es t hat have been t im e consum ing, wast eful of j udicial resources, and cont rary t o t he spirit of Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. The plaint iffs’ m ot ion cont ent iously describes t en obj ect ions t o t his order. Each obj ect ion will not be addressed separat ely, as t hey repet it ively advance t he sam e basic point , t hat is, t he Magist rat e Judge erred in not doing m ore against t he defendant s’ for t heir dilat ory act ions in designat ing deposit ions aft er February 17, 2017. The plaint iffs’ m em oranda refer t o defendant s’ discovery conduct before February 17, 2017, and level obj ect ions against it t oo. The court , however, will consider t his ot her discovery conduct for purposes of background inform at ion only. 3 The plaint iffs prim arily t ake issue wit h t he Magist rat e Judge’s finding t hat “ [ t ] he act ions of defendant s’ counsel, while som ewhat dilat ory, cert ainly do not warrant sanct ions.” ECF# 455, p. 3. They com plain t hat t he ruling fails t o discuss t he applicable rules and t he governing st andards. They argue t hat t he defendant s’ delays are discovery violat ions on t heir face requiring sanct ions and t hat t he denial of sanct ions will encourage t he dilat ory behavior by t he defendant s. A m agist rat e j udge's order addressing non- disposit ive pret rial m at t ers is not reviewed de novo, but it is reviewed under t he m ore deferent ial st andard in which t he m oving part y m ust show t he order is “ clearly erroneous or cont rary t o t he law.” First Union Mort g. Corp. v. Sm it h, 229 F.3d 992, 995 ( 10t h Cir. 2000) ( quot ing Ocelot Oil Corp. v. Sparrow I ndust ries, 847 F.2d 1458, 1461- 62 ( 10t h Cir. 1988) ) ; see Fed. R. Civ. P. 72( a) . The plaint iffs’ m ot ion fails it s burden of showing t hat t he Magist rat e Judge’s order is clearly erroneous or cont rary t o t he law. The plaint iffs’ argum ent s do not est ablish how t he defendant s’ delayed responses necessarily violat ed t he plain requirem ent s or deadlines im posed by rule or order. The Magist rat e Judge act ed well wit hin his reasonable discret ion in handling t he plaint iffs’ m ot ion in t his m anner. As has been observed, t he defendant s could have act ed m ore prom pt ly and com plet ely in t heir responses on t he deposit ion designat ions, and t hey could have act ed m ore t im ely in offering t he proposed st ipulat ion. St ill, t he court agrees w it h t he 4 Magist rat e Judge t hat t his conduct by t he defendant s is not in it self a discovery violat ion warrant ing sanct ions. I n short , t he plaint iffs have failed t o prove any error in t he Magist rat e Judge’s findings and conclusions. ECF# 4 5 6 The Magist rat e Judge here denied t he plaint iffs’ m ot ion t o reconsider t he prior order of February 24, 2017, ( ECF# 436) , which had denied t he plaint iffs m ore t im e t o seek relief on t heir allegat ions t hat t he defendant s’ failed t o produce all docum ent s relevant t o discovery request s. The Magist rat e Judge out lined t he st andards governing a m ot ion t o reconsider and held: The court has carefully considered t he argum ent s of t he part ies. The court finds no m erit t o t he cont ent ions raised by t he plaint iffs. Plaint iffs have failed t o show any basis for reconsidering t he court ’s order of February 24, 2017. Plaint iffs have failed t o dem onst rat e t hat t hey diligent ly discovered t he “ new” docum ent s aft er receipt of t he docum ent s from t he defendant s on Decem ber 19, 2016. As point ed out by defendant s, plaint iffs could have sought relief during t he t hirt yday window. I n sum , t he court denies plaint iffs’ m ot ion t o reconsider. ECF# 456, p. 2. As t he Magist rat e Judge’s order cit ed, t he court ’s local rules require a m ot ion t o reconsider t o “ be based on: ( 1) an int ervening change in cont rolling law; ( 2) t he availabilit y of new evidence; or ( 3) t he need t o correct clear error or prevent m anifest inj ust ice.” D. Kan. Rule 7.3( b) . A m ot ion t o reconsider is not an opport unit y t o rehash or t o bolst er losing argum ent s. Voelkel v. Gen. Mot ors Corp., 846 F. Supp. 1482, 1483 ( D. Kan. 1994) . A decision on a m ot ion t o reconsider is com m it t ed t o t he court ’s 5 sound discret ion. Hancock v. Cit y of Oklahom a Cit y, 857 F.2d 1394, 1397 ( 10t h Cir. 1988) . The plaint iffs repeat edly accuse t he defendant s of not producing docum ent s and of not supplem ent ing t heir discovery request s. By all appearances, t he plaint iffs’ argum ent s before t he Magist rat e Judge sim ply rehashed t heir prior posit ion and failed t o show any clear error or m anifest inj ust ice in his February ruling. The Magist rat e Judge act ed well wit hin his discret ion in denying t he m ot ion t o reconsider. On review , t he dist rict court is not persuaded t hat t he plaint iffs’ filings dem onst rat e t hat t he Magist rat e Judge’s ruling on t he m ot ion t o reconsider is clearly erroneous or cont rary t o t he law. While replet e wit h cont ent ious and inflam m at ory language, t he plaint iffs’ filings are devoid of argum ent s t hat are cogent , concise and convincing. The plaint iffs have not carried t heir burden on t heir m ot ion t o review. I T I S THEREFORE ORDERED t hat t he plaint iffs’ “ Obj ect ions and Mot ion for Review” ( ECF# 463) of t he Magist rat e Judge’s Orders ( ECF# 455 and # 456) is denied. Dat ed t his 6t h day of June, 2017 at Topeka, Kansas. s/ Sam A. Crow Sam A. Crow, U.S. Dist rict Senior Judge 6
]]>
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.
