U.S. Bank National Association v. Mattone Group Jamaica Co., LLC
- Andrew Carter
- 1:21-cv-09342
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In U.S. Bank National Association v. Mattone Group Jamaica Co., LLC, a filing before Judge Carter requests additional discovery but contains no court ruling.
The requested discovery would affect U.S. Bank National Association, Mattone Group Jamaica Co., LLC, and Michael X. Mattone. The filing seeks to require Mattone to participate in a deposition before the hearing on the plaintiff’s standing to foreclose.
What happened
In U.S. Bank National Association v. Mattone Group Jamaica Co., LLC, the plaintiff’s counsel asked the court for permission to depose Michael Mattone before a hearing about the plaintiff’s standing to foreclose a mortgage.
The filing argued that the deposition was fair and relevant because the defendant had received permission to take additional discovery, including another deposition of the plaintiff’s witness. It also argued that the deposition could produce evidence about standing. The filing stated that the court had previously found that the defendants waived a standing challenge by not raising it in their answer, but that the parties were still litigating the issue.
The document does not state that the court granted or denied the request. Judge Andrew L. Carter Jr. is identified as the judge, but the text provided is principally a letter from the plaintiff’s counsel seeking permission to take the deposition.
The detailed version
- U.S. Bank National Association v. Mattone Group Jamaica Co., LLC · No. 1:21-cv-09342
- Andrew Carter
- Feb. 28, 2025
Document and request
The provided text is a letter from counsel for U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee for specified mortgage-backed securities holders, to Judge Andrew L. Carter Jr. The letter asks for permission to depose Michael X. Mattone, identified as the managing member of defendant Mattone Group Jamaica Co., LLC, before an evidentiary hearing concerning the plaintiff’s standing to foreclose the mortgage.
Arguments about additional discovery
The letter relies on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1), which permits discovery of nonprivileged information that is relevant and proportional to the needs of the case. It also discusses factors courts may consider when deciding whether to allow additional discovery, including the timing of the proposed discovery, opposition and prejudice, the requesting party’s diligence, whether the need for discovery was foreseeable, and whether the discovery is likely to produce relevant evidence.
The plaintiff’s counsel argues that the requested deposition is justified because the defendant was allowed to retake the deposition of the plaintiff’s witness, Javier Callejas, and to seek other discovery. The letter contends that the defendant should not receive additional discovery while avoiding discovery itself. It also argues that the plaintiff acted diligently because, according to the letter, it had no reason to seek Mattone’s deposition earlier after the court closed discovery and ruled that the defendants had waived a standing challenge by not asserting it in their answer.
The letter further asserts that Mattone’s testimony could be relevant to the standing issue. It refers to testimony that Mattone Group sent a 2020 letter concerning deferred loan payments to Wells Fargo’s commercial mortgage servicing department and argues that this testimony acknowledged the relevant trust’s connection to the loan.
Disposition
The provided text asks the court to grant the deposition request, but it does not state that the court granted, denied, or otherwise resolved that request. It therefore does not provide a clear court disposition of the discovery issue.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.