360 Mortgage Group, LLC v. Fortress Investment Group LLC
- Jesse Furman
- 1:19-cv-08760
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In 360 Mortgage v. Fortress, Judge Schofield ordered a conference about proposed discovery from GNMA; the excerpt does not rule on compelling production.
360 Mortgage Group, LLC, Fortress Investment Group LLC, and non-party Ginnie Mae, which was ordered to participate in the telephone conference.
What happened
In 360 Mortgage Group, LLC v. Fortress Investment Group LLC, 360 Mortgage sought documents and a corporate witness from Ginnie Mae for its lawsuit against Fortress. 360 Mortgage says Fortress interfered with its relationship with Ginnie Mae, causing Ginnie Mae to end its contract with 360 Mortgage.
360 Mortgage asked for a conference about a planned motion to require Ginnie Mae to provide the discovery. It said it had followed Ginnie Mae’s procedures for requests to federal agencies and that Ginnie Mae had refused to provide the requested materials and witness.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield ordered the parties and Ginnie Mae to appear by telephone on September 24, 2020, and ordered 360 Mortgage to serve Ginnie Mae with the order by September 18. The excerpt does not show a ruling on the proposed motion to compel.
The detailed version
- 360 Mortgage Group, LLC v. Fortress Investment Group LLC · No. 1:19-cv-08760
- Jesse Furman
- Sept. 17, 2020
Background
The excerpt contains a letter from 360 Mortgage Group, LLC requesting a pre-motion discovery conference concerning non-party Ginnie Mae (GNMA). 360 Mortgage stated that its underlying claims allege Fortress Investment Group LLC tortiously interfered with 360 Mortgage’s relationship with GNMA, causing GNMA to terminate its contract with 360 Mortgage.
360 Mortgage sought documents from GNMA and a witness for a deposition under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6), which allows an organization to designate a witness to testify about information known or reasonably available to it. According to the letter, 360 Mortgage first pursued a Freedom of Information Act request, later served subpoenas, revised and narrowed its requests, and communicated with the United States Attorney’s Office concerning regulations governing demands for documents or testimony from current or former Department of Housing and Urban Development employees.
Requested relief
360 Mortgage asserted that it had complied with GNMA’s procedures and exhausted the available administrative process. It argued that GNMA had made a final decision not to provide the requested documents or a Rule 30(b)(6) witness. The letter asked the court to schedule a conference concerning a proposed motion to compel and to keep discovery open on this issue after the stated September 28, 2020 discovery deadline.
The letter argued that GNMA’s refusal should be reviewed under either the Administrative Procedure Act’s arbitrary-and-capricious standard or the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure’s undue-burden standard. It asked that the proposed motion to compel be granted, but the excerpt does not show that such a motion was filed or decided.
Court’s action
Judge Lorna G. Schofield ordered the parties and GNMA to appear for a telephone conference on September 24, 2020, at 10:30 a.m. The court also ordered 360 Mortgage to serve a copy of the order on GNMA by September 18 and file proof of service.
The excerpt does not state that the court granted or denied the proposed motion to compel, decide whether GNMA properly refused discovery, or resolve the underlying claims against Fortress.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.