Monterey Bay Military Housing, LLC v. Ambac Assurance Corporation
- Paul Gardephe
- 1:19-cv-09193
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Monterey Bay Military Housing v. Ambac Assurance, Judge Cave scheduled discussion of Ambac’s request for additional depositions but issued no ruling.
Ambac Assurance Corporation, the plaintiffs, and the other parties involved in the deposition and claim-severance disputes.
What happened
In Monterey Bay Military Housing, LLC v. Ambac Assurance Corporation, Ambac asked the court to allow at least 92 depositions instead of the 30-deposition limit that plaintiffs had proposed. Ambac argued the case involved many parties, transactions, witnesses, and millions of pages of documents.
Ambac’s request concerned discovery, the evidence-gathering stage of a lawsuit. Ambac also said it did not join another defendant’s request to separate the plaintiffs’ claims, although it reserved the right to seek separation for trial.
The order did not grant or deny Ambac’s request. Judge Sarah L. Cave said the court would discuss the issues during a conference scheduled for April 29, 2022, and allowed the parties to present additional legal authorities.
The detailed version
- Monterey Bay Military Housing, LLC v. Ambac Assurance Corporation · No. 1:19-cv-09193
- Paul Gardephe
- Apr. 27, 2022
Nature of the Order
This is a scheduling and discovery order concerning issues raised in Defendant Ambac Assurance Corporation’s letter motion. The court stated that it intended to discuss those issues during a conference scheduled for April 29, 2022, at 10:00 a.m. The court also stated that the parties could present supplemental legal authorities. The text does not state that the court granted or denied Ambac’s requests.
Ambac’s Discovery Request
Ambac asked for permission to take at least 92 depositions. Ambac said the plaintiffs had refused to agree to more than 30 depositions and argued that 30 was insufficient because the case involved 18 plaintiff entities, 19 separate deals, multiple developers and military branches, and alleged conduct spanning more than a decade. Ambac also stated that document production had exceeded 800,000 documents and six million pages.
Ambac argued that it needed to depose individuals identified by the plaintiffs as having relevant knowledge, the plaintiff entities, underlying developers, third-party witnesses, military representatives, financial advisers, and independent rating agencies. It also said the requested depositions were not cumulative or duplicative and offered to discuss ways to reduce the number, including using one witness for multiple projects 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 the organization.
Other Issues Described in the Letter
Ambac stated that another defendant, Jefferies, had moved to separate the plaintiffs’ claims. Ambac said it agreed with some of Jefferies’ arguments but did not join that motion because it believed a single proceeding could conserve discovery and judicial resources. Ambac reserved the right to seek separation of some or all claims for trial under Rule 42(b).
Ambac also stated that it agreed with Jefferies’ position that the plaintiffs’ claims arose from separate negotiated transactions and did not show a racketeering scheme or conspiracy. Those statements appear in Ambac’s letter and are not presented in this text as findings by the court.
Court Action and Effect
The court scheduled discussion of the letter’s issues and did not issue a merits ruling or a discovery ruling in the text provided. The immediate effect was to require the parties to be prepared to address Ambac’s request and related issues at the April 29 conference.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.