U.S. Bank National Association v. Mattone Group Jamaica Co., LLC

Background

The parties submitted a joint letter under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 and related local rules describing a discovery dispute in U.S. Bank’s foreclosure action. The letter states that Mattone borrowed $81 million in 2012, secured by a mortgage on the Jamaica Center Mall. The parties disagreed about the borrower’s default, the amount owed, and the relevance and timing of discovery concerning the loan balance.

Mattone’s Position

Mattone alleged that U.S. Bank had failed to produce documents in its possession, custody, or control, including the complete loan file, property reports, correspondence, system logs, and information about cash management and advances. Mattone also alleged that U.S. Bank had not produced a prepared witness for a deposition under Rule 30(b)(6), which requires an organization to designate a witness to testify about specified topics. Mattone said the witness, Javier Callejas, could not answer several noticed topics and identified documents that had not been produced.

Mattone further alleged that U.S. Bank had delayed producing accurate statements showing the amount needed to bring the loan current, payoff statements, and the calculations supporting those figures. Mattone asserted that earlier statements were inaccurate and that U.S. Bank had held payments in a suspense account rather than applying them to the loan balance, increasing the amount on which fees and default interest were calculated. Mattone sought an order compelling production, another Rule 30(b)(6) deposition, and payment of reasonable expenses and attorney’s fees under Rule 37.

U.S. Bank’s Position

U.S. Bank argued that Mattone had defaulted on the loan and that the requested accounting materials related only to damages, not liability or a viable defense to foreclosure. It maintained that disputes about the amount owed could be addressed later in the foreclosure process. U.S. Bank also said it had made four productions totaling nearly 6,000 pages, had made additional production forthcoming, and had offered to produce Callejas for another deposition.

U.S. Bank opposed allowing Mattone to file a motion to compel. It argued that Mattone’s discovery requests were premature, irrelevant to the defenses and counterclaim, or unduly burdensome. U.S. Bank also argued that Mattone had chosen to proceed with Callejas’s deposition even though he had recently become responsible for the loan file and the document production was not complete.

Court’s Action

The order did not decide whether U.S. Bank violated its discovery obligations, whether Mattone was entitled to the requested documents or another deposition, or whether sanctions and expenses should be awarded. Instead, Judge Barbara Moses scheduled a discovery conference for October 3, 2022, at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 20A of the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse.

The court ordered Mattone to file, without argument, by September 29, 2022: (1) the specific document requests and responses still in dispute; (2) its Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice, including revisions or correspondence narrowing the topics; and (3) relevant portions of the Callejas deposition transcript. The order allowed U.S. Bank to supplement Mattone’s filing without argument by September 30, 2022, if U.S. Bank believed the submission was incomplete.