Monterey Bay Military Housing, LLC v. Ambac Assurance Corporation

Background

The plaintiffs submitted a letter asking the court to compel defendants Jefferies and Ambac to consent to Bloomberg’s search for and production of documents and communications responsive to a subpoena. The plaintiffs sought the material to determine whether the defendants had produced all relevant Bloomberg information in their possession or control.

The plaintiffs said they had previously requested documents about the projects’ financing structure, the marketing and sale of interests in project bonds or certificates, and the value of those securities. They asserted that the defendants’ productions contained only a limited amount of Bloomberg-related material and omitted Bloomberg instant messages, Bloomberg terminal input concerning the project financing, information about securities priced or sold in connection with the projects, searches involving project-specific security identification numbers, and trade confirmations.

The plaintiffs served Bloomberg with a subpoena on December 12, 2022. According to the letter, Bloomberg objected and said it would provide documents and communications only with the defendants’ consent. The plaintiffs later asked the defendants either to conduct an additional search or to consent to Bloomberg’s search and production. The defendants refused to undertake additional discovery and characterized the request as untimely. The plaintiffs and defendants met and conferred, but the defendants did not run the plaintiffs’ proposed search terms or offer alternatives.

Plaintiffs’ arguments

The plaintiffs argued that their request was timely because it sought information that should have been produced in response to earlier discovery requests. They also argued that the defendants had an ongoing duty to supplement their discovery responses, including near the end of discovery.

The plaintiffs maintained that the requested material was highly relevant to their claims concerning project interest rates, the marketing and sale of project bonds and certificates, and damages. They argued that the request was targeted rather than a broad search and that obtaining the information through Bloomberg would reduce any burden, prejudice, or cost to the defendants.

Court action

The text provided is a discovery letter accompanied by an order scheduling a conference. The order states that a telephonic discovery conference concerning the plaintiffs’ letter motion to compel was scheduled for April 3, 2023, at 1:00 p.m., on the court’s conference line. The conference was to be handled by United States Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave.

The provided text does not state that the court granted or denied the request to compel, or that it decided whether the defendants had to consent to Bloomberg’s search. Judge Paul Gardephe is identified in the supplied case metadata, while the scheduling order in the text is signed by Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave.