360 N. Rodeo Drive, LP v. Wells Fargo Bank, National Association
- Subramanian
- 1:22-cv-00767
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
360 N. Rodeo Drive v. Wells Fargo Bank: Judge Subramanian granted a discovery motion requiring personnel-file production, subject to redaction and a description log.
The ruling affects 360 N. Rodeo Drive, LP, the defendants, and Midland Loan Services concerning production of the personnel files of Chris Valencia and Derek Stephens.
What happened
In 360 N. Rodeo Drive, LP v. Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, the plaintiff sought personnel files for Midland Loan Services employees Chris Valencia and Derek Stephens. The plaintiff said the employees were involved in statements about whether a $38 million loan was in default after the hotel closed during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Midland objected that the requests were unclear, irrelevant, too broad, burdensome, and potentially protected by legal privileges. The plaintiff argued that the employees’ performance, training, incentives, and other employment information could help determine why they made the disputed statements.
Judge Arun Subramanian granted the motion. Because the defendants denied that the statements changing the contract had been made, the employees’ characteristics were relevant, and the defendants had not shown that producing the files would be burdensome. The defendants may redact sensitive information but must provide a brief log describing the types of information redacted.
The detailed version
- 360 N. Rodeo Drive, LP v. Wells Fargo Bank, National Association · No. 1:22-cv-00767
- Subramanian
- Sept. 29, 2023
Background
The plaintiff, a limited partnership that previously owned Luxe Rodeo Drive Hotel, described a dispute arising from a $38 million loan serviced by Midland Loan Services. According to the plaintiff’s submission, the loan agreement required the property to continue operating as a hotel and retail property. The plaintiff said that, during the COVID-19 pandemic, it discussed closing the hotel with Midland employee Chris Valencia, who agreed that no adverse consequence would result. The plaintiff further said that Midland representatives later represented that it was not in default, but the defendants subsequently claimed that the plaintiff had breached the loan agreement and owed approximately $9.5 million in interest and penalties.
Discovery Dispute
The plaintiff requested the personnel files, or similar employment-related records, of Valencia and Derek Stephens through Requests for Production Nos. 25 and 26. Midland objected that “personnel file” was vague and ambiguous, that the requests sought irrelevant information, that the requests could reach information protected by attorney-client privilege or the attorney work-product doctrine, and that the requests were overbroad, unduly burdensome, and lacked a time limit. The parties met and conferred, but Midland continued to refuse to produce responsive documents. The plaintiff then requested a discovery conference.
Court’s Ruling
The court stated: “The Motion is GRANTED.” It reasoned that the defendants denied that the alleged statements modifying the contract had ever been made, making relevant the character of the employees alleged to have made those statements. The court also noted that the defendants had not articulated any burden from producing the records. The defendants were permitted to redact sensitive information from the personnel files, provided they included a log briefly describing the types of information redacted. The Clerk of Court was directed to close ECF 49.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.