Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-01561/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-01561-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 15:1601 Truth in Lending

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

cal 

1 09cv1561

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

QUINTERO FAMILY TRUST, GEORGE

HANNIBAL QUINTERO & CELIA G.

QUINTERO; As Trustees; GEORGE

HANNIBAL QUINTERO; an individual;

CELIA G. QUINTERO, an individual,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ONEWEST BANK, F.S.B. as successor to

INDYMAC BANK, F.S.B., a Federally

Chartered Savings and Loan Association;

IDNYMAC BANKCORP, INC., a California

corporation; INDYMAC MORTGAGE

SERVICES, a division of ONEWEST

BANK, F.S.B.; QUALITY LOAN SERVICE

CORP., a California corporation; CLARION

MORTGAGE CAPITAL, INC., a Colorado

corporation; BILL LANEY, an individual;

BREAKTHROUGH MARKETING, INC., a

California corporation d/b/a HOME ASSET

MORTGAGE,,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 09cv1561 IEG (AJB)

Order on Ex Parte Application 

for Expedited Discovery

[Doc. No. 15]

On October 6, 2009, the Plaintiffs’ filed an ex parte application for expedited discovery. On

October 8, 2009, the Defendants filed an opposition to the ex parte application for expedited discovery.

Background

This is a case involving allegations of predatory lending and financial elder abuse. The

Plaintiffs’ filed their complaint on July 17, 2009 and then a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on

Case 3:09-cv-01561-AJB-WVG Document 23 Filed 10/16/09 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2 09cv1561

August 20, 2009. Defendant, One West Bank, filed a motion to dismiss the FAC on September 14,

2009. Defendant, Clarion Mortgage Capital, Inc., filed a motion to dismiss the FAC on September 25,

2009. On October 1, 2009, the Court granted the Plaintiff’s ex parte request to coordinate and

consolidate the hearings on the motions to dismiss, and reset the hearing date for both motions for

December 7, 2009 and required Plaintiffs’s opposition to both motions be filed on or before November

16, 2009. 

Discussion

The Plaintiffs’ seek limited discovery on three issues: 1) the history and current status of any

assignments of the promissary note, including who the current holder of the note may be and to receive a

full accounting on the subject loan; 2) facts concerning any assignment of the trust deed; and 3) facts

related to the sworn declaration filed by Quality Loan Service Corporation (hereinafter “Quality”). The

Plaintiffs’ also seek an expedited 30(b)(6) deposition requiring that documents be produced therewith

from each of the Defendants and to depose D. Mcalylor, authorized agent for Quality concerning the

declaration stating that reasonable efforts at a loan modification were undertaken.

Alternatively, the Defendants contend that no discovery is warranted prior to the Court ruling on

the pending motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure. The Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs’ request for discovery is nothing more that an

attempt to burden Defendants and conduct a fishing expedition into Defendants’ records in an attempt to

uncover additional claims that can be asserted.

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that generally a party may not initiate discovery

before the parties have met and conferred pursuant to Rule 26(f). See Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 26(f). However,

Rule 26(d) provides that a court may authorize earlier discovery “for the convenience of parties and

witnesses and in the interests of justice.” Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 26(d). A court may grant a request to take

discovery prior to the parties' meeting under Rule 26(f) where the requesting party demonstrates good

cause. See Semitool, Inc. v. Tokyo Electron Am., Inc., 208 F.R.D. 273, 276 (N.D. Cal.2002). “Good

cause may be found where the need for expedited discovery, in consideration of the administration of

justice, outweighs the prejudice to the responding party.” Id.

Case 3:09-cv-01561-AJB-WVG Document 23 Filed 10/16/09 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

K:\COMMON\BATTAGLI\CASES\Quintero\09cv1561.Quintero.Order.Pre-answer.Disc.wpd

3 09cv1561

The Plaintiffs’ argue that the allegations of predatory lending and financial elder abuse in

conjunction with the fact that the Plaintiffs are very senior and suffering from age-related infirmities

necessitate the requested expedited discovery because: 1) Plaintiffs are having difficulties procuring all

of the necessary information to meet the pleading requirements in this predatory lending case, particularly in light of the allegations of fraud; 2) the Defendants have failed to fully respond to the Qualified

Written Requests (“QWRs”) of the Plaintiffs as authorized by the Real Estate Settlement Procedures

Act, 12 U.S.C. § 2605(e); and 3) the discovery sought will allow the Plaintiffs to more fully respond to

the pending motions to dismiss.

The Plaintiffs’ request for expedited discovery and disclosure of the complete mortgage loan

files in the Defendants’ possession, including but not limited to the promissory note and the trust deed is

hereby GRANTED as the Plaintiffs have demonstrated good cause for this request and the interests of

justice outweigh any prejudice to the Defendants. Plaintiffs are granted leave, forthwith, to serve

requests for production of documents on the Defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

Rule 34 for the complete mortgage loan files in the Defendants’ possession. However, with regard to the

Rule 30(b)(6) depositions of each of the Defendants and the deposition of D. Mcalylor, the Court finds

that the Plaintiffs have not demonstrated good cause and the Court hereby DENIES Plaintiffs’ expedited

deposition requests. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 16, 2009

Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia

U.S. Magistrate Judge

United States District Court

Case 3:09-cv-01561-AJB-WVG Document 23 Filed 10/16/09 Page 3 of 3