Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-05881/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-05881-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-(Citizenship)

---

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

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

1

 Plaintiffs erroneously sued Wells Fargo as “Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc.” 

2

 Record citations are to documents in the Electronic Case File (“ECF”); pinpoint citations

are to the ECF-generated page numbers at the top of the documents.

C13-05881 LB

ORDER

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Northern District of California

San Francisco Division

MANOJ RIJHWANI, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE, INC.,

Defendant.

_____________________________________/

No. C 13-05881 LB

ORDER REGARDING THE PARTIES’

JOINT DISCOVERY DISPUTE

LETTER DATED APRIL 8, 2015

[Re: ECF Nos. 48]

Plaintiffs Manoj Rijhwani and Lisa Rijhwani (“Plaintiffs”) sued Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Wells

Fargo”)1

 for its alleged misconduct in relation to Plaintiffs’ attempt to get a loan modification and

the concurrent foreclosure proceedings on Plaintiffs’ property. (See Second Amended Complaint

(“SAC”), ECF No. 1-1 at 1-24.2) The parties filed a joint discovery letter on April 8, 2015. (Letter,

ECF No. 48.) Plaintiffs say that Wells Fargo did not adequately prepare its Rule 30(b)(6) witness

and Wells Fargo should have to provide one who has been. Upon consideration of the parties’

arguments and in furtherance of the efficient management of this case, the court denies Plaintiffs’

request.

First, the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition occurred on February 13, 2015, but Plaintiffs did not provide

Wells Fargo with its portion of a draft letter until April 1, 2015, and the letter was filed until April 8,

Case 3:13-cv-05881-LB Document 50 Filed 04/10/15 Page 1 of 2
UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

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

C13-05881 LB

ORDER 2

2015. Fact discovery closed on January 16, 2015, except the court allowed Wells Fargo’s Rule

30(b)(6) deposition and the deposition of Juan Teran to occur after then. To require yet another

deposition, this long after fact discovery closed and Wells Fargo has filed its summary judgment

motion, would require adjusting all of the deadlines—including the summary judgment hearing date

and the trial—in this case, and the court is not willing to do that in this situation. Second, Plaintiffs

have not convincingly shown that Wells Fargo’s Rule 30(b)(6) witness was not able to testify about

the topics. Before the deposition, Wells Fargo objected to two topics, and as far as the court knows,

Plaintiffs never challenged these objections. This matters because Plaintiffs complain in the letter

that Wells Fargo’s Rule 30(b)(6) witness could not answer questions concerning those objected-to

topics, and Plaintiffs do not show that the witness could not answer questions about the other topics. 

Third, as Wells Fargo points out, the deposition topics that Plaintiffs are concerned about are more

appropriate for Juan Teran to discuss. Plaintiffs are taking Mr. Teran’s deposition on April 10,

2015, and Plaintiffs can ask him directly about communications between Plaintiffs and Wells Fargo;

after all, he allegedly was Plaintiffs’ designated “single point of contact” at Wells Fargo. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 10, 2015 _______________________________

LAUREL BEELER

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:13-cv-05881-LB Document 50 Filed 04/10/15 Page 2 of 2