Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-02261/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-02261-23/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1962 Racketeering (RICO) Act

---

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARGO PERRYMAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

LITTON LOAN SERVICING, LP, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-02261-JST (KAW)

ORDER REGARDING 7/20/15 JOINT 

DISCOVERY LETTER

Re: Dkt. No. 201

On July 20, 2015, Plaintiff Margo Perryman and Defendant American Modern Home 

Insurance Company filed a joint letter in which American Modern seeks to compel further 

responses to Interrogatory Nos. 10-16. (7/20/15 Joint Letter, “Joint Letter,” Dkt. No. 201 at 1.) 

Specifically, the interrogatories ask Plaintiff to state the factual bases for specific allegations made 

in the First Amended Complaint. Id.

Upon review of the joint letter, and for the reasons set forth below, the Court orders 

Plaintiff to serve supplemental responses within 14 days of this order.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Margo Perryman owns a home in Edgewood, California. (First Am. Compl., 

“FAC,” Dkt. No. 108 ¶ 41.) The deed of trust required Plaintiff to insure the property against fire, 

floods, and/or other hazards. (FAC ¶ 42.) If a borrower fails to maintain the required coverage, 

the deed of trust permits the lender to obtain the required insurance coverage at the borrower’s 

expense. (FAC ¶ 42; FAC, Ex. A.) In 2011, FEMA re-drew the flood maps in the area that 

included Plaintiff’s property, and determined that she was now in a flood zone and was required to 

purchase flood insurance. (Joint Letter at 4.) 

As of February 22, 2011, Litton Loan Servicing, LP (“Litton”) serviced Plaintiff’s loan and 

Case 3:14-cv-02261-JST Document 213 Filed 08/26/15 Page 1 of 6
2

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

maintained an escrow account, and sent Plaintiff a notice that her home was located in a flood 

zone and she was required to provide proof of flood insurance within 30 days. (FAC ¶ 43.) When 

borrowers do not obtain insurance coverage in the amounts Litton requires, it purchased insurance 

for the borrowers and charge the borrower for the lender-placed insurance (“LPI”). Thereafter, 

Litton purchased a flood insurance policy at Plaintiff’s expense. (FAC ¶¶ 44-45.) American 

Modern Home Insurance Company (“American Modern”) sold insurance policies to Litton that 

were placed on borrower’s properties.

In May 2014, Plaintiff’s filed this lawsuit alleging that Defendants Litton, American 

Modern Home Insurance Company, and others engaged in wrongful and collusive practices that 

drove-up the price of lender-placed insurance (“LPI”). 

On June 12, 2015, Plaintiff and American Modern filed a joint letter regarding Plaintiff’s 

responses to Interrogatory Nos. 10-16. (Dkt. No. 191.) Subsequently, all discovery disputes in this 

matter were referred to the undersigned for disposition. (Dkt. No. 196.) Since the letter did not 

comply with the Court’s standing order, the parties were ordered to further meet and confer and 

file a revised joint letter in the format specified to facilitate the Court’s resolution of the remaining 

disputes.

On July 20, 2015, the parties filed the instant joint letter. (Dkt. No. 201.)

II. DISCUSSION

American Modern seeks to compel further responses to Interrogatory Nos. 10-16. 

Generally, these interrogatories ask Plaintiff to state the factual bases for the allegations made in 

the First Amended Complaint at the time the pleading was filed. (Joint Letter at 1.) In her 

responses, Plaintiff raised the same boilerplate objections and provided the same response subject 

to those objections. 

A. Interrogatory No. 10

Interrogatory No. 10 asks Plaintiff to 

[i]dentify all facts that support, that refer to, that relate to, that 

pertain to, or upon which you base your allegation in paragraph 19 

of the First Amended Complaint that “the Defendants made 

numerous material omissions, misleading ‘half-truths,’ and 

misrepresentations to Plaintiff and members of the Classes with the 

Case 3:14-cv-02261-JST Document 213 Filed 08/26/15 Page 2 of 6
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

intent to defraud and deceive Plaintiff and members of the Classes 

into paying and/or not contesting the force-placed charges.

(Joint Letter at 1.) 

In response, and subject to objection, Plaintiff does not include any facts pertaining to 

American Modern’s actions in this case, and instead vaguely references a 2013 consent order in 

New York state. (Pl.’s Interrog. Resp., Joint Letter, Ex. B at 7-8.) Further, Plaintiff contends that 

any further response to this interrogatory “should be deferred until merits discovery is complete, 

or at least well underway.” (Joint Letter at 3.) The Court disagrees.

At the very least, American Modern is entitled know which factual allegations form the 

bases of Plaintiff’s claims. If Plaintiff did not have any facts pertaining to Paragraph 19 of the 

first amended complaint at time it was filed, she must say so. The fact that discovery is ongoing,

and Plaintiff may not have all of the facts necessary to make her case, does not excuse her 

obligation to respond fully subject to any applicable privilege or objection.

Accordingly, Plaintiff is ordered to supplement her response to Interrogatory No. 10 within 

14 days of this order.

B. Interrogatory No. 11

Interrogatory No. 11 asks Plaintiff to “[i]dentify all facts that support, that refer to, that 

relate to, that pertain to, or upon which you base your allegation in paragraph 54 of the First 

Amended Complaint that the pricing of lender-placed insurance ‘is the result of collusion between 

the Defendants.’” (Joint Letter at 5.)

Plaintiff’s response to Interrogatory No. 11 is identical to her response to Interrogatory No. 

10. (Pl.’s Interrog. Resp. at 8-9.) Similarly, Plaintiff’s position that this interrogatory is premature,

and that she should not be compelled to provide further responses because she believes that

American Modern has failed to satisfy its discovery obligations, are similarly unavailing.

1

(See 

Joint Letter at 5.) American Modern is entitled know which factual allegations form the bases of 

 

1

Plaintiff refers to other discovery disputes that were before the undersigned in which she was 

attempting to compel further discovery responses. Neither of those disputes, including the dispute 

with American Modern, were resolved in her favor. (See Dkt. Nos. 206 & 207.) Indeed, the Court 

found that American Modern fulfilled its discovery obligations pertaining to its responses to 

Plaintiff’s requests for production of documents. (Dkt. No. 207 at 1.)

Case 3:14-cv-02261-JST Document 213 Filed 08/26/15 Page 3 of 6
4

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Plaintiff’s claims, and she must respond fully. Claims that American Modern has not fulfilled its 

discovery obligations or that the interrogatory is “premature” are not valid objections. Further, 

under Rule 26, the parties have an ongoing obligation to supplement their discovery responses 

when they learn new information. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26. Thus, Plaintiff need only respond with 

information that she currently has. Indeed, these interrogatories only seek to obtain the facts upon 

which Plaintiff bases her allegations in paragraph 54, so it is unlikely that she would need to 

supplement her response.

Accordingly, Plaintiff is ordered to supplement her response to Interrogatory No. 11 within 

14 days of this order.

C. Interrogatory No. 12

Interrogatory No. 12 asks Plaintiff to “[i]dentify all facts that support, that refer to, that 

relate to, that pertain to, or upon which you base your allegation in paragraph 56 of the First 

Amended Complaint that American Modern paid ‘a kickback to Litton and Ocwen . . . .’” (Joint 

Letter at 5.)

Again, Plaintiff’s response to Interrogatory No. 12 is identical to her response to 

Interrogatory No. 10. (Pl.’s Interrog. Resp. at 9-10.) In the joint letter, Plaintiff repeats her

contention that this interrogatory is premature. (See Joint Letter at 6.) Again, American Modern is 

entitled know which factual allegations form the bases of Plaintiff’s claims, and she must respond 

fully.

Accordingly, Plaintiff is ordered to supplement her response to Interrogatory No. 12 within 

14 days of this order.

D. Interrogatory No. 13

Interrogatory No. 13 asks Plaintiff to 

[i]dentify all facts that support, that refer to, that relate to, that 

pertain to, or upon which you base your allegation in paragraph 57 

of the First Amended Complaint that “Litton, Ocwen, and their 

affiliates also receive other unearned direct payments or unearned

commissions that are, in reality, kickbacks from force-placed 

insurers . . . .”

(Joint Letter at 6.)

Case 3:14-cv-02261-JST Document 213 Filed 08/26/15 Page 4 of 6
5

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Plaintiff’s response to Interrogatory No. 13 is, again, identical to her response to 

Interrogatory No. 10. (Pl.’s Interrog. Resp. at 10-11.) In the joint letter, Plaintiff repeats her 

contention that this interrogatory is premature. (See Joint Letter at 6.) As was the case with the 

interrogatories above, American Modern is entitled know which factual allegations form the bases 

of Plaintiff’s claims, and she must respond fully.

Accordingly, Plaintiff is ordered to supplement her response to Interrogatory No. 13 within 

14 days of this order.

E. Interrogatory No. 14

Interrogatory No. 14 asks Plaintiff to 

[i]dentify all facts that support, that refer to, that relate to, that 

pertain to, or upon which you base your allegation in paragraph 61 

of the First Amended Complaint that “Litton and Ocwen pay 

Southwest, ASIC, and American Modern a below-cost fee for 

performing monitoring, notification, and purchasing] services. 

Southwest, ASIC, and American Modern in turn, recoup their losses 

on services provided to Litton and Ocwen along with additional 

profits by charging higher premiums for force-placed insurance.”

(Joint Letter at 7.)

Plaintiff’s response to Interrogatory No. 14 is identical to her response to Interrogatory No. 

10. (Pl.’s Interrog. Resp. at 11-12.) In the joint letter, Plaintiff repeats her contention that this 

interrogatory is premature. (See Joint Letter at 7.) Again, American Modern is entitled know 

which factual allegations form the bases of Plaintiff’s claims, and she must respond fully.

Accordingly, Plaintiff is ordered to supplement her response to Interrogatory No. 14 within 

14 days of this order.

F. Interrogatory No. 15

Interrogatory No. 15 asks Plaintiff to 

[i]dentify all facts that support, that refer to, that relate to, that 

pertain to, or upon which you base your allegation in paragraph 93 

of the First Amended Complaint that “Litton and American Modern 

were employed by and associated with an illegal enterprise, and 

conducted and participated in that enterprise’s affairs, through a 

pattern of racketeering activity consisting of numerous and repeated 

uses of the interstate mails and wire communications to execute a 

scheme to defraud . . . .”

Case 3:14-cv-02261-JST Document 213 Filed 08/26/15 Page 5 of 6
6

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

(Joint Letter at 7.)

Plaintiff’s response to Interrogatory No. 15 is identical to her response to Interrogatory No. 

10. (Pl.’s Interrog. Resp. at 12-13.) In the joint letter, Plaintiff repeats her contention that this 

interrogatory is premature. (See Joint Letter at 7.) As was the case with the interrogatories above, 

American Modern is entitled know which factual allegations form the bases of Plaintiff’s claims, 

and she must respond fully.

Accordingly, Plaintiff is ordered to supplement her response to Interrogatory No. 15 within 

14 days of this order.

G. Interrogatory No. 16

Interrogatory No. 16 asks Plaintiff to

[i]dentify all facts that support, that refer to, that relate to, that 

pertain to, or upon which you base your allegation in paragraph 155

of the First Amended Complaint that “Defendants systematically 

engaged in these unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business practices 

to the detriment of Plaintiff and other members of the California 

Subclass.”

(Joint Letter at 8.)

Plaintiff’s response to Interrogatory No. 16 is identical to her response to Interrogatory No. 

10. (Pl.’s Interrog. Resp. at 13-14.) In the joint letter, Plaintiff repeats her contention that this 

interrogatory is premature. (See Joint Letter at 8.) Again, American Modern is entitled know 

which factual allegations form the bases of Plaintiff’s claims, and she must respond fully.

Accordingly, Plaintiff is ordered to supplement her response to Interrogatory No. 16 within 

14 days of this order.

III. CONCLUSION

In light of the foregoing, American Modern’s request to compel further responses is 

GRANTED. Plaintiff shall provide full and complete responses to Interrogatory Nos. 10-16, 

notwithstanding any valid objections, within 14 days of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 26, 2015 __________________________________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:14-cv-02261-JST Document 213 Filed 08/26/15 Page 6 of 6