Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00698/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00698-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BARBARA SHAWCROFT,

Plaintiff,

v.

ROUNDPOINT MORTGAGE 

SERVICING CORPORATION, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:15-cv-0698-MCE-KJN

ORDER

On October 19, 2016, an informal telephonic discovery conference was held in this matter 

before the undersigned to address the parties’ dispute regarding the written discovery requests 

defendant Roundpoint Mortgage Servicing Company (“defendant”) has propounded on plaintiff 

Barbara Shawcroft (“plaintiff”). Attorney Chad Carlock appeared telephonically on behalf of 

plaintiff. Attorney Kristina Pelletier appeared telephonically on behalf of defendant. 

Based on the parties’ joint statement, other relevant filings, and arguments made during 

the telephonic conference, and for the reasons stated by the undersigned during the telephonic 

conference, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

////

////

////

Case 2:15-cv-00698-MCE-KJN Document 33 Filed 10/20/16 Page 1 of 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

2

1. The discovery cutoff in this action is continued to December 31, 2016, only for 

purposes of allowing plaintiff to respond to the written discovery propounded by 

defendant that is the subject of the parties’ current discovery dispute and for defendant 

to take plaintiff’s deposition.1

2. Plaintiff shall permit defendant to conduct a property inspection in connection with 

plaintiff’s pending loan modification request, if defendant determines such an 

inspection necessary, by no later than 5:00 P.M., on November 4, 2016, or on another 

mutually agreed upon date and time thereafter if the parties so stipulate.

3. In all other respects defendant’s motion to compel discovery responses is denied 

without prejudice if the parties cannot agree upon the requested discovery.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 20, 2016

 

1 As the undersigned discussed with counsel during the telephonic hearing, any further disputes 

relative to this discovery shall be resolved by appropriate order if necessary and, where discovery 

has been ordered, the order complied with by December 31, 2016.

Case 2:15-cv-00698-MCE-KJN Document 33 Filed 10/20/16 Page 2 of 2