Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01404/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01404-6/pdf.json

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CARTHEL DENNIS BORING,

Plaintiff,

v.

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, a 

limited liability company; 

BANK OF AMERICA N.A., a 

national business 

association,

Defendants.

No. 2:13-CV-01404-GEB-CMK 

ORDER REGARDING SUPPLEMENTAL 

BRIEFING ON DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT MOTION

On July 9, 2015, Defendant Nationstar Mortgage, LLC 

(“Nationstar”) moved for summary judgment or in the alternative 

for summary adjudication of the issues in Plaintiff’s Third 

Amended Complaint (“TAC”) and calendared the motion for hearing 

on August 10, 2015. Plaintiff opposes the motion and submitted 

the declarations of Carthel Dennis Boring and Eunji Cho in 

support of the opposition. Nationstar objects under Federal Rules 

of Civil Procedure (“Rules”) 26(a) and 37(c) to Paragraphs 13-16

and 19-21 of the Boring Declaration, Exhibits 5-11 attached to 

the Boring Declaration, and Exhibits 18-23 attached to the Cho 

declaration. Nationstar argues the paragraphs to which it objects 

and the referenced exhibits attached to the declarations rely on 

Case 2:13-cv-01404-GEB-CMK Document 82 Filed 08/04/15 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

information and documents that were not disclosed during 

discovery, and therefore should be stricken. The referenced 

information and documents were produced to Nationstar on July 24, 

2014, after the fact discovery completion date of July 6, 2015.

The objections are premised on provisions in Rule 26(a), (e) and 

Rule 37(c). 

Rule 26(a) (1) states in part: 

[A] part must, without awaiting a discovery 

request, provide to the other parties. . . a 

copy—or description by category and locationof all documents . . . that the disclosing 

party may use to support its claims or 

defenses, unless the use would be solely for 

impeachment.

Rule 26 (a)(3) states in part: 

[A] party must . . . provide to the other 

parties and promptly file the following 

information about the evidence that it may 

present at trial other than solely for 

impeachment: . . . an identification of each 

document or other exhibit, including 

summaries of other evidence—separately 

identifying those items the party expects to 

offer and those it may offer if the need 

arises.

Rule 26(e) states:

A party who has made a disclosure under Rule 

26(a)—or who has responded to an 

interrogatory, request for production, or 

request for admission—must supplement or 

correct its disclosure or response in a 

timely manner if the party learns that in 

some material respect the disclosure or some 

response is incomplete or incorrect, and if 

the additional or corrective information has 

not otherwise been made known to the other 

parties during the discovery process or in 

writing.

Sanctions may be imposed under Rule 37(c) for failure 

to comply with the disclosure provisions of Rule 26 unless “the 

Case 2:13-cv-01404-GEB-CMK Document 82 Filed 08/04/15 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

3

failure was substantially justified or is harmless.” “[T]he 

burden is on the party facing the sanction . . . to demonstrate 

that the failure to comply with Rule 26(a) is substantially 

justified or harmless.” Torres v. City of L.A., 548 F.3d 1197, 

1213 (9th Cir. 2008). 

Therefore, Plaintiff shall file a brief on or before 

Friday August 7, 2015, addressing why the referenced evidence 

should not be stricken for failure to comply with Rule 26 and the 

discovery completion date. Nationstar may file a reply brief by 

noon on Tuesday August 11, 2015. The hearing on Nationstar’s 

summary judgment motion is moved to August 24, 2015. 

Dated: August 4, 2015

Case 2:13-cv-01404-GEB-CMK Document 82 Filed 08/04/15 Page 3 of 3