Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-01515/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-01515-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Civil Rights

---

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

For the Northern District of California 

** E-filed March 16, 2010 ** 

NOT FOR CITATION 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

In re First Franklin Financial Corp. Litigation 

 

 

____________________________________/

No. C08-01515 JW (HRL) 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ 

MOTION TO COMPEL 

[Re: Docket No. 131] 

Plaintiffs sued First Franklin Corporation (“First Franklin”), Merrill Lynch & Co. (“Merrill 

Lynch”), and other affiliated defendants on behalf of themselves and a proposed class of minority 

homeowners with First Franklin mortgages. Plaintiffs allege that First Franklin created and 

executed a policy that allowed mortgage brokers to add discretionary “fees” as well as interest rate 

markups (also known as “yield-spread premiums”) to the mortgage after First Franklin made an 

objective, risk-based loan qualification decision. They claim that First Franklin’s authorization of 

this facially neutral policy caused minority applicants to have higher-cost loans than similarly 

situated white applicants, resulting in disparate impact discrimination. 

Plaintiffs now move to compel defendants to produce documents and testimony concerning a 

2007 statistical analysis of First Franklin’s loan-level data performed by KPMG that they claim 

defendants have improperly withheld on privilege grounds. Defendants oppose the motion. Upon 

consideration of the moving and responding papers, as well as the arguments presented at the 

motion hearing, this court denies plaintiffs’ motion. 

/// 

Case 5:08-cv-01515-JW Document 177 Filed 03/16/10 Page 1 of 4
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

For the Northern District of California 

DISCUSSION

Defendants first argue that the court should deny plaintiffs’ motion on grounds that plaintiffs 

failed to meet and confer in advance of filing the instant motion. They assert that plaintiffs initially 

sought information concerning the KPMG analysis in March 2009, but then made no effort to obtain 

it since June 2009. They also claim that plaintiffs never raised any alleged deficiencies concerning 

defendants’ privilege logs prior to the motion. Plaintiffs do not dispute that they did not meet and 

confer before filing the motion, but claim that any such effort would have been futile on account of 

defendants’ consistent position on the issue of privilege as well as on account of the parties’ earlier 

meet-and-confer efforts concerning defendants’ failure to produce timely privilege logs. 

This court’s Local Rules are clear that “[t]he Court will not entertain a request or motion to 

resolve a disclosure or discovery dispute unless . . . counsel have previously conferred for the 

purpose of attempting to resolve all disputed issues.” N.D. Cal. Civ. R. 37-1. Based on the record 

before the court, plaintiffs failed to meet this requirement. Although they may have met and 

conferred concerning the analysis in the spring of 2009, there is no indication that following 

defendants’ assertion of privilege in June 2009 that plaintiffs made any further requests that would 

put defendants on notice of a continuing dispute.1

 There is also no evidence that plaintiffs 

complained to defendants in advance concerning the quality of their privilege logs. Thus, the court 

is unpersuaded that an attempt to meet and confer about the current dispute, as it stands today, 

would have been futile. Accordingly, plaintiffs’ failure to meet and confer before filing the instant 

motion is sufficient grounds to deny their motion to compel. 

Nonetheless, even if plaintiffs had properly met and conferred with defendants, they also 

have failed to convince the court that the information they seek is relevant under the circumstances 

of this case. Plaintiffs’ complaint alleges disparate impact discrimination, and they have repeatedly 

asserted that they intend to prove their claims using statistical analysis. Yet they have not shown the 

court how KPMG’s particular analysis, which neither side is relying upon in this case, would lead to 

admissible evidence to advance their claims. 

/// 

 

1

 Judge Ware also recognized plaintiffs’ failure to make any such request in his order denying in 

part plaintiffs’ Motion to Modify the Preliminary Pretrial Schedule. (Docket No. 149.) 

Case 5:08-cv-01515-JW Document 177 Filed 03/16/10 Page 2 of 4
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

For the Northern District of California 

In their motion, plaintiffs argued that documents and testimony concerning the KPMG 

analysis was necessary and highly relevant for class certification purposes. However, following 

Judge Ware’s denial of plaintiffs’ motion to extend the deadline for filing a class certification 

motion2

—a motion that was premised in part on the existence of this discovery motion, which 

plaintiffs filed the same day—plaintiffs modified their argument. (See Docket No. 149.) Plaintiffs 

now submit that information concerning the methodology of the KPMG analysis, such as the data 

KPMG considered, the type of sampling it used, and its choice of statistical modeling, is key to 

assess other statistical analyses performed by experts in this case. They also suggest that the 

analysis is relevant to show whether defendants knew that their policy had a discriminatory impact. 

Plaintiffs’ revised arguments fail to convince the court that their claims in the instant 

litigation depend in any way on KPMG’s 2007 analysis of defendants’ loan-level data. No expert in 

the case relies on KPMG’s analysis, and plaintiffs can challenge the sufficiency of defendants’ 

current analysis without KPMG’s methodology. Furthermore, because plaintiffs do not allege 

intentional discrimination, the court is unpersuaded that KPMG’s methodology is relevant to 

plaintiffs’ assertion that defendants may have known about the impact of their policy. Instead, 

plaintiffs’ claims, according to their asserted theory of the case, will succeed or fail based on the 

existing experts’ statistical analyses of defendants’ loan-level data—data that plaintiffs concede they 

have received. Under such circumstances, the court is unconvinced that documents or testimony 

concerning the KPMG analysis is relevant to the merits of this case or likely to lead to admissible 

evidence. 

CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, the court DENIES plaintiffs’ motion to compel.3

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 16, 2010 

HOWARD R. LLOYD 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

2

 Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on February 25, 2010. (Docket No. 154.) 

3

 As the court finds that plaintiffs failed to meet and confer in advance of the motion and that the 

KPMG analysis is not relevant under the circumstances of this case, it need not reach the parties’ 

alternative arguments. 

Case 5:08-cv-01515-JW Document 177 Filed 03/16/10 Page 3 of 4
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

For the Northern District of California 

C 08-01515 Notice will be electronically mailed to: 

Alan R Plutzik aplutzik@bramsonplutzik.com 

Alan Roth Plutzik aplutzik@bramsonplutzik.com 

Andrew S. Friedman afriedman@bffb.com, nvarner@bffb.com, rcreech@bffb.com 

Charles Delbaum cdelbaum@nclc.org 

Coty Rae Miller cmiller@csgrr.com 

David S. Reidy dreidy@reedsmith.com, vfedoroff@reedsmith.com 

Donna Siegel Moffa dmoffa@btkmc.com 

Edward W. Ciolko eciolko@btkmc.com, atrask@btkmc.com, dmoffa@btkmc.com, 

 dmoffo@btkmc.com, erisapldg@btkmc.com, jweeden@btkmc.com, 

 kmarrone@btkmc.com 

Gary Edward Klein Klein@roddykleinryan.com, kavanagh@roddykleinryan.com, 

 mcclay@roddykleinryan.com, pereira@roddykleinryan.com 

John J. Stoia , Jr jstoia@csgrr.com 

Joseph A Weeden jweeden@btkmc.com 

Joseph H. Meltzer jmeltzer@btkmc.com, eciolko@btkmc.com, kmarrone@btkmc.com, 

 rgray@btkmc.com 

Lisa Diane Fialco lisa@chavezgertler.com, jenna@chavezgertler.com 

Mark Andrew Chavez mark@chavezgertler.com, jenna@chavezgertler.com, 

 kerri@chavezgertler.com 

Nance Felice Becker nance@chavezgertler.com, kerri@chavezgertler.com 

Peter Anthony Muhic pmuhic@btkmc.com, jbelack@btkmc.com, jsjohnson@btkmc.com 

Robert M. Bramson rbramson@bramsonplutzik.com 

Theodore J. Pintar TedP@csgrr.com 

Tiffany Renee Thomas tthomas@reedsmith.com, dborja@reedsmith.com, 

 lbowman@reedsmith.com 

Tyree P. Jones, Jr tpjones@reedsmith.com, mmelodia@reedsmith.com, 

 nbridgewater@reedsmith.com, scaraballo@reedsmith.com 

Wendy Jacobsen Harrison wharrison@bffb.com, kvanderbilt@bffb.com, rcreech@bffb.com 

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not 

registered for e-filing under the court’s CM/ECF program. 

Case 5:08-cv-01515-JW Document 177 Filed 03/16/10 Page 4 of 4