Brent Tantillo

1629 K Street, NW
Suite 300
Washington, DC 20006

T 786-506-2991
btantillo@tantillolaw.com
November 21, 2016

Via Email

Mr. Christian Pistilli, Esq.

Covington & Burling LLP
One City Center
850 Tenth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001-4956

Re: S&A Capital Partners, Inc., et al. v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.,
et al.
Civil Action No. 15-CV-293 (LTS) (JCF)

Dear Chris:

This is to confirm our meet and confer on Friday afternoon, November 18,
2016:

(1) The parties agree to an extension of all scheduling order deadlines for 3
months, except regarding the settlement conference. You sent a draft order for
our review on November 21, 2016, which we plan to discuss with you in a
future meet and confer. With respect to the settlement conference, it is
Plaintiffs’ position that a ruling on the motion to dismiss is not a condition
precedent to the settlement conference and the parties should defer to
Magistrate Francis as to how he wishes to proceed on that front. Because the
deadline for beginning to meet with Magistrate Francis’ has passed, Plaintiffs
will be advising Magistrate Francis that Plaintiffs stand ready to participate in a
Court-sponsored settlement meeting on whatever schedule the Court finds
appropriate.
 (2) Plaintiffs will be producing a copy of the MMLSA in Relativity.
Numerous copies of the MLPA have been produced by Plaintiffs and
Defendants. Plaintiffs have already produced 200+ individual note sale
agreements and will be producing the remainder by November 30.

(3) Plaintiffs will be producing 500+ spreadsheets by November 30 relating

to raw data concerning servicing of loans purchased from Defendants.

(4) Documents relating to complaints regarding Plaintiffs’ mortgage loan

servicing business will be uploaded by November 30, 2016.

(5) Documents referenced in paragraphs 132-134 of the TAC will be

produced by November 30, 2016.

(6) Documents reflecting Plaintiffs’ losses and damages are the subject of
expert analysis and production regarding expert discovery is premature. To the
extent that Plaintiffs have underlying raw data related to that effort, Plaintiffs
will produce it, but it will likely be after November 30, 2016.

(7) We need clarification on whether production of all documents, including

loan files and servicing data related to loans purchased from Defendants is
complete. It is our understanding from our call that it is Defendants’ position
that production is complete, or will be complete by November 30, 2016. We
note that there is virtually no data for this category of documents but will wait
until November 30, 2016 to determine the need for a motion to compel.

When we asked you how you searched for the loan data, you said that
Defendants used the account numbers Plaintiffs provided. You refused to advise
us as to which systems or databases, other than RCV1 were searched. When
asked if you searched databases for the term MRS 209, you said that was not
possible. You advised that iVault is not a data base and thus would not be
searched. We are aware of other numerous systems of records beyond RCV1
and iVault that have relevant information to the loan level information at issue:
Vendor Lending System (VLS), Advanced Loan Systems (ALS), Mortgage
Servicing Platform (MSP), Docline and WinCMSS, LISA, POTS, FORTRACS,
and Fastrieve. We believe our meet and confer obligation as to where and how
Defendants will search their databases regarding loan data is complete, subject
to any new information received in a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition.
 (8) Defendants will produce all documents related to the criteria and
processes regarding RCV1 by November 30, 2016.

(9) All documents relating to lien releases and loan forgiveness letters will
be produced by Defendants on or before November 30, 2016.

(10) Defendants refuse to produce any documents related to the analysis

referenced in the Wick letters dated August 8, 2012 and September 15, 2015,
and that the parties’ meet and confer obligation regarding this category is
complete.

(11) Defendants refuse to produce any documents related to which of

Plaintiffs’ loans Defendants sought or obtained consumer credit under the NMS
and RMBS settlements. The parties’ meet and confer obligation regarding this
category is complete.

(12) We are having the text messages forwarded to Defendants in our letter
of November 10 forensically examined and will produce any relevant
information once it is retrieved.

(13) Defendants’ production for Mark Davis is complete “subject to normal

retention policy”. We asked you what the normal retention policy is and you
said you didn’t know but we could ask at the 30(b)(6) deposition.

(14) Plaintiffs requested suggested dates for a 30(b)(6) deposition and

agreed that the scope would be as set forth in your letter dated June 8, 2016.
You agreed to provide dates in January.

(15) Plaintiffs requested that Defendants provided dates for the depositions
of Solomon and Boyle. You agreed to provide dates in January.

We note also at this point that we have yet to receive any of the “Attorney’s
Eyes Only” documents. Please advise if these documents are forthcoming in future
productions.
 Unless we hear from you otherwise, we will assume the foregoing correctly
summarizes the substance of our meet and confer.
Very truly yours,

Brent Tantillo
Managing Shareholder

cc: Robert Wick

Michael Maya
Philip Levitz
Mary Jane Fait