1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

2

3 ------------------------------------X
:
4 MORTGAGE RESOLUTION SERVICING, LLC.,:
et al., :
5 : 15-CV-00293 (LTS)
Plaintiffs, :
6 :
v. : 500 Pearl Street
7 : New York, New York
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., et al., :
8 : January 8, 2018
Defendants. :
9 ------------------------------------X

10 TRANSCRIPT OF CIVIL CAUSE FOR MOTION CONFERENCE

BEFORE THE HONORABLE ROBERT W. LEHRBURGER
11 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

12
APPEARANCES:
13

14 For the Plaintiffs: BRENT TANTILLO, ESQ.

ROBERTO DI MARCO, ESQ.
15 JENNIFER FOSTER, ESQ.
Tantillo Law, PLLC
16 1629 K Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006-1631
17

18 For the Defendants: ROBERT WICK, ESQ.

PHILIP LEVITZ, ESQ.
19 Covington & Burling
One City Center
20 Washington, D.C. 20001

21 Court Transcriber: SHARI RIEMER, CET-805

TypeWrite Word Processing Service
22 211 N. Milton Road
Saratoga Springs, New York 12866
23

24

25

Proceedings recorded by electronic sound recording, transcript

produced by transcription service
 2

1 THE CLERK: The case is Mortgage Resolution

2 Servicing, LLC v. JPMorgan Chase Bank.
3 Will counsel please state their name for the record?

4 MR. TANTILLO: Good morning, Your Honor. Brent

5 Tantillo, Roberto Di Marco and Jennifer Forster on behalf of

6 the plaintiffs.

7 THE COURT: Good morning.

8 MR. WICK: Good morning, Your Honor. Robert Wick

9 from Covington & Burling for the Chase defendants. With me is

10 my colleague Philip Levitz.

11 THE COURT: Good morning. Please be seated.

12 So on motions like these and applications like these

13 I often think I can rule based on the letters and have so far

14 done that in many cases but I had actually a variety of

15 questions raised by these letters that I thought it was

16 important to bring us all together to discuss.

17 So my understanding of the case and I understand I’m

18 coming into this much later in the game with Judge Francis

19 having been the magistrate judge on this case for several

20 years and he retired after a great career recently and I have

21 come aboard and assumed many of his cases, including this one.

22 I have gone through the record to some extent. I

23 won’t say that I have done it certainly not to every detail

24 and there will definitely be aspects of the case you probably

25 want to bring up that I may not be aware of. I did however

 3

1 read Magistrate Judge Francis’s orders from the case. So I’m

2 familiar with the ones that certainly he decided with respect

3 to these motions.

4 My understanding is it’s about purchase of

5 distressed mortgage loans and essentially plaintiff claims

6 that the defendant provided non conforming loans and then

7 improperly retained and forgave loans following purchase and

8 also took payments as a result of having retained the loans.

9 So now we have competing motions to compel and I

10 know that defendants came in first but I sort of feel like

11 resolving that depends on resolving plaintiff’s request for

12 information particularly because plaintiff says they can’t

13 answer these interrogatories until they have certain

14 information. So I want to find out about that. So we’re

15 going to start with plaintiff’s motion.

16 So could you just give me a quick explanation of

17 what it is you’re seeking and I would like you to pay

18 particular attention to why you think it is not duplicative or

19 untimely.

20 MR. TANTILLO: Your Honor, may I approach lectern?

21 THE COURT: Sure.

22 MR. TANTILLO: Good morning, Your Honor.

23 THE COURT: Good morning.

24 MR. TANTILLO: May it please the Court. I have also

25 the privilege today of having the principal investor of our --

 4

1 of the plaintiff’s, Mr. Lawrence Schneider, in the courtroom

2 as well as Mr. Doug Lure [Ph.] who also filed an affidavit in

3 our motion --

4 THE COURT: Okay.

5 MR. TANTILLO: -- in the event that you have any

6 questions.

7 Your Honor, just to start off I would say that it’s

8 ironic and I think that you sort of hit the nail on the head

9 when you stated that the defendant’s motion to compel really

10 relies basically on our motion to compel and that really is

11 our position today.

12 It is impossible for us to complete the

13 interrogatories that the defendants would like us to do if we

14 do not have the requisite servicing data in order to achieve

15 that. As you know from the various motions to compel that

16 Judge Francis heard and also ruled upon, we have been arguing

17 about loan servicing data for some time. Within Judge

18 Francis’s first order to compel as you I’m sure are aware he

19 stated that all documents related to these loans should be

20 turned over.

21 To give you a little bit of background, that’s not

22 what has happened. What has happened is related to the

23 mortgage servicing data we received two spreadsheets. These

24 two spreadsheets basically our data elements or data pulls

25 from various systems or record. We have no clue what systems

 5

1 or record they are. The plaintiffs refuse to tell us what

2 date they pulled these mortgage elements and that’s

3 particularly important because the mortgage loan purchase

4 agreement in this particular case stated that all of the

5 mortgages that Mr. Schneider and his entities were purchasing

6 in particular with regards to the mortgage resolution pool

7 were first lien mortgages, and we have no idea with the

8 exception of these spreadsheets that they provided us what the

9 real loan position is.

10 You have not seen these spreadsheets so I can give

11 you a little bit of background on them. On these spreadsheets

12 there is a field that says PORTPOS, P-O-R-T-P-O-S. Within

13 that there’s mortgage positions ranging from one, two, three

14 and zero. As you can imagine receiving these type of

15 spreadsheets from the defendants is on the one hand useful but

16 is not useful if we do not know where the information came

17 from and more importantly the defendants are unwilling to tell

18 us the date in which it was pooled.

19 If the defendants were willing to state that

20 basically -- we’re making a certification that there is --

21 these are the mortgage positions that we believe you purchased

22 these loans on the date of the MLPA then we could push forward

23 because in effect at that point at least we know what the

24 actual mortgage position is.

25 In addition to that, Your Honor, we’re seeking the

 6

1 exact same type of information that Mr. Schneider and his

2 entities received when they did 1,000 individual note sale

3 agreements between 2005 and 2011 with the defendants. It’s

4 our position that it should be not that difficult for them to

5 produce this data and in effect Mr. Wick in the May 10th

6 hearing also stated that it would not be difficult for Chase

7 to produce this data.

8 What has happened in the interim --

9 THE COURT: I just want to make sure I understand.

10 Those 1,000 plus loans data for them is not included in the

11 two spreadsheets, or it is?

12 MR. TANTILLO: There is some aspects of it that is

13 included. No doubt. But not all of the data elements are

14 there. Why we’re asking for the view summary, view activity

15 and view ledger screens is because this will show over time

16 what Chase has done to a particular note or mortgage. What

17 will end up happening is we can see if they were doing post

18 collections efforts. We would be able to see different notes

19 by mortgage recovery representatives stating that we had sent

20 this off to a collection agency.

21 We’d be able to see if they had a file or didn’t and

22 if you read our papers we did show some samples of what those

23 screens look like [inaudible] which is we only found four of

24 those screens in a production most recently that Chase

25 provided of over 700,000 pages.

 7

1 So it’s our position that Mr. Schneider has

2 continued not to receive the exact documents he needs in order

3 to determine number one, what the true mortgage position is.

4 Now, Chase is wanting to certify that those spreadsheets are

5 accurate and that’s what the mortgage position was the day of

6 the MLPA then we can come to an agreement on that but my

7 suspicion is that they would rather not do that.

8 In addition, Your Honor, we have been pushing Chase

9 to at least have somebody explain what’s in the spreadsheets.

10 We asked for a 30(b)(6) on this particular topic. Chase did

11 not feel that that was appropriate and it’s our position that

12 we have no clue. We’re looking at spreadsheets that to some

13 degree, Your Honor, are bases of admissions basically stating

14 that they did breach the contract but we would need to talk to

15 somebody about what these actual spreadsheets say and what’s

16 within them and where the data was pulled. If Chase is

17 willing to say everything within the spreadsheet is accurate,

18 everything is -- the date of the mortgage position was --

19 [inaudible] the date of the MLPA then that would push forward

20 the case significantly but that’s not what they’re willing to

21 say.

22 In fact, if you read their letters they basically

23 say that was the date in which the mortgage position was

24 pooled. That tells us absolutely nothing whatsoever.

25 So our position is is that we’re not asking for very

 8

1 much. We want this case to push forward. The plaintiffs are

2 ready and willing to move this case to trial and also move the

3 next phase of expert discovery. I understand that this Court

4 from Judge Swain all the way from Judge Francis to you also

5 wants the same.

6 So if we’re able to get these finite data elements

7 or certifications that assist us to at least show that what we

8 received was not what we bargained for then we can push

9 forward with the case and we can move either to expert

10 discovery even in our view perhaps a trial for damages.

11 THE COURT: A couple of questions.

12 MR. TANTILLO: Yes, sir.

13 THE COURT: First of all, in your letter there is

14 specification of certain categories of information. I want to

15 understand if this is all information that you would expect to

16 be in the spreadsheet or somewhere else. So obviously the top

17 one was the codes for the spreadsheet. So I understand

18 wanting a witness for that.

19 Then you mentioned debt forgiveness letters.

20 MR. TANTILLO: Yes, sir.

21 THE COURT: Have any of those been produced? A re

22 they necessary or is that information captured in the

23 spreadsheet?

24 MR. TANTILLO: There is information -- let me take a

25 step back, Your Honor. There is something called a DFL note

 9

1 code and the DFL note code was a code that was created by

2 Chase for the purpose of de-marking loans that received a

3 forgiveness letter pursuant to these DOJ settlements that

4 occurred. The spreadsheet did contain basically sort of a yes

5 or a no as to whether or not certain loans received a DFL note

6 code.

7 However, Your Honor, if you read the declaration of

8 Mr. Lord who has done analysis on this issue the problem that

9 we’re having is is that the DFL note codes that they produce

10 in the spreadsheet do not match up with the actual forgiveness

11 letters, the actual copy of the letter itself that we have

12 found within the I-Vault production. So there is a disparity

13 between the two. And because of that we are having trouble

14 actually knowing the real breadth of how the plaintiff’s

15 entities were affected by these forgiveness letters.

16 THE COURT: Okay. What about the lien releases?

17 MR. TANTILLO: It’s exactly the same issues. There

18 is an indicator within the spreadsheets, Your Honor, called

19 POTS. I don’t want to misstate anything for Chase but this is

20 from what I understand called the payoff tracking system.

21 There’s a system that allows Chase according to their

22 representations and also deposition testimony which indicates

23 that all lien releases go through this payoff tracking system.

24 However, once again, we have found that while there are

25 significant numbers -- some are in the 600 to 91 I think but I

 10

1 may be wrong on that -- over 600 lien releases that are

2 indicated on that spreadsheet. The trouble is that there are

3 additional lien releases that are also found within the I-

4 Vault production and then there are -- so once again there’s a

5 disparity. There’s additional lien releases which are not

6 accounted for through the payoff tracking system. Because of

7 that it’s one of the reasons why we’re asking for what we

8 would call the recovery servicing data because we believe that

9 if we are able to obtain that then we’ll be able to see how

10 that particular loan or all of Mr. Schneider’s loans that he

11 purchased from Chase basically walked through Chase’s systems

12 of records. In there you can see a forgiveness letter was

13 sent, a lien release is sent. All those particular servicing

14 data elements. And I don’t want to -- our view is the problem

15 is it’s one thing to extract data and then put it into a

16 spreadsheet. It’s much different to actually receive the

17 native information.

18 THE COURT: Of course. So I assume the answer is

19 essentially the same with respect to the RESPA letters and

20 assignments and the loan history and the pay outs or post sale

21 collections, right?

22 Essentially what I hear you saying is you’d like to

23 see the entire servicing file for each loan.

24 MR. TANTILLO: Yes, Your Honor.

25 THE COURT: Those -- have you -- did you request at

 11

1 some point the entire servicing files?

2 MR. TANTILLO: Yes, Your Honor. And let me take a

3 step back and just explain what we received. What we received

4 is basically the origination file [inaudible]. We have not

5 received the servicing file.

6 THE COURT: Right. The servicing files are often

7 different. Who -- so who is actually doing the servicing?

8 MR. TANTILLO: You mean within Mr. Schneider’s

9 companies or within Chase?

10 THE COURT: Within Chase. It was Chase?

11 MR. TANTILLO: Yes, it was Chase.

12 THE COURT: Okay. And Chase didn’t originate the

13 deal, or did they?

14 MR. TANTILLO: In some instances they did and in

15 some they didn’t. Maybe you have the long draw so as you can

16 imagine they ended up in residential mortgage backed security

17 trust and that kind of thing.

18 THE COURT: Have you gotten confirmation that --

19 from the other side that indeed there are servicing files that

20 are separate from the origination files?

21 MR. TANTILLO: We have asked for -- I don’t know if

22 we received confirmation of such, no.

23 THE COURT: Okay. I’ll save that for defense

24 counsel.

25 Tell me what is the difference between I-Vaults and

 12

1 the other database repository, please.

2 MR. TANTILLO: Okay. Chase has a -- and I don’t

3 want to speak for Chase here but obviously I’ve been in this

4 case for some time so I can at least provide you what I know

5 about it.

6 I-Vault is a repository in which Chase scans

7 origination files, satisfactions of mortgages, lien releases,

8 those types of documents. There’s also different systems of

9 records which Chase uses, at least particularly for first lien

10 mortgages. For first lien mortgages they use something called

11 MSP, mortgage servicing platform. Those loans are where a

12 typical first lien mortgage is serviced where payments -- when

13 payments are coming into the door they’re being logged, that

14 type of thing.

15 Then at some point in time if a borrower stops

16 paying and in addition Chase makes a decision that this loan

17 should not be foreclosed upon because it’s under water they

18 move it to recovery, the recovery department, and there’s a

19 different system of records there called RCV-1 or recovery 1.

20 Recovery 1 is where these view summary, view activity and view

21 registrants are filed. This is where -- this is the location

22 where Mr. Schneider and his entities purchased these loans.

23 THE COURT: So it sounds like I-Vault is more tied

24 to origination and RCV-1 is more tied to servicing.

25 MR. TANTILLO: That’s what we found.

 13

1 THE COURT: All right. Let me talk to defense

2 counsel.

3 MR. TANTILLO: Thank you, Your Honor.

4 THE COURT: Mr. Wick, what do you have to say on

5 behalf of Chase on this data and other documents that

6 certainly sound relevant? What’s going on?

7 MR. WICK: We have very sharp disagreements with Mr.

8 Tantillo’s characterization of the facts in the record, Your

9 Honor. There are -- I mean I don’t know how else to say it

10 other than what he has told you is completely inaccurate.

11 If we can start with timeliness. First, the

12 information that’s sought in the motion to compel is untimely

13 under the fact discovery cutoff order in this case of

14 September 13, 2017. The plaintiffs filed this case in

15 December of 2014. The original fact discovery cutoff was

16 February 2016. So we’re coming up on two years from the

17 original fact discovery cutoff. The fact discovery cutoff

18 date has been extended to a total of six times. There was no

19 request to extend it a seventh time. So under the operative

20 scheduling order the fact discovery cutoff date for most

21 purposes was September 13, 2017.

22 There are two limited extensions to that in Judge

23 Francis’s scheduling order. There is a grace period through

24 December 12th to complete previously noticed depositions but

25 there are no depositions noticed pre-September 12th at issue

 14

1 on the motion to compel. And secondly, there is a grace

2 period through December 12, 2017 to complete previously -- to

3 complete responses to previously served discovery requests and

4 the plaintiffs also had the right to serve new discovery

5 requests if those discovery requests related to Chase’s I-

6 Vault loan file production, servicing file production and

7 could not reasonably with reasonable due diligence have been

8 served prior to September 13, 2017.

9 Again, none of the requests at issue on the motion

10 to compel comply with that grace period either.

11 THE COURT: Let me ask you about that. So I guess

12 tow thoughts. One is are any of those requests that are being

13 set forth in this letter or followed up on in this letter or

14 motion, do any of them fall under requests that were made at

15 the outset of the case or some time within the discovery

16 cutoff?

17 MR. WICK: No, Your Honor. Their original document

18 requests were served in February of 2016. What they are now

19 asking for when he says he wants the servicing information, I

20 understand him to be saying he wants four things that are

21 itemized under sort of his number one category of his letter.

22 He’s saying he wants boarding summaries, he wants view

23 summaries, he wants view ledgers and he wants view activity,

24 view activity screens. None of those things were requested in

25 the February 2016 document requests and none were request4ed

 15

1 in the closure process that Judge Francis put in place in May

2 of 2017.

3 THE COURT: What types of information is included

4 within those views?

5 MR. WICK: Those four types of documents. I’ll go

6 through them one by one, Your Honor.

7 THE COURT: Let me just ask generally. Do they

8 relate to servicing?

9 MR. WICK: They are duplicative with the information

10 that Chase has already provided. Yes, they do. They are --

11 they essentially present in a slightly different visual format

12 the same information that Chase has provided in its

13 spreadsheet. There’s one exception to that. There is one

14 document that he requests that does provide some additional

15 information that Chase has not yet provided which is the view

16 activity reports. The trouble with the view -- the request

17 for the view activity reports is that it doesn’t exist. It’s

18 not accessible in recovery 1 today.

19 His assertion is that he got these kinds of -- well,

20 let me back up. There are two --

21 THE COURT: Hold on. If it’s not -- if you can’t

22 get at something and it’s not available then that’s a position

23 you can take and you can represent.

24 MR. WICK: Yeah.

25 THE COURT: What that ultimately means I don’t know

 16

1 but maybe it can be asked.

2 MR. WICK: I’ll tell you --

3 THE COURT: That’s just to me a different issue,

4 saying something doesn’t exist. I do understand they’re

5 asking for essentially a certification that something doesn’t

6 exist.

7 MR. WICK: Yes. May I complete the --

8 THE COURT: Sure.

9 MR. WICK: On the view activity reports I spoke with

10 the person at Chase about whether they can be accessed last

11 week and what she said is no, they’re not accessible on any

12 live database or information on the system. We would have to

13 go to archives and pull it up which would be a very burdensome

14 process and there is no sort of automated way to push a button

15 and get all that data in an automated way. You would have to

16 manually generate it one account at a time for 3,500 accounts

17 and the estimate of how much time it would take to do that one

18 by one reconstruct this is over 10,000 man hours.

19 THE COURT: But what’s the data that’s being

20 produced from there? Is that the servicing file data?

21 MR. WICK: No, Your Honor. The servicing file has

22 already been produced. The I-Vault files are the servicing

23 files. There are two different ways that Chase keeps

24 servicing information. One way is it keeps the equivalent of

25 a physical loan file. Only they’re imaged. So the I-Vault

 17

1 file is not just the original loan documents. The I-Vault

2 file also consists of images of the paper copies of post

3 origination servicing correspondence. So that information has

4 already been produced.

5 The other thing that Chase --

6 THE COURT: Well, hold on. But it sounds like he’s

7 saying that there’s information in addition to what’s in those

8 files that one would expect to find and they don’t have.

9 MR. WICK: Yes. That’s inaccurate except for the

10 view activity reports, Your Honor. The things that he’s

11 asking for boarding summaries, view summaries, view ledgers,

12 none of that contains any material new information that he

13 doesn’t already have. That information has already been given

14 to him in a spreadsheet form. We’ve also given him the entire

15 contents of the modern day equivalent of the physical loan

16 file.

17 THE COURT: So you gave it -- okay. That’s what I

18 was going to ask. You gave him spreadsheet information but

19 again that’s not the documentation behind it.

20 MR. WICK: Right. The documentation behind it is in

21 the I-Vault files. We’ve given him that. So we only have

22 what we have and what we have is two things. We have data.

23 We have pulled that data out, extracted it, and given it to

24 him in spreadsheet form and we have -- we have the imaged

25 equivalent of physical loan files. Those are the I-Vault

 18

1 files. And we have given him all of this. There is nothing

2 left to give.

3 What he’s asking for in terms of boarding summaries,

4 view summaries and view ledgers is the same information that

5 he’s already got in spreadsheet form. The difference is that

6 in order to create it in a one by one loan format for 3,500

7 loan files the estimate is it would take on the order of

8 thousands of hours to create that.

9 Now, Your Honor, Judge Francis tried to head this

10 off in May of 2017. In May of 2017 Judge Francis addressed a

11 motion to compel in which the plaintiffs said Your Honor, they

12 haven’t given us what they were supposed to give us. That is

13 absolutely false. We gave exactly what Judge Francis directed

14 us to produce. In February of 2017 they moved to compel us to

15 produce documents they had never requested in any properly

16 served document requests in this case.

17 THE COURT: Well, I understand -- and Judge Francis

18 talked about a moving target.

19 MR. WICK: Right.

20 THE COURT: He was concerned about that. But I

21 assumed there was a request for all information and servicing

22 files.

23 MR. WICK: There wasn’t, Your Honor. There was a

24 request for --

25 THE COURT: Wait, wait. For the servicing files or

 19

1 no?

2 MR. WICK: There was a request for documents

3 sufficient to show an itemized list of elements. Their

4 Document Request No. 3 said give us documents sufficient to

5 show Items A, B, C, D, E, F. So we went to considerable

6 trouble and considerable work and put together a spreadsheet

7 which gave them data elements A, B, C, D, E, F from the data

8 source.

9 Then they turned around and moved to compel saying

10 maybe that’s what we asked for, maybe you gave us what we

11 asked for but it’s not what we now feel that we need. At that

12 point Judge Francis intervened and said let’s have an end to a

13 moving target discovery. We are going to set a fixed

14 [inaudible] target and then the defendants are going to hit it

15 and then we’re going to achieve closure.

16 And the process that Judge Francis set up was --

17 THE COURT: I’m sorry. Can you hold on? I feel

18 like I’ve gotten conflicting information though.

19 MR. WICK: Absolutely it’s conflicting.

20 THE COURT: No. Hold on. So hold on. So on the

21 one hand I thought I asked earlier, and you were saying you’ve

22 produced the servicing files for each loan. Is that right?

23 MR. WICK: Uh-huh.

24 THE COURT: But you’re saying here they asked for

25 certain limited information and you provided that limited

 20

1 information. The servicing files I assume were produced in

2 response to something.

3 MR. WICK: It was produced in response to Judge

4 Francis’s closure process. So here is the closure process.

5 Judge Francis said Chase, you produced everything you’re going

6 to produce by May 31st. We did. Then plaintiff’s are

7 supposed to write Chase a letter on June 15th itemizing

8 everything else that they want. They did that.

9 We were then supposed to meet and confer and present

10 any disagreements to Judge Francis by June 30th. So we agreed

11 with the plaintiffs that we would produce two things. One,

12 the I-Vault loan files which are -- they are in essence the

13 physical loan files except they’re images of physical

14 documents. That was over 700,000 pages of materials.

15 The other thing that we produced as a result of the

16 meet and confer process with them was now a list of not just

17 the six data elements that they asked for in their document

18 requests but a spreadsheet consisting of about 20 data

19 elements that were carefully hashed out in the meet and confer

20 discovery process. The plaintiffs didn’t ask us at that time

21 designed to achieve closure for boarding summaries, view

22 summaries, view ledgers or view activity reports. They didn’t

23 ask for that. The process was set up to achieve closure and

24 they didn’t ask for any of that in the process.

25 Now, there were two things that they asked for

 21

1 beyond the I-Vault files and the spreadsheet. They asked for

2 some information about loan codes. They moved to compel on

3 that on June 30th and Judge Francis denied that motion to

4 compel saying that information was all irrelevant.

5 They also asked for something about a Wick letter

6 and Judge Francis denied their motion to compel on that as

7 well.

8 So they were supposed to tell us everything they

9 wanted on June 15th. We were then supposed to work it out

10 which 90 percent of the way we did. The other 10 percent on

11 which we couldn’t agree they moved to compel in front of Judge

12 Francis and they lost on all of that.

13 We have given them what we have to give them, Your

14 Honor. We’ve given them the I-Vault loan files which are

15 essentially the physical loan files and we’ve given the

16 spreadsheet information, about 20 data elements.

17 Now, the four types of documents that they

18 requested, boarding summaries, view summaries and view ledgers

19 and view activity reports. They’re saying they got those on

20 1,000 individual note sales that they -- individual notes that

21 they purchased but didn’t get them on 3,500 bulk sale loans

22 that they purchased. I don’t know if it’s clear yet, Your

23 Honor, but there are two sets of loans at issue in the case.

24 A 1,000 loans were purchased one by one. When those

25 1,000 loans were purchased one by one Chase contemporaneously

 22

1 generated and provided between 2005 and 2010 boarding

2 summaries, view summaries and view ledgers and sent them off

3 one by one. That was not contemporaneously generated and

4 provided or contemporaneously requested with respect to the

5 3,500 or so loans at issue in the bulk sale.

6 What they’re asking us to do is to now go back and

7 recreate information that wasn’t contemporaneously generated

8 and that would be either extraordinarily burdensome to

9 generate or impossible to -- nearly impossible to generate in

10 the case of the view activity reports.

11 The view activity reports do contain some

12 chronological entries on what happened to the loans. That

13 isn’t information that we provided. In our view, Your Honor,

14 the information is irrelevant but in any event we would have

15 to pull up back up systems and spend 10,000 hours in order to

16 try to generate that one by one for 3,500 loans. It is too

17 late in the day for that kind of a request.

18 THE COURT: Can I just ask about the database

19 though? Why would it take that long? Isn’t it a matter of

20 restoring the information and then running a report for those

21 loans in question and saying give me these fields?

22 MR. WICK: No, Your Honor. So there are four

23 different documents at issue. Boarding summaries are not --

24 that is not a field that exists within Chase’s database

25 system. It has to be generated from a template and it was

 23

1 generated one by one for the 1,000 loans that were

2 individually purchased between 2005 and 2010. So for the

3 boarding summaries there is no screen, there is no field.

4 That would have to be created. I would say it’s an improper

5 document request because traditionally you don’t have to

6 create documents to respond to a document request. It just

7 has to give what you have. The boarding summaries aren’t

8 something that we have.

9 View summaries and view ledgers, those are screens

10 that you can view within a database called recovery 1 but

11 there’s no way to sort of push a button and get them for 3,500

12 loans. Somebody would have to physically call them up one at

13 a time and print them out one page at a time and the estimate

14 on how much -- on how much work is involved in doing that,

15 Your Honor, is hiring ten temps and having them spend on the

16 order of 1,000 hours doing that.

17 THE COURT: Really?

18 MR. WICK: Now --

19 THE COURT: To print out -- you said view summary,

20 boarding summary. I’m assuming these things do not contain

21 every document in the file. That it’s more data about

22 particular aspects of the deal.

23 MR. WICK: You can take -- I don’t know if you have

24 all the documents with you. We can look at one if it’s

25 helpful.
 24

1 THE COURT: But if it’s a matter of pushing a button

2 to get one report per loan that can’t take 1,000 hours for ten

3 people to do, can it?

4 MR. WICK: It’s question of pushing several buttons

5 because it’s going to be one button push per -- it’s going to

6 be one button push per page and it’s going to be several pages

7 times 3,500 loans. In addition, I mean -- they’re telling me

8 they don’t have the -- they don’t have anybody sitting around

9 that can spend the next three weeks doing nothing but generate

10 these reports for plaintiffs.

11 Finally, Your Honor, the question is do they need --

12 on the ones that can be viewed within recovery 1, the view

13 summaries and the view ledgers, do they need those. The

14 answer is no. All that information gives them is the same

15 information in a slightly different visual format that we gave

16 them in the spreadsheets.

17 What they’re looking for, Your Honor, at the end of

18 the day is they want to know the borrower name, they want to

19 know the social security number, they want to know the balance

20 on the loan at the time that it was charged off by Chase.

21 They want to know the interest rate. They want to know the

22 component of the balance that was charged off that was

23 principle and they want to know the post charge off payment

24 history. Every single one of those data elements was

25 identified in Judge Francis’s closure process and was provided

 25

1 to them in spreadsheet form. What they’re asking for now is

2 duplicative of what they already have.

3 THE COURT: All right. A few questions. So what

4 about the specific questions that Mr. Tantillo asked about at

5 the beginning such as where is the data pulled from, when was

6 it pulled. That seems like very --

7 MR. WICK: We have answered that. It is just -- I

8 am astonished at what I heard, Your Honor, because we have

9 answered the question. The data has been pulled from two data

10 systems. The recovery 1 database system and the payoff

11 tracking system or POTS database system. What I think Mr.

12 Tantillo is really upset about is he wants to know what was

13 the mortgage lien position on the loans that were purchased in

14 February 2009.

15 Well, we have two sources of information that would

16 enable us to answer that question, Your Honor. Number one is

17 the equivalent of the physical loan file, what’s in I-Vault.

18 Well, we’ve given them that on every one of the loans. The

19 other thing we can do is we can go to recovery 1 and we can

20 query it. What is your record for what the mortgage position

21 was, was it a first lien mortgage, was it a second lien

22 mortgage, was it a third lien mortgage, was there no mortgage.

23 Well, we have done that and we have given it to them.

24 What he wants is something we don’t have. He wants

25 us to query recovery 1 and say not what is your record of the

 26

1 mortgage position today which is all we have. He wants us to

2 go to the system and ask what was the mortgage position as of

3 February 2009.

4 THE COURT: Well, that’s important information.

5 MR. WICK: It is but rec -- but I don’t have it.

6 THE COURT: Well, you say you --

7 MR. WICK: Recovery 1 doesn’t have it.

8 THE COURT: You’re saying that information is not in

9 recovery 1 --

10 MR. WICK: No.

11 THE COURT: -- that you can discern it from the

12 servicing files.

13 MR. WICK: The only two ways to figure it out would

14 be --

15 THE COURT: Or the origination.

16 MR. WICK: -- would be the I-Vault files and the

17 data and we’ve given them both. He’s imaging that we have a

18 third set of undisclosed data. What was your record, database

19 record of the mortgage position as of February 2009. We don’t

20 have it. That’s not how it’s kept.

21 THE COURT: Okay. And have you -- he’s asked for

22 certification that certain information doesn’t exist. Are you

23 willing to provide that?

24 MR. WICK: I don’t see why I can’t certify that

25 recovery 1 does not contain a record of what the mortgage

 27

1 position was on February 2009. That’s my understanding of the

2 truth. That’s what I’ve been told by Chase and I’m happy to

3 say that now.

4 THE COURT: Okay. And what about the codes? It

5 seems pretty basic that one would want to know the code --

6 some information about the codes and what they mean and the

7 pluses and minuses?

8 MR. WICK: It’s Greek to me, Your Honor. I don’t

9 know what codes he’s talking about. We have told him what the

10 codes mean. There were a whole set of codes --

11 THE COURT: If you don’t know what he’s talking

12 about then how -- well, I guess you’re going to say you

13 already provided it to him so you don’t think there are any

14 more.

15 MR. WICK: Yes, I will say there are two types of

16 codes that I’m aware of. On June 30, 2017 he moved to compel

17 Chase to give him a bunch of information about a bunch of

18 codes that they have seen in some of the physical loan files

19 we’ve produced. Judge Francis denied that motion saying that

20 those codes were all irrelevant and we agree with that and we

21 don’t think there’s any grounds for moving to reconsider on

22 Judge Francis’s order.

23 THE COURT: Right. And I didn’t -- I understood Mr.

24 Tantillo to be asking about the information in the

25 spreadsheet.
 28

1 MR. WICK: Codes in the spreadsheet.

2 THE COURT: Yes.

3 MR. WICK: To the best of my knowledge, Your Honor,

4 we have told them what every one of those spreadsheet codes

5 mean.

6 THE COURT: How and where have you told them that?

7 MR. WICK: In letters and in meet and confer

8 conferences. They’re pretty obvious, right, it’s social

9 security number. That’s one of them. Borrower’s address,

10 that’s one of them. Borrower’s name, borrower’s mailing

11 address. One of them is MORT POST. He wanted to know what

12 that means and we told them and I’m looking at the letter

13 right here where we told them. MORT POST is the mortgage

14 position on the loan. Loans with a MORT POST value of zero

15 were identified in recovery 1 as unsecured at the time of the

16 data pull. The mortgage position that we provided is the

17 mortgage position that recovery 1 reported at the time of the

18 data pull which is all we have.

19 So we told them there are about 20 data elements in

20 the data spreadsheet. We’ve told them what every one of them

21 are. His real gripe, Your Honor, is not that he doesn’t know

22 what those labels for those spreadsheet columns mean. His

23 real gripe is I want more information. I want to know what

24 the lien position was as of February 2009. Well, I can’t give

25 him what I don’t have.

 29

1 THE COURT: Again, you say you don’t have it but

2 isn’t -- one would think that information would be in the

3 origination file or servicing file.

4 MR. WICK: Yes, Your Honor, there is mortgage

5 position information in the original I-Vault loan files and he

6 has that.

7 THE COURT: Let me hear from Mr. Tantillo again.

8 MR. WICK: I have --

9 THE COURT: Do you have a finishing thought?

10 MR. WICK: I’ll sit.

11 THE COURT: Mr. Tantillo --

12 MR. TANTILLO: Yes, Your Honor.

13 THE COURT: -- I actually don’t -- I didn’t perceive

14 that you directly answered my questions at the outset that I

15 said you should pay attention to which is timeliness and

16 duplicativeness. Mr. Wick has obviously focused on those

17 issues. So --

18 MR. TANTILLO: I’m happy to discuss that.

19 THE COURT: -- please again tend to those.

20 MR. TANTILLO: All right. Obviously as I said to

21 Your Honor we are all in agreement about the fact that we want

22 to push this case forward but what I believe is disingenuous

23 is the fact that Mr. Wick is stating that our particular

24 requests do not have anything to do with the I-Vault

25 production and the closure that Judge Francis was seeking in

 30

1 September.

2 By way of background I want to make something

3 absolutely clear. We, the plaintiffs, did not receive all of

4 the I-Vault data until November of this year. It was not May

5 31st. It’s been a rolling production and we have worked with

6 the defendants regarding this. We haven’t come to the court

7 seeking any type of motion to compel or anything of that

8 nature. We’ve been working with them as they have worked with

9 us.

10 We’ve had -- we’ve also had issues in terms of how

11 difficult we all know it is to turn over loan servicing

12 information. It’s just time consuming. Nobody is disputing

13 that.

14 However, there’s been a pattern throughout this case

15 related to Chase coming to the Court and saying we can’t do

16 something and then subsequently saying we can. As you may

17 recall, Your Honor, in May of this year they previously had

18 stated in our first motion to compel that they could not

19 search for the loans basically -- all the loans that were

20 under the MRS pool and subsequently they stated that we can

21 under this code MRS 209.

22 Your Honor, that goes directly to your point about

23 how difficult it is to pull this data. It is not that

24 difficult. We’ve had numerous depositions in which every

25 single person at Chase says yes, that code exists. You can
 31

1 run a query, MRS 209, into RCV-1 boom, all the ones pull up.

2 So the fact of the matter is is that is something

3 that is not particularly difficult for Chase to do.

4 THE COURT: Don’t you have that information through

5 the documents in I-Vault?

6 MR. TANTILLO: No.

7 THE COURT: Why not?

8 MR. TANTILLO: Here’s -- well, because I-Vault --

9 because Chase didn’t produce it.

10 THE COURT: Well, I thought the I-Vault information

11 was produced as of November 30th.

12 MR. TANTILLO: Correct. What I’m saying is the

13 actual servicing data.

14 Your Honor, if I may, can I mark this as an exhibit

15 and you can take a look at them?

16 THE COURT: Sure.

17 MR. TANTILLO: If you look at the --

18 THE COURT: Show it to your adversary over there

19 first to make sure he’s okay with it.

20 [Pause in proceedings.]

21 MR. WICK: Your Honor, I haven’t had a chance to

22 review it but if he wants to show it to you I have no

23 objection.

24 THE COURT: Okay.

25 MR. WICK: I need a copy though.

 32

1 MR. TANTILLO: I don’t know if I have copy but --

2 MR. WICK: I don’t want him to be reviewing

3 documents with you if I don’t have a copy.

4 THE COURT: What are the nature of the documents?

5 MR. TANTILLO: Your Honor, these are just samples

6 and I know you’ve already received them, some samples.

7 THE COURT: Are these from the submissions?

8 MR. TANTILLO: Correct. Of what a view activity, a

9 view summary screens looks like. In this particular -- in the

10 two spreadsheets they presented to us, one was on May 31st,

11 another in November, it doesn’t contain notes regarding

12 whether or not, for example, a file ever existed. It doesn’t

13 contain notes regarding -- I’ll just give you an example.

14 Here it says authorization received signed by Joseph A. Davis

15 authorizing mortgage resolution services in SNA Capital

16 Partners, you have to take over a loan. There’s all types of

17 different notes that are within these view activity, view

18 ledger and view summary screens that allow us to see how the

19 loan sort of walk through its own history.

20 THE COURT: Right. Are those notes also in the

21 servicing files?

22 MR. TANTILLO: No, sir.

23 THE COURT: You’re sure?

24 MR. TANTILLO: We have done exhaustive searches

25 through -- in fact, the person who’s been managing that

 33

1 project is here if you want to ask him.

2 THE COURT: It’s not uncommon for these entities to

3 have databases where they put the information in the database

4 but don’t have them in hard copy. I understand.

5 MR. TANTILLO: Right. I mean I think that what you

6 find mostly within I-Vault are just straight out origination

7 documents. Nothing related to what happened with the note

8 through history. Nothing regarding the data in which the note

9 was sold. Nothing regarding post collection charged off

10 activities. Nothing regarding payments that were made --

11 THE COURT: Well, there seems to be a direct

12 contradiction then in what you two are saying because I

13 understood from Mr. Wick he was saying that I-Vault files do

14 contain the servicing documents.

15 MR. TANTILLO: They do not contain the types of --

16 excuse me. They do not contain the types of things that Mr.

17 Wick is talking about. And we have asked him for that and

18 we’ve told him that. The thing -- one of the issues that were

19 sort of before us today is the fact that they made certain

20 representations to us in a letter and right after the first --

21 the second motion to compel in June and July of this year

22 stating that I-Vault would contain all these different things

23 and it just doesn’t. It just doesn’t contain it.

24 So the fact of the matter is we did -- I provided

25 you literally the four screen shots we found within the I-

 34

1 Vault production of 700,000 pages that had an MRS 2

2 [inaudible] code on it. Four. I mean so their

3 representations that it has the servicing data is just not

4 accurate. I’m not trying to sit here and argue with them.

5 Our position is we just want the data and we can move on.

6 He has stated I think quite clearly number one, they

7 did not produce it despite their assertions and despite the

8 fact that they said that I-Vault would have the servicing data

9 and two, they have basically stated it’s too burdensome.

10 But the real issue we have, Your Honor, and

11 something that Mr. Wick did not address is the discrepancies

12 between the data. If the spreadsheet was 100 percent perfect,

13 if al of those DFL note codes had accompanying documents that

14 were exactly the same then we wouldn’t be here with an issue

15 but the issue we have is that’s not the case.

16 THE COURT: But the documents coming from where

17 again?

18 MR. TANTILLO: From I-Vault.

19 THE COURT: I guess you’re saying they’re not just

20 not in the servicing file so they got to go find them

21 somewhere --

22 MR. TANTILLO: That’s right.

23 THE COURT: -- if they have them.

24 MR. TANTILLO: So if the spread -- if the two

25 spreadsheets they produced with the servicing elements that

 35

1 they’re talking about were perfect then we wouldn’t be here

2 today but they’re not. The trouble is we have literally -- I

3 mean very significant differences, hundreds of lien releases

4 that are separate than the POTS field within their

5 spreadsheets.

6 THE COURT: So I take it then it’s your position in

7 part that they have not provided documents or information

8 sufficient to show what you asked for because that information

9 actually isn’t on the spreadsheet or the files that you

10 received?

11 MR. TANTILLO: It’s not in the spreadsheet, correct.

12 What we’re finding is there’s discrepancies between what we’re

13 finding in I-Vault and what we’re finding in the spreadsheet.

14 THE COURT: When did you start noticing those

15 discrepancies? I assumed the I-Vault was provided on a

16 rolling basis. So how far back does that go?

17 MR. TANTILLO: I would say it was probably -- we

18 started I would say late August and the team that’s been doing

19 this they were hit by the hurricane pretty badly with Irma and

20 -- but we’ve been talking with them and meet and conferring

21 about those for some time. So it’s not like something -- it’s

22 not something new to them.

23 THE COURT: The bottom line here is it’s data as you

24 said and it’s -- it’s objective information that parties ought

25 to be able to exchange with each other and if that data is key

 36

1 in some way or material to liability or damages and the

2 producing party has it somewhere, even if it’s just archived

3 and they don’t have it anywhere else, it might be their burden

4 to go look for it but I’m getting a direct contradiction from

5 both of you about what has been exchanged and whether the data

6 has been produced or not.

7 I understand the discrepancy argument and I want to

8 hear from Mr. Wick on that but it’s unusual to get such a

9 strong disagreement about what has or has not been produced.

10 MR. TANTILLO: Our position, Your Honor, is that if

11 we can get these three screens and a 30(b)(6) to explain these

12 spreadsheets we can move on with the next phase of this case.

13 We’re not trying -- I’m not trying to hold up the process and

14 I understand --

15 THE COURT: I have no problem with the 30(b)(6) and

16 the codes. You’re going to get that. But I want to make sure

17 that this is any additional documentation or data is provided

18 narrowly but in sufficient form and it’s also incumbent upon

19 Chase as a party if they’re going to claim burden to set forth

20 facts in affidavit form or otherwise to support that but their

21 contention again is this is duplicative, you have it, and why

22 didn’t you raise this back at the time when Judge Francis was

23 essentially setting a procedure for closure and there was a

24 specific time point for bringing up discrepancies or

25 information that was missing.

 37

1 MR. TANTILLO: Right. We were unable to have a full

2 ability to even do that until November of this year and let me

3 explain why.

4 THE COURT: Because? Wait, because -- go ahead.

5 MR. TANTILLO: I apologize for cutting you off.

6 What’s happened in this case is that it took us some time to

7 kind of narrow down to what we sort of among the parties call

8 a master loan list. What is the list of loans related to this

9 particular case. Once we did that Chase produced these

10 spreadsheets. The spreadsheets did not contain all the data

11 for the master loan list. There was a significant difference

12 which --

13 THE COURT: The spreadsheets were produced when?

14 MR. TANTILLO: The first one was produced May 31st

15 and the second one was produced -- I don’t know the exact date

16 but October or November.

17 THE COURT: Of this year?

18 MR. TANTILLO: Yes.

19 THE COURT: Okay.

20 MR. TANTILLO: So what’s happened is there’s been a

21 lot of back and forth about missing loans that basically we

22 were asking them where are these loans, where’s the data

23 points on those. So they eventually did produce those but we

24 did not have any real finality regarding even these

25 spreadsheets until really November of this year. So on the

 38

1 issue of burdensome and also being able to come back to the

2 Court with discrepancies it hasn’t been that much time.

3 On the second point I would say number one, Judge

4 Francis in his first order -- or his first motion to compel

5 order did state that we were entitled to all documents related

6 to the loans that were purchased between the parties and

7 secondly based on representations made by Mr. Wick and Chase

8 we also relied upon their -- them stating that I-Vault would

9 have all this information and it just didn’t.

10 THE COURT: Right. And I don’t understand Mr. Wick

11 to be saying he wouldn’t provide those documents if they

12 existed but what I’m having trouble with is the views that

13 you’re saying can’t be recreated sound like they are

14 information that is only built from that database.

15 MR. TANTILLO: Correct. That is true. It’s only

16 from the recovery database.

17 THE COURT: Okay.

18 MR. TANTILLO: So there’s only really one place to

19 get it. I mean the reality of it is is that we do know the

20 following. We know number one, that recovery 1 is still in

21 use. We deposed somebody in October who stated that that

22 is -- this system is still being used by Chase. So it’s not

23 as if the database has been phased out or Chase is using

24 something different. They are still using this system. So

25 they do have the ability to go in and search for this material

 39

1 and this is something that numerous of the deponents in the

2 case have verified and that -- Lonny Solomon who we attached

3 to a deposition said the recovery is still being used.

4 THE COURT: Right. But did you ask them

5 specifically about what would be involved in recovering this

6 particular information?

7 MR. TANTILLO: No, Your Honor, I did not.

8 THE COURT: Okay. Let me bring back Mr. Wick for a

9 little bit.

10 MR. WICK: Just a few factual points first. The I-

11 Vault loan files, Your Honor, the vast majority of those were

12 produced on August 4th of 2017. The balance, a much smaller

13 set, was produced on September 13, 2017 which was the fact

14 discovery cutoff date but for the grace period. So it is

15 false to say that Chase produced this information in November

16 of 2017. It was produced in August and in September.

17 THE COURT: Let’s not worry about the false and the

18 disingenuous. Let’s try to focus on how do we get this data

19 that both parties can agree on.

20 MR. WICK: So he says that there is new information

21 in the four types of documents that they asked for the first

22 time in their motion to compel in December. They didn’t even

23 ask for this view activity report, the view ledger, the

24 boarding summary and the -- I forget what the fourth one was.

25 They didn’t ask for that in their November letter. They asked
 40

1 for it in their motion to compel in December of 2017 and it

2 has never been asked for in any document request in this case.

3 So they’re asking you to compel us to produce something that’s

4 not requested in a document request.

5 THE COURT: Well, again, they -- you say they never

6 asked to produce it. They never specified it in that forum

7 but it -- it sounds like they did request that type of

8 information. They want information from the servicing file.

9 MR. WICK: Your Honor, I went through their February

10 2016 document request, the only document request they ever

11 served in the case, and I don’t see it in there. Maybe I can

12 find it buried somewhere.

13 THE COURT: Not for a specific view but what I’m

14 saying is they asked for information sufficient so show. It

15 sounds like they’re saying --

16 MR. WICK: Sufficient to show six things.

17 THE COURT: There’s certain information -- you do

18 learn more as discovery goes along and I totally understand

19 and agree that Judge Francis wanted to bring this to closure

20 and I do too. I certain -- Judge Francis is very, very wise

21 and I can’t imagine undoing what he has done, certainly not in

22 any significant way. But in my experience --

23 MR. WICK: I hear you, Your Honor.

24 THE COURT: You may know my background.

25 MR. WICK: Let me address --

 41

1 THE COURT: You may know my background. I’ve

2 litigated many a case including R&BS cases and I understand

3 the difficulties involved when data of this sort is being sort

4 and the parties are trying to agree upon what it is.

5 Ultimately there is a way to get it in a way that parties can

6 agree upon and it may require some work. So --

7 MR. WICK: The big point, Your Honor, though is

8 there are -- the generalizations are going to do a lot of

9 damage here.

10 THE COURT: I understand because --

11 MR. WICK: There are four specific types of

12 documents they want. Three of them, three of the four there

13 is no new information in them. The only --

14 THE COURT: Because?

15 MR. WICK: That -- because it’s already in the

16 spreadsheet. The view summaries, the view ledgers and the

17 boarding summaries all of the information in those documents

18 it’s already been provided to them in a spreadsheet.

19 THE COURT: But what do you have to say about the

20 contention that information in the spreadsheet is inconsistent

21 with information elsewhere and they need confirmation?

22 MR. WICK: If I -- if there are discrepancies -- in

23 other words, if I -- if you order me to produce view

24 summaries, view ledgers and view activities I’m going to be

25 giving them back exactly the same information --

 42

1 THE COURT: The same information on the spreadsheet.

2 MR. WICK: -- and it’s going to have exactly the

3 same discrepancies.

4 THE COURT: Okay.

5 MR. WICK: Now, there is a fourth document that they

6 asked for, view activity reports. I concede. I said this

7 before and I say it now. There is new information in there.

8 That is the only document in which there is new information

9 but the view activity reports do not exist are not accessible

10 in recovery 1 today. We would have to go to back up systems

11 and then the information would have to be created and the

12 estimate that Lonny Solomon from Chase gave me last week on

13 retrieving from back up and then creating these things one at

14 a time for 3,500 loans many years after the fact she said it

15 would be on the order of 10,000 man hours.

16 THE COURT: And the information that’s in there that

17 you agree is new, do you agree or disagree that it’s relevant

18 to the issues in dispute?

19 MR. WICK: I disagree, Your Honor. It is at a

20 minimum disproportionate. Here’s what the new information is.

21 It’s sort of chronological account entries.

22 THE COURT: Yup.

23 MR. WICK: It’s sort of like well, today the loan

24 was moved from this cue to this cue. Today the debtor called

25 up and said this or that.

 43

1 THE COURT: Well, that’s important, isn’t it?

2 MR. WICK: So there’s chronological information

3 which on a hit or miss speculative basis you could always

4 speculate it’s conceivable that I could get a historical note

5 in there that I might want to have but that is not a basis for

6 ordering us to go to back up systems and spend 10,000 hours

7 creating something that was never requested in discovery.

8 THE COURT: Without that information can the

9 plaintiff determine which loans -- and this is information

10 you’re asking for -- can they identify without that

11 information loans which are non conforming or is there

12 information in there that would be additional, potential

13 additional basis for claiming non conforming?

14 MR. WICK: They can identify non conforming loans

15 without that information, Your Honor.

16 THE COURT: Without that being additional potential

17 non conforming --

18 MR. WICK: Yes, that’s not going to -- that’s not

19 going to reveal non conforming either. Their non conformity

20 claims as I understand them --

21 THE COURT: No, hold on, please. It’s okay. What

22 about with respect to loans forgiven, they can identify that

23 from something else?

24 MR. WICK: Yes. There’s two ways to identify --

25 THE COURT: No, it’s okay. I don’t want the

 44

1 specifics here. I just want to know if you’re going to agree

2 or disagree on certain things.

3 Identifying loans for which payments were wrongfully

4 retained, is that also something can be determined from

5 elsewhere?

6 MR. WICK: Yes. We gave them the complete post

7 charge off payment history on each loan, loan by loan in a

8 spreadsheet. If they think that any of those payments were

9 wrongfully withheld they have every single payment made post

10 charge off on every single loan.

11 THE COURT: Let me come back to the discrepancies.

12 What would you say about resolving the discrepancies? Can you

13 -- would you certify that the information in the spreadsheet

14 is correct?

15 MR. WICK: I would certify that the information in

16 the spreadsheet is the information in our database, Your

17 Honor.

18 THE COURT: Well, but that doesn’t necessarily tell

19 you that it is what it purports to be if there’s a discrepancy

20 with information in the hard copy documents or elsewhere.

21 MR. WICK: Let me explain what I think the

22 discrepancy is, Your Honor. The discrepancies as I understand

23 it relate to two things. Which -- after Chase sold loans

24 there was a mistake in which Chase sent some loan forgiveness

25 on some loans that it had sold. They want to know -- they

 45

1 want a precise list of which loans Chase sent those loan

2 forgiveness letters on. We have given them everything we have

3 to answer that question. Number one, we’ve given then an

4 extract from our database. This is what our database tells us

5 about which loans were sent those letters.

6 Number two, we’ve given them the I-Vault loan files.

7 If we have an actual copy of the letter the place we would

8 have it in the I-Vault loan files. Now, what he is saying is

9 that the database extract saying to whom we sent a loan

10 doesn’t match the I-Vault loan files where you can either find

11 a letter or you can’t.

12 Well, Your Honor, if the data has discrepancies it

13 has discrepancies. I don’t have any other data other than the

14 database that I have. I don’t have any other letters other

15 than the ones I say. If they conflict then it’s just because

16 they conflict but I can’t snap my fingers and create non

17 conflicting information.

18 THE COURT: Okay.

19 MR. WICK: It’s the information that actually

20 exists.

21 THE COURT: I understand that. What about --

22 forgive me.

23 [Pause in proceedings.]

24 THE COURT: There were -- what about the specific

25 letters, the RESPA letters, assignments and the DFL letters?

 46

1 MR. WICK: So the DFL codes that’s the same thing as

2 the loan forgiveness letters.

3 THE COURT: But in terms of actual document --

4 MR. WICK: As for the RESPA letters and the

5 assignments of mortgages the answer is the same. There are --

6 the place those would exist -- if Chase has those documents

7 the place it has them is in the I-Vault loan files. If

8 they’re not there we don’t know where else to look for them.

9 THE COURT: I got it. All right. I want to hear

10 one more time from Mr. Tantillo and then I just want to move

11 on to the other motion.

12 MR. WICK: I’d like to address the 30(b)(6)

13 deposition.

14 THE COURT: Sure. Go ahead.

15 MR. WICK: So, Your Honor, the request for a

16 30(b)(6) deposition number one, violates the Court’s

17 scheduling order which says a maximum of ten depositions.

18 They’ve taken nine depositions. They’ve asked for a tenth

19 which is going to be taken late due to a medical issue on the

20 plaintiff’s side. It’s going to be taken at the end of this

21 week. That is the ten depositions that they were entitled to

22 under the rules.

23 If they wanted to take a 30(b)(6) deposition they

24 needed to reserve one for that and they didn’t do it. We

25 should not be subjected to this --

 47

1 THE COURT: But they didn’t have the spreadsheets

2 until -- the first time was August when it was produced with

3 the codes; right?

4 MR. WICK: I mean in point of fact, Your Honor,

5 here’s when the spreadsheets were produced. We gave them the

6 spreadsheet on almost all of the loans -- on the vast majority

7 of the loans, all but about 300. We gave them the spreadsheet

8 on about 4,000 loans in May of 2017 pursuant to Judge

9 Francis’s closure process. After we gave them the May 2017

10 spreadsheet they said hey, wait a minute, you’re missing a

11 couple of hundred loans. Now, the reason we were missing

12 those couple of hundred loans was because they hadn’t

13 identified those loans to us as loans that they had purchased.

14 When they stepped up and said we want the spreadsheet on these

15 200 or 300 more loans we gave that to them in September but

16 they had the 4,000 in May and they got the last 300 in

17 September.

18 We emailed it to them in September. They emailed

19 back in October we didn’t get it. We re-attached the email

20 from September when we sent it to them in September.

21 THE COURT: Codes are simple. There’s an answer to

22 what a code means. Can you provide a list of what the codes

23 are?

24 MR. WICK: I --

25 THE COURT: What they translate to. I understand

 48

1 when you say you set them forth in a letter.

2 MR. WICK: Yes, we are --

3 THE COURT: I’d like in one place --

4 MR. WICK: I’m happy to send them a letter. There

5 are roughly 20 data elements in the spreadsheet. I think

6 we’ve already provided the information. I’m happy to re-

7 provide them. I’m happy to provide by next week at the latest

8 here’s what each of the 20 codes -- here’s what each of the 20

9 columns in the spreadsheets mean.

10 THE COURT: When were depositions noticed?

11 MR. WICK: Depositions have been going on for a year

12 or so.

13 THE COURT: I’m just trying to figure out what

14 opportunity there was for depositions after May or when the

15 data was produced --

16 MR. WICK: There was opportunity. The initial

17 spreadsheet on about 4,000 of the loans, all but about 300 was

18 produced in May. Almost all of the depositions in this case

19 have taken place after May. The majority of them anyway.

20 THE COURT: All right.

21 MR. WICK: And we specifically discussed with them

22 in the summer, in July, you get ten depositions, which ten are

23 you going to take. They gave us a list of ten. They didn’t

24 have [inaudible].

25 THE COURT: Did they have any --

 49

1 MR. WICK: And the last thing, Your Honor --

2 THE COURT: Hold on. Did they have --

3 MR. WICK: I understand, Your Honor.

4 THE COURT: Did they have any 30(b)(6) request? Was

5 there a 30(b)(6) deposition that you gave?

6 MR. WICK: There has been no 30(b)(6) deposition in

7 the case. I will say, Your Honor, it would be one thing if

8 the 30(b)(6) deposition were really meaningful but a

9 deposition about what are the codes -- what do the 20 line

10 items in this spreadsheet mean is --

11 THE COURT: Well, I could imagine a number of

12 questions about what does that mean, what’s left out, what’s

13 in.

14 MR. WICK: Borrower address, social security number,

15 mortgage position.

16 THE COURT: But what’s the information based on,

17 where does it come from, that type of -- I’m not saying it’s

18 necessary. I’m just saying one could imagine. I get it.

19 Mr. Tantillo, last time.

20 MR. TANTILLO: Your Honor, with regarding -- going

21 back to the RCV-1 screens, I’m just looking at an example of

22 one where it says 10/7/2011 it says notarized corrected

23 assignment of mortgage. The note is there. This is the

24 reason why we’re asking for this information because as you

25 stated Chase has made clear that they have no way to track
 50

1 RESPA letters or assignments. If they’re in I-Vault, they’re

2 in I-Vault. If they’re not, they’re not.

3 However, the view activity screen does have that

4 ability. So --

5 THE COURT: Wait, wait, wait. It has the ability

6 to --

7 MR. TANTILLO: Well, it at least states that one was

8 sent. At least there’s a data point and notes stating that a

9 notarized corrected assignment of mortgage in this particular

10 note, which was Ursula Bradley, was sent.

11 THE COURT: Is that an example where you looked and

12 it wasn’t in the I-Vault file for that loan?

13 MR. TANTILLO: I do not know the answer to that

14 question. All I’m using this is for just the example of fact

15 that the view activity does have that type of information. I

16 could ask and see if that’s the case.

17 THE COURT: Well, it’s very important, right, if

18 that information is duplicative?

19 MR. TANTILLO: One moment, Your Honor.

20 [Pause in proceedings.]

21 MR. TANTILLO: This particular note would not be an

22 example of that.

23 THE COURT: Do you have an example here of that?

24 MR. TANTILLO: I don’t have it at my fingertips no,

25 Your Honor, but what -- all I’m trying to say is that that
 51

1 type of information does exist within the recovery system.

2 THE COURT: Okay.

3 MR. TANTILLO: Moving to your point about the

4 30(b)(6), obviously the discovery on the I-Vault has been

5 rolling. The discovery in terms of even of the spreadsheet

6 has been on a rolling bases. At the very earliest we could

7 have asked for a 30(b)(6) on the data of September 13th and we

8 wouldn’t even have --

9 THE COURT: Wait a minute. Why September 13th? I

10 thought Mr. Wick just said the spreadsheet was produced back

11 in May.

12 MR. TANTILLO: Right. Because the fact of the

13 matter is is that in order for us to do -- even have any

14 ability to understand the data it needs to be complete to some

15 degree, at least in my view.

16 THE COURT: Well, wait a minute. Really? I mean if

17 you get a spreadsheet and you get part of the spreadsheet and

18 it has all of the columns or all the rows you’re going to see

19 the terms.

20 MR. TANTILLO: That’s a fair point and I’m not

21 disputing that.

22 One thing I also want to say is that we have asked

23 for a 30(b)(6) and it’s been an ongoing negotiation back and

24 forth. Chase has basically stated that they don’t want to

25 provide one or they would only provide one under limited

 52

1 circumstances.

2 THE COURT: Well, again, there’s the question of ten

3 deponents, right. So maybe that could be one of your

4 depositions if a notice had been provided within the discovery

5 period.

6 MR. TANTILLO: Right. I think on the issue -- our

7 position basically is is that these two spreadsheets they’ve

8 produced -- I’m sure they would agree with this -- are

9 absolutely crucial to the underlying aspects of our case.

10 It’s not fair for us to have to rely upon Chase counsel’s

11 representations of what these spreadsheets mean.

12 THE COURT: What do you mean? It’s their data. In

13 terms of -- certainly -- well, are you saying you need it from

14 a 30(b)(6) deposition instead of a certification from a Chase

15 person?

16 MR. TANTILLO: If Chase is willing to certify that

17 that’s what it means and also the fact that all the

18 information within it is true and correct and accurate --

19 THE COURT: Well, they can’t do that. They can

20 certify that it is accurate and what’s in their systems.

21 Whether it is true and correct in terms of true and correct

22 liability purposes that’s a different question.

23 MR. TANTILLO: I understand that. That may be where

24 I’m trying to drive but -- I mean obviously we do have this

25 issue of the discrepancies and I think to kind of circle back

 53

1 around our view is is that we’ll have a much better ability to

2 determine the accuracy of these spreadsheets if we have the

3 underlying native loan servicing data. It’s really simple.

4 THE COURT: Again, it sounds like a lot of that’s

5 been produced and there’s some information that may be

6 supplemented that hasn’t and that’s in the RCV-1 and --

7 MR. TANTILLO: That’s correct. A lot of -- there’s

8 certainly -- there’s certainly aspects of it that is there.

9 What we don’t know is how the history of the loan -- because

10 of the nature of number one, charged off loans which obviously

11 you have a background in, and two, the nature of kind of what

12 happened in this case where a lot of these loans were used for

13 credit against various settlements it’s important for us to be

14 able to have that history so that we can understand what

15 occurred in the case and we’re basically right now relying on

16 two spreadsheets that the plaintiffs have produced and we have

17 nothing more.

18 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. I do think it’s

19 directly interrelated but let’s go to the other motion,

20 plaintiff’s motion -- I’m sorry. Defendant’s motion.

21 MR. WICK: Thank you, Your Honor. I just -- I don’t

22 want my client to be ordered to do 10,000 hours worth of work

23 on these view activity reports. If it’s material to Your

24 Honor I’m happy to serve a declaration next week documenting

25 the burden involved in that.

 54

1 THE COURT: Well, I actually -- you read my mind and

2 I’m going to order that and I want to tell you that today. I

3 do want that because in order to claim burden you have to

4 provide the evidentiary support.

5 MR. WICK: Will do, Your Honor. The three day

6 letter format -- and perhaps we should have done it before

7 but --

8 THE COURT: No, no, no. Those were not formal

9 motions but I would urge you to not make it conclusory.

10 MR. WICK: Absolutely understood.

11 Our motion to compel, Your Honor, it’s simple. The

12 plaintiff -- there are a lot of loans flying around in this

13 case. Ball park, 4,500. Plaintiffs have a variety of

14 assertions that Chase did bad things with respect to some of

15 those loans. What we’re asking for is for them to tell us

16 which loans are the subject of which alleged bad acts by

17 Chase. They’re not saying that on all 4,500 loans we filed a

18 lien release. They’re not saying that on all 4,500 loans we

19 sent a debt forgiveness loan.

20 We’ve asked them to identify in contention

21 interrogatories served 30 days before the presumptive close of

22 fact discovery served 30 days before September 30, 2017.

23 THE COURT: Frankly, I’m surprised that there wasn’t

24 an interrogatory going the other way. I’d want to know that

25 information as the plaintiff and I don’t understand though --

 55

1 again, it’s objective information. I assume Chase has that

2 information certainly in your records somewhere.

3 MR. WICK: Well, that’s one of the -- that’s one of

4 the arguments they make, Your Honor. They essentially argue

5 that look, Chase ought to be able to figure out from its

6 documents what our contentions are but --

7 THE COURT: Both parties need to agree on objective

8 information. Which loans were purchased for instance, that’s

9 going to be clear. Which loans there were default letters

10 sent or forgiveness -- I’m sorry. Forgiveness given. That

11 should be able to be figured out.

12 MR. WICK: You’d think so, Your Honor, but it’s

13 actually a little trickier than that.

14 THE COURT: Okay.

15 MR. WICK: As far as which loans were purchased I

16 think there are two different categories. There’s the 1,000

17 loans that were purchased one at a time. Frequently those

18 purchases were very informal and they may have been agreed

19 over the telephone. They may have been agreed on an email.

20 There is actually this potential disagreement and ambiguity

21 over which individual loans the plaintiffs purchased and

22 here’s why.

23 When we asked the plaintiffs at the outset of the

24 case which loans do you think you purchased they gave us a

25 list of names of borrowers. Well, in an effort to be fulsome

 56

1 in discovery we then gave them a list of all the loans that

2 Chase made to every one of those borrowers but in some cases

3 those borrowers had more than one loan, one of which the

4 plaintiff purchased and the other of which the plaintiff

5 didn’t. Now, we identified both loans even though we didn’t

6 think both were purchased by the plaintiffs and from that

7 moment forward they’ve treated it as if they bought all the

8 loans which isn’t the case.

9 So the reason for our interrogatory which loans do

10 you think you purchased is to clear up that ambiguity. They

11 have a master loan list which they’re correct is the master

12 loan list of all the loans that the parties agreed would be

13 the subject of discovery but agreeing to produce discovery on

14 a loan isn’t the same thing as agreeing that we sold this to

15 plaintiffs and some of them we don’t think we sold to them.

16 So our contention interrogatory asked them to tell us which

17 ones do you think you purchased.

18 As to the question of which loans were the subject,

19 allegedly the subject of a lien release and which loans were

20 the subject of a debt forgiveness letter, we understand that

21 they need to review the discovery materials before they can

22 answer that question. They have now had that opportunity. We

23 produced -- we completed the production of the I-Vault loan

24 files mostly in August, completely in September. From

25 September through January they’ve had an opportunity to go

 57

1 through the I-Vault loan files, to go through the

2 spreadsheets. All along, Your Honor, they’ve agreed and

3 conceded they owe Chase an answer to these contention

4 interrogatories. The only thing that they’ve ever said is in

5 fairness we need to review the documents before we can answer.

6 Fair enough. They do need to review the documents before they

7 can answer.

8 They now have all the documents respectfully that we

9 think they’re ever going to get. Now, that’s up to Your Honor

10 but we think they’ve got everything that they asked for,

11 everything that Judge Francis gave them in the closure process

12 in May and July and so it’s now time for them to take a

13 position. If they want another three weeks to do that we can

14 work that out but discovery is closed. We need them to answer

15 the contention interrogatories.

16 THE COURT: Hold on. I just want to make sure I

17 don’t have a question about one of the other categories.

18 [Pause in proceedings.]

19 THE COURT: Okay. I’m ready.

20 MR. WICK: Can I just articulate the relief, the

21 specific relief that we’re requesting from the Court?

22 THE COURT: Sure.

23 MR. WICK: I hope that Your Honor is going to

24 conclude they’re not entitled to any more discovery. If I’m

25 right about that then what we would be requesting is two

 58

1 things. An order directing them to answer the contention

2 interrogatories by January 23rd. That is not an arbitrary

3 date. That is the date when their expert reports are due.

4 Certainly by the time they serve their expert reports they

5 ought to be able to answer the contention interrogatories.

6 That’s January 23rd.

7 The second thing we’d like, Your Honor, is once they

8 tell us which loans they’re actually suing on and why they’re

9 suing on those loans, which loans have which alleged defects,

10 we’d like to have 90 days to serve our -- from the date they

11 answer those questions to serve our expert reports because

12 it’s going to take a hell of a lot of work to trace through

13 4,500 loans what they’re saying and whether it’s true and

14 whether it matches up to the record.

15 THE COURT: I assume you already have an expert.

16 MR. WICK: We had experts but it’s all a jumble. We

17 don’t know which loans they’re saying have which defects.

18 THE COURT: I know but your experts could do that

19 work themselves and --

20 MR. WICK: They’ll do it but it’s going to take some

21 time.

22 MR. TANTILLO: I know. I’m just saying they could

23 do it now.

24 MR. WICK: They can’t do it now because we don’t

25 know which loans they’re saying have which defects now.

 59

1 THE COURT: I understand but you can figure out

2 which -- both sides can have experts doing the same analyses

3 which is having that expert go through the loan files and

4 determining which ones are non conforming.

5 MR. WICK: The --

6 THE COURT: Hold on. It’s typical -- I’ll say it

7 happens that you certainly need to be able to respond to their

8 expert report because he or she is going to offer certain

9 analyses and your expert is going to rebut those. I’m just

10 making the observation that Chase is certainly in a position

11 to have its expert review loans before getting the information

12 you’re seeking but just an observation.

13 MR. WICK: Fair enough, Your Honor. But to sort of

14 say Chase ought to be able to figure it out from the documents

15 doesn’t work because these parties look at the same documents

16 and reach very different conclusions.

17 THE COURT: That’s precisely my point. You could

18 have an expert doing that earlier but that’s all right.

19 Mr. Tantillo.

20 MR. TANTILLO: I started this hearing basically sort

21 of discussing the irony of the fact that we’re basically both

22 sort of asking for the same thing. Chase as I think you

23 indicated is in our view in a better position to know the lien

24 releases and the different things that they’re asking for.

25 THE COURT: Right. Did you serve an interrogatory

 60

1 asking for that?

2 MR. TANTILLO: No, Your Honor, we did not. As Mr.

3 Wick has indicated, we do not have any opposition to answering

4 any of these interrogatories. In fact, it’s our view that

5 it’s good for us. I think our position is is that we would

6 like to have the servicing data in order to be able to

7 complete that and then also that would assist us in being able

8 to rectify the discrepancies that we’ve seen between I-Vault,

9 spreadsheets and then if we have a third thing then at least

10 we have an entire picture of what would happen with these

11 particular loans.

12 THE COURT: Or your expert may have to work off of

13 the record that he or she has and can still draw a conclusion.

14 MR. TANTILLO: No doubt about it, Your Honor, and

15 that’s something that is definitely within -- is definitely in

16 process.

17 However, I think for us having the ability to have

18 those very unique entries that are within at least the view

19 activity screen which even Mr. Wick recognizes is something

20 that we have not received, will give us the ability to see if

21 an assignment of mortgage was sent. It will give us the

22 ability to see if a note had post collection charge off

23 activity and that’s really where the plaintiffs are coming

24 from.

25 We want to be able to have the best and most

 61

1 complete picture available not only to determine what the

2 damages are in this case but also to let them know what kind

3 of liability they’re also seeking in the future. I mean the

4 reality of it is is that it’s not just Chase and the

5 plaintiffs that are affected here. It’s also the borrowers.

6 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you very much. I’m going

7 to reserve judgment on these but I’ll issue an order

8 relatively quickly and -- but as I said before I do want a

9 declaration on burden. When do you think you can provide

10 that?

11 MR. WICK: Your Honor, may we have a week, Monday?

12 THE COURT: Yes. That is fine. Why don’t you go to

13 Tuesday? Monday is a holiday.

14 MR. WICK: Thank you, Your Honor.

15 MR. TANTILLO: Your Honor, if I may.

16 THE COURT: Sure.

17 MR. TANTILLO: Just a point of procedure. Mr. Wick

18 has brought it up, we’ve also brought it up. Because of all

19 these discrepancies between the different records that each

20 party is looking at I’d like to open up the discussion as to

21 what the time line is for these expert reports. Mr. Wick at

22 one point stated that they wish to stay any requirement until

23 they received everything and on our side we’re looking at an

24 expert not being able to complete it because of the

25 discrepancies that we’re calling out in terms of the

 62

1 differences between the information that’s in I-Vault and the

2 information that Mr. Wick has applied in his spreadsheets. So

3 if Your Honor is going to say no, this is it, this is -- it is

4 what it is, discrepancies are the truth which Mr. Wick has

5 alluded to, then we’re going to need our expert to then start

6 the reports at that point with that in mind.

7 If Your Honor issues an order and says supply

8 everything to them, they get these view activities because the

9 experts should know whether or not a RESPA letter was sent,

10 whether or not an assignment was sent, an [inaudible] was

11 sent, these are documents which they have no other record of

12 then we’re going to be put in a position where our expert is

13 going to have restart his analysis once that stuff comes over.

14 THE COURT: To a certain degree. An expert could

15 also do an analysis and for those loans that have

16 discrepancies go back based on the information provided for

17 those specific loans. I don’t have any understanding of what

18 percentage of loans have these discrepancies but one -- I

19 don’t know that you necessarily have to wait.

20 That said, I certainly have had in mind coming off

21 of all this that there might be some extension that would be

22 required or necessary and I want to think about that. But

23 what do you have in mind?

24 MR. TANTILLO: I’m just thinking that maybe, Your

25 Honor, we take a look at when your order comes out and

 63

1 whatever extensions then we could start that expert period and

2 maybe give us 90 days from that or 60 days from that in order

3 to be able to get these reports finalized.

4 THE COURT: I’m not -- well, it would depend. It

5 would depend on the scope of what I would order produced. If

6 it’s bountiful, a bound of information then a longer time

7 frame would be required. If it’s not then I wouldn’t agree --

8 MR. TANTILLO: Perfectly fair.

9 THE COURT: But I certainly suggest that if experts

10 haven’t begun their work they should begin their work.

11 MALE VOICE: We -- as Mr. Tantillo has stated, our

12 expert has been well underway. It’s just trying to figure out

13 where the end point is.

14 THE COURT: I understand and it is not fun -- it’s

15 never fun. It’s not good when there’s disagreement about what

16 objective data is. That’s a hard thing.

17 MR. WICK: Your Honor, if I could make a suggestion?

18 THE COURT: Yes.

19 MALE VOICE: I sat here -- obviously I’m with the

20 plaintiffs. But in such a discrepancy, and I’m not interested

21 in extending the time, it may be worth it for the possibility

22 of the discovery [inaudible] to take a look at the different

23 issues. I’m just thinking outside the box a little bit trying

24 to figure if there’s a way for us to solve this because we’re

25 seeing the same stone and somebody’s calling it rough and

 64

1 somebody is calling it smooth and that’s [inaudible] old adage

2 from my [inaudible].

3 THE COURT: To some extent. You’re saying there’s a

4 discrepancy but maybe the other side agrees that yes, there’s

5 a discrepancy but can’t answer why or what the implication is.

6 Again, you have an I-Vault file that has information that’s

7 essentially more direct and closer to the actual facts than

8 what’s in a spreadsheet presumably but I don’t know.

9 MALE VOICE: And part of that certification if Your

10 Honor does lien toward the certification that the entirety of

11 the I-Vault is we only know what’s been given to us as to what

12 might be in there.

13 THE COURT: Right. Well, I think Mr. Wick has said

14 here several times and maybe a certification would be okay

15 with him -- certainly seems like it would not be hard to ask

16 for given his representations but I’ve heard him say several

17 times they produced everything about these loans that they

18 have in I-Vault.

19 MR. WICK: Correct.

20 MALE VOICE: Thank you, Your Honor.

21 THE COURT: All right. As I said, I’ll try to get

22 an order out pretty quickly. So anything else?

23 MR. WICK: One minor thing, Your Honor. When we

24 were before you on the telephonic motion to compel on the

25 subject of the plaintiff’s tax returns you ordered the

 65

1 plaintiffs to complete their production of tax returns and I

2 think they’ve done that as to actual tax returns. But they

3 haven’t produced any tax returns after the year 2012 and the

4 explanation that they’ve given for that is that they don’t

5 have any. They never existed. They never made any.

6 So what we asked for in lieu of that, Your Honor,

7 was the extension requests that they filed and Mr. Schneider,

8 their principal -- and the estimated tax payments that they

9 made and Mr. Schneider, their principal, testified at his

10 deposition that he did make -- make request extensions and he

11 did make estimated tax payments after 2012 and those have

12 never been produced, Your Honor. We’ve asked plaintiffs about

13 this in follow up correspondence. We haven’t gotten any

14 indication from them that they’re not willing to do but we

15 just don’t have any response one way or the other.

16 THE COURT: Mr. Tantillo.

17 MR. TANTILLO: First of all, it’s my understanding

18 that obviously in terms of tax returns Mr. Wick is correct.

19 We produced [inaudible]. We attempted to produce [inaudible]

20 certification [inaudible]. I’m more than happy to go back to

21 our [inaudible] and ask for any additional information.

22 THE COURT: That will include extension requests and

23 estimated payments?

24 MR. TANTILLO: Yes, sir.

25 THE COURT: Okay. All right. Good. With that, we

 66

1 are adjourned.

2 MR. WICK: Thank you, Your Honor.

3 MR. TANTILLO: Thank you for your time, Your Honor.

4 * * * * *

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
 67

1 I certify that the foregoing is a court transcript from

2 an electronic sound recording of the proceedings in the above-

3 entitled matter.

6 Shari Riemer, CET-805

7 Dated: January 10, 2018

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25