You are on page 1of 13

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE ---------------------------------------------------------------------x In re NEW CENTURY TRS HOLDINGS, INC.

, a Delaware Corporation, et al.,1 Debtors. ---------------------------------------------------------------------x MOLLY S. WHITE AND RALPH N. WHITE Plaintiffs, Adv. Pro. No. 10-55357 (KJC) v. NEW CENTURY TRS HOLDINGS, INC. ET AL, a Delaware Corporation Defendant. ---------------------------------------------------------------------x THE NEW CENTURY LIQUIDATING TRUSTS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY The New Century Liquidating Trust (the Trust) as successor to New Century TRS Holdings, Inc., et al. (the Debtors), by and through Alan M. Jacobs, as its Bankruptcy Court appointed Liquidating Trustee (the Trustee), respectfully submits this opposition (the Chapter 11 Case No. 07-10416 (KJC) (Jointly Administered)

The Debtors are the following entities: New Century Financial Corporation (f/k/a New Century REIT, Inc.) (NCFC); New Century TRS Holdings, Inc. (f/k/a New Century Financial Corporation); New Century Mortgage Corporation (f/k/a JBE Mortgage) (NCMC); NC Capital Corporation; Home123 Corporation (f/k/a The Anyloan Corporation, 1800anyloan.com, Anyloan.com); New Century Credit Corporation (f/k/a Worth Funding Incorporated); NC Asset Holding, L.P. (f/k/a NC Residual II Corporation); NC Residual III Corporation; NC Residual IV Corporation; New Century R.E.O. Corp.; New Century R.E.O. II Corp.; New Century R.E.O. III Corp.; New Century Mortgage Ventures, LLC (d/b/a Summit Resort Lending, Total Mortgage Resource, Select Mortgage Group, Monticello Mortgage Services, Ad Astra Mortgage, Midwest Home Mortgage, TRATS Financial Services, Elite Financial Services, Buyers Advantage Mortgage); NC Deltex, LLC; NCoral, L.P.; and New Century Warehouse Corporation.
1

871230/0092380865.7

Opposition) to Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Discovery [D.I. 47] (the Motion) and respectfully responds to the Motion as set forth below. BACKGROUND 1. On or around September 29, 2010, the above-caption plaintiffs (the Plaintiff) filed and served its Interrogatories [D.I. 10239], Request for Admissions [D.I. 10241] and Request To Produce [D.I. 10238] (collectively, the Plaintiffs Discovery Requests). 2. On December 13, 2010, the Scheduling Order Regarding the Claim and Complaint Filed by Ralph and Molly White [Adv. Pro. D.I. 9] (the Scheduling Order) was entered. By the Scheduling Order, the Trust was required to serve responses to Plaintiffs Discovery Requests no later than December 29, 2010. 3. On December 15, 2010, the Trust filed The Motion of the New Century Liquidating Trust to Dismiss Adversary Proceeding Complaint [D.I. 10] (the Motion to Dismiss) and the Memorandum of Law in Support of the New Century Liquidating Trusts Motion to Dismiss Adversary Proceeding Complaint [D.I. 11]. 4. On or around December 27, 2010, Plaintiff filed and served the Second Request for Production [D.I. 17]. 5. On or around December 29, 2010, the Trust filed and served (i) The New Century Liquidating Trusts Responses to the Request for Admissions of Molly S. White and Ralph N. White (the Trusts Responses to Request for Admissions), and (ii) The New Century Liquidating Trusts Responses to the Request for Documents of Molly S. White and Ralph N. White (the Trusts Responses to Document Requests). The Trust did not file the documents produced contemporaneously with the Trusts Responses to Document Requests due to the number of documents produced and the fact that the documents contain personally identifiable

information. Contemporaneously with the Trusts Responses to Document Requests, the Trust produced 3,813 pages of documents. Of those documents, the Trust produced Plaintiffs Loan File (278 pages), the Debtors Schedules (2011 pages), the Debtors Policies and Procedures (182 pages), the Final Report of Michael J. Missal Bankruptcy Court Examiner (580 pages) and other agreements, motions and documents as specifically requested by Plaintiff (the Produced Documents). 6. On the same date, the Trust contacted Plaintiff and requested a brief extension of time to file and serve the Trusts responses to Plaintiffs Interrogatories. Plaintiff denied the Trusts request. On the same date, the Trust served (i) The New Century Liquidating Trusts First Request for the Production of Documents Directed to Molly S. White and Ralph N. White (the Trusts Request for Documents), and (ii) The New Century Liquidating Trusts First Set of Interrogatories Directed to Molly S. White and Ralph N. White (the Trusts Interrogatories and together with the Trusts Request for Document, the Trusts Discovery Requests). 7. On December 30, 2010, the Trust filed and served The New Century Liquidating Trusts Responses to Interrogatories of Molly S. White and Ralph N. White (the Trusts Responses to Interrogatories and together with the Trusts Responses to Document Requests and the Trusts Responses to Request for Admissions, the Trusts Discovery Responses). 8. On or around January 4, 2011, the Court granted the Trust leave from Rule 70262(a) of the Local Rules for the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the Local Rules) and held that the Trust was not required to file the documents produced contemporaneously with the Trusts Responses to Document Requests because of the number of documents produced and the fact that the produced documents contain personally identifiable information.

9. On January 28, 2011, after the issues raised by the Motion to Dismiss had been completely briefed by the Trust and Plaintiff, the Trust filed the Notice of Completion of Briefing [D.I. 35] pursuant to the Local Rules. 10. On or around January 31, 2011, Plaintiff requested an extension of time to respond to the Trusts Discovery Requests. Despite Plaintiffs unwillingness to grant the Trusts prior request for an extension to respond to Plaintiffs Interrogatories, the Trust agreed with such request. 11. On or around February 15, 2011, Plaintiff filed and served the (i) Plaintiffs Response to the New Century Liquidating Trusts First Set of Interrogatories [D.I. 46] (the Plaintiffs Responses to Interrogatories), and (ii) Plaintiffs Response to the New Century Liquidating Trusts First Request for Production of Documents [D.I. 45] (the Plaintiffs Responses to Document Requests and together with Plaintiffs Responses to Interrogatories, the Plaintiffs Discovery Responses). On the same date, Plaintiff filed this Motion. Prior to filing this Motion, Plaintiff did not contact the Trust in an effort to resolve any issues relating to the Trusts Discovery Responses.

ARGUMENT1 A. The Issue of Whether the Trust Should Be Required to File the Produced Documents is Barred by Res Judicata.______________________________ 12. By the Motion, Plaintiff requests that the Trust be required to file the documents produced contemporaneously with the Trusts Responses to Document Requests. However, such issue has already been decided by this Court at the January 4, 2011 hearing where this Court granted the Trust leave from Local Rule 7026-2(a) by holding that the Trust was not required to file the documents produced contemporaneously with the Trusts Responses to Document Requests for Plaintiffs benefit because the Produced Documents contain personally identifiable information. 13. It is well-established law under principles of res judicata that a final judgment on the merits of an action precludes the parties or their privies from relitigating issues that were or could have been raised in that action . . . As this Court and other courts have often recognized, res judicata . . . relieve[s] parties of the cost and vexation of multiple lawsuits, conserve[s] judicial resources, and, by preventing inconsistent decisions, encourage[s] reliance on adjudication. Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 94 (1980) (citing Cromwell v. County of Sac., 94 U.S. 351, 352 (1877); see also Montana v. United States, 440 U.S. 147, 152-53 (1979)). Accordingly, res judicata applies and Plaintiff is not entitled to re-litigate the issue of whether the leave granted to the Trust from Local Rule 7026-2(a) should be granted.

This Motion presents issues that are not currently ripe for adjudication. The United States Supreme Court has held that [a] claim is not ripe for adjudication if it rests upon contingent future events that may not occur as anticipated, or indeed may not occur at all. Texas v. U.S., 523 U.S. 296, 300 (1998) (citing Thomas v. Union Carbide Agricultural Products Co., 473 U.S. 568 (1985)). The United States Supreme Court has further stated that [r]ipeness requires us to evaluate both the fitness of the issues for judicial decision and the hardship to the parties of without court consideration. Texas v. U.S., 523 U.S. at 300-01 (citing Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136 (1967)). As the Motion to Dismiss has been fully briefed by both the Trust and Plaintiff, all issues raised in the Motion may be moot when the Motion to Dismiss is ultimately decided. Accordingly, the Trust submits that this Motion and all issues related to discovery in this Adversary Proceeding should be stayed pending a final outcome of the Motion to Dismiss.

14. Further, to the extent Plaintiffs concern centers around the number of the Produced Documents, Plaintiff fails to mention that (i) the Produced Documents can be presented either by Plaintiff or the Trust to this Court if and when a trial date is set, and (ii) Plaintiff specifically requested the Debtors schedules and the Final Report of Michael J. Missal Bankruptcy Court Examiner, which amount to 2,591 of the 3,813 pages of the Produced Documents. B. Responses to Specific Issues Raised by Plaintiff. 15. By the Motion, Plaintiff also argues that the Trust failed to comply with several of their requests. The Trust responded to Plaintiffs Discovery Requests based on the information it knows and the documents located in the Trusts books and records. In addition, by the Motion, Plaintiff inappropriately requests additional information from the Trust despite the fact that (i) discovery is closed, and (ii) Plaintiff served two rounds of discovery on the Trust. But for one inadvertent mistake, as set forth below, the Trust answered Plaintiffs Discovery Requests appropriately. i. Responses to Interrogatories

16. Defendants Response to Plaintiffs Objection to Trust Response to Interrogatory No. 2. While Plaintiff was not required to comply with Local Rule 7026-1(c), had Plaintiff simply contacted the Trust regarding the Trust not including Mr. Nagys contact information, the Trust would have recognized its inadvertent mistake and produced such information by means of an amended response. Notwithstanding the foregoing, according to the Trusts books and records, the Trust hereby produces the following: Mr. Nagys last-known address is 18285 Gum Tree Lane, Huntington Beach, CA 92646; the highest position Mr. Nagy held with the Debtors was Vice President; Mr. Nagy was employed by the Debtors from August 19, 1997 through December 27, 2007. 6

17. Defendants Response to Plaintiffs Objection to Trust Response to Interrogatory No. 4. The Trust objects to this interrogatory as it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the production of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections or the General Objections found in the Trusts Responses to Interrogatories, other than for the proof of claim, pleadings and documents produced contemporaneously with the Trusts Responses to Document Requests, the Trust is not aware of any communications relating to the subject account and/or transaction. Prior to the filing of the proof of claim the Trust had no other communications with third parties other than for originating, servicing and transferring the White Loan. 18. Defendants Response to Plaintiffs Objection to Trust Response to Interrogatory No. 5. It is unclear what Plaintiff is requesting as the term proceeds provided is undefined and vague. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Defendant submits that the date of the actual transfer of the loan was September 21, 2006. 19. Defendants Response to Plaintiffs Objection to Trust Response to Interrogatory No. 6. The Trust objected to this request as the term define the communication was undefined and vague. Without a definition of such term, the request is unclear. Further, the Trust submits that such request is irrelevant as the request concerns a document dated after the subject loan was transferred from the Debtors possession. 20. Defendants Response to Plaintiffs Objection to Trust Response to Interrogatory No. 11. By Plaintiffs objections, it appears that Plaintiff is now seeking information not requested by the pertinent Interrogatories. Plaintiff now appears to be seeking the amount owed by the Trust to Deutsche Bank and/or Morgan Stanley. The Trust objects to such request as it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the production of admissible evidence. Subject to and

without waiving the foregoing objections and the General Objections (as defined in the Motion to Compel), the Trust submits that, after application of the appropriate protocols established under the Modified Second Amended Joint Chapter 11 Plan of Liquidation Dated as of September 30, 2009, the Morgan Stanley entities hold claims against the Debtors in the aggregate amount of $43,804,492.88 and the Deutsche Bank entities hold claims against the Debtors in the aggregate amount of $73,156,516.00. Defendant submits that to determine the amounts owed to either Morgan Stanley or Deutsche Bank on account of Plaintiffs loan would be unduly burdensome. 21. Defendants Response to Plaintiffs Objection to Trust Response to Interrogatory No. 13. By Plaintiffs objections, it appears that Plaintiff is now seeking information not requested or defined by the pertinent Interrogatories. Accordingly the Trusts original response was sufficient. 22. Defendants Response to Plaintiffs Objection to Trust Response to Interrogatory No. 14. By Plaintiffs objections, it appears that Plaintiff is now seeking information not requested or defined by the pertinent Interrogatories. Despite such fact, Defendant is unaware whose initials other than those purported to be that of Ralph and Molly White are found on the note attached to the Interrogatories as Exhibit A. 23. Defendants Response to Plaintiffs Objection to Trust Response to Interrogatory No. 3, 4, 5. Plaintiffs objections to each response are meritless as the Trust has provided all information responsive to these requests located in the Trusts books and records. The Trust only has the ability to provide the documents and information contained in the Trusts books and records.

24. Defendants Response to Plaintiffs Objection to Trust Response to Interrogatory No. 3, 5. Plaintiffs objections raise issues that are not related to the pertinent interrogatories. Accordingly, the Trusts responses to each interrogatory are sufficient. 25. Defendants Response to Plaintiffs Objection to Trust Response to Interrogatory No. 3, 5, 11, 13, 14. By Plaintiffs objections, it appears that Plaintiff is now seeking information not requested by the pertinent Interrogatories. The Trusts responses to the pertinent Interrogatories are sufficient. 26. Defendants Response to Plaintiffs General Objections to the Trusts Responses to Interrogatories. Plaintiff states thatthe Trust has failed to abide by Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by: (1) Each person making the answer must sign them; (2) the attorney who objects must sign any objection and; (3) the Interrogatories were to be responded to under oath. The digital signature on a required notarized document is clearly legally insufficient. Motion, p. 8. Plaintiff however, provides no basis for its assertions. Both Alan M. Jacobs, as Liquidating Trustee of the Trust, and Alan M. Root, as counsel for the Liquidating Trustee executed the Trusts Responses to Interrogatories in compliance with points (1) and (2). See Trusts Responses to Interrogatories, pp. 12-13. In addition, Alan M. Jacobs verified the Interrogatories only after being duly sworn, [and] depose[d], thus in compliance with point (3). Trusts Responses to Interrogatories, p. 13. Finally, Plaintiff provides no basis for its conclusory statement that [t]he digital signature on [the] required notarized document is clearly legally insufficient. Motion, p. 8. Specifically, Plaintiff fails to mention that Local Rule 9011-4(b) explicitly authorizes such type of signature. See Local Rule 9011-4(b) ( Any motion, pleading or other document requiring a signature that is electronically filed by a registered CM/ECF user must be filed as either (a) a document containing the signature of the person(s) signing said document or (b) a document displaying the name of 9

the person(s) signing said document, preceded by an "/s/" ("electronic signature") and typed in the space where the signature would otherwise appear (e.g., "/s/ Jane Doe"). The electronic signature of the person on the document electronically filed shall constitute the signature of that person for purposes of Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9011. ). ii. Responses to Requests for Admissions

27. Defendants Response to Plaintiffs Objection to Trust Response to Request for Admission No. 10. The Trust did not file the document in question and the document has not been authenticated thus the Trust does not have or cannot obtain information sufficient to admit or deny the request. 28. Defendants Response to Plaintiffs Objection to Trust Response to Request for Admission No. 11. The Trust cannot respond to such request as the request is unclear and ambiguous on its face. In addition, the Trust is not a party to any state court action involving Plaintiff and thus does not have any knowledge regarding what Plaintiff is referring to in their pleadings. 29. Defendants Response to Plaintiffs Objection to Trust Response to Request for Admission No. 13(a), 13(b), 13(c), 17, 17(a), 17(b), 17(c), 18, 23, 24. The documents produced by Plaintiff do not establish that the Trust had or could obtain information sufficient to enable it to admit or deny the requests in question and thus, the Trusts responses to these requests are sufficient. 30. Defendants Response to Plaintiffs Objection to Trust Response to Request for Admission No. 16. In response to this objection, the Trust submits that this request is improper because it (i) is compound, and (ii) the phrase during their insolvency is undefined and vague. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Trust only has the ability to provide the documents and

10

information contained in the Trusts books and records. The Trust produced all information responsive to this request in the Trusts books and records. As per the original response, the Debtors sold and transferred the Claimants Loan on September 21, 2006. The Trust did not perform a solvency analysis for the stated period. 31. Defendants Response to Plaintiffs Objection to Trust Response to Request for Admission No. 27. In its response to Plaintiffs Request for Admission No. 16, the Trust indicated when the loan was sold. The Trust cannot provide any additional information as no additional information is located in the Trusts books and records. The Trust is unable to determine if the Debtors were insolvent when the Debtors transferred the Claimants Loan because the Trust did not perform a solvency analysis for that time period. 32. Defendants Response to Plaintiffs Objection to Trust Response to Request for Admission No. 32. Although this request is ambiguous on its face, the Trust responded to this request by making necessary assumptions. The Trust is unsure what additional information Plaintiff is seeking other than for the facts that (a) Plaintiff filed their proof of claims after the bar date, and (b) despite that, a reserve was established to ensure that if Plaintiffs proof of claims were allowed, funds would be available to make a proper distribution on account of such claims. iii. Responses to Requests for Document Requests

33. Defendants Response to Plaintiffs Objection to Trusts Responses to Document Request 1, 3, 5, 8, 13, 15, 20. The Trust produced all documents responsive to these requests located in the Trusts books and records. The Trust only has the ability to provide the documents and information contained in the Trusts books and records. The Trust cannot provide what it does not have.

11

34. Defendants Response to Plaintiffs Objection to Trusts Responses to Document Request 5. By their objection, Plaintiff states that the Florida Statutes required certain disclosures which the trust either has record of and/or was never provided to Plaintiffs. Without specifying the pertinent Florida Statutes or required disclosures, the Trust is not in a position to respond to this request as it is ambiguous and vague. The burden is not on the Trust to guess what statutes Plaintiff is referring to. 35. Defendants Response to Plaintiffs Objection to Trusts Responses to Document Request 22. Plaintiff seems to believe that it is entitled to documents filed under seal. The Debtors filed the Motion of Debtors and Debtors in Possession for an Order Authorizing the Debtors to File Under Seal Certain Information Included on Exhibits A, B, C, and D to the Debtors Motion for Order Pursuant to Sections 105(a) and 363(b)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code Authorizing Debtors Consent to Amendment of Certain Limited Partnership Agreement [D.I. 3615] (the Motion to File Documents Under Seal). After duly considering the Motion to File Documents Under Seal, the Court granted such motion and authorized the Debtors to file the Summary of Terms of the Amendment No. 1 to Limited Partnership Agreement, the Limited Partnership Agreement, Amendment No. 1 to Limited Partnership Agreement, and Debtors consent thereto. Accordingly, absent order of the Court stating otherwise, the Trust is not in a position to produce such documents. [Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank]

12

WHEREFORE, the Trust respectfully requests that (i) the Motion to Compel be denied, and (ii) additional relief be granted as is deemed just and proper. Dated: May 3, 2011 BLANK ROME LLP By: /s/ Alan M. Root David W. Carickhoff (No. 3715) Alan M. Root (No. 5427) 1201 Market Street, Suite 800 Wilmington, Delaware 19801 (302) 425-6400 - Telephone (302) 425-6464 - Facsimile - and HAHN & HESSEN LLP 488 Madison Avenue New York, New York 10022 (212) 478-7200 - Telephone (212) 478-7400 - Facsimile Attn: Mark S. Indelicato, Esq. Edward L. Schnitzer, Esq. Nicholas C. Rigano, Esq. Co- Counsel for the New Century Liquidating Trustee

13