Case 1:15-cv-00293-LTS-RWL Document 407 Filed 05/14/19 Page 1 of 2

COVINGTON Covington & Burling LLP

One CityCenter
BEIJING BRUSSELS DUBAI FRANKFURT JOHANNESBURG 850 Tenth Street, NW
LONDON LOS ANGELES NEW YORK PALO ALTO Washington, DC 20001-4956
SAN FRANCISCO SEOUL SHANGHAI WASHINGTON T +1 202 662 6000

Via ECF and Federal Express May 14, 2019

Hon. Laura Taylor Swain

United States District Court
Southern District of New York
Daniel Patrick Moynihan Courthouse
500 Pearl Street
New York, New York 10007-1312

Re: S & A Capital Partners, Inc., et al. v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., et al.
No. 15-cv-00293-LTS-JCF

Dear Judge Swain:

We write in response to Plaintiffs’ request for leave to file the 15-page reply brief that
they filed on May 10, 2019 in support of their motion for partial summary judgment on liability
(ECF No. 404). Defendants do not object to Plaintiffs’ request for leave to file their 15-page
reply, but strenuously object to Plaintiffs’ suggestion that Defendants withheld responsive
documents in connection with the Swinehart and Kevorkyants loans. Contrary to Plaintiffs’
suggestion, all that has occurred here is that Chase recently discovered—and promptly
produced—a single responsive document that was inadvertently classified as nonresponsive
during Chase’s initial document review.

Swinehart Loan. Plaintiffs’ reply attaches a pair of August 2007 documents relating to
the Swinehart loan that Plaintiffs report that they obtained from the Swineharts. It is
unsurprising that those 2007 letters were not produced with Chase’s custodial document
productions because, among other things, Plaintiffs agreed that the date range for custodial
document productions would begin no earlier than January 1, 2008. As for Chase’s loan files,
Chase produced the entirety of the loan files relating to the Swinehart loan that it was able to
retrieve in discovery. Accordingly, any suggestion that Chase improperly withheld the
documents that Plaintiffs obtained from the Swineharts is incorrect.

Kevorkyants Loan. Chase produced a single document relating to the Kevorkyants loan
last week. The circumstances of that production are as follows:

On April 19, 2019, Plaintiffs filed ECF No. 387, a 52 page response to the statement of
undisputed facts that Chase filed in support of its summary judgment motion of March 8, 2019
(ECF Nos. 360-361). Plaintiffs’ statement referenced certain documents relating to the
Kevorkyants loan. In the course of reviewing and investigating Plaintiffs’ assertions regarding
the Kevorkyants loan, counsel for Chase came across an unproduced e-mail chain relating to the
Kevorkyants loan. Chase had previously produced a slightly less complete version of the same
email chain. Upon discovering the more complete version of the email chain, Chase promptly
produced it. Chase also notified opposing counsel that it would have no objection if Plaintiffs
wished to seek an extension of time to consider the document before filing a reply brief in
support of their summary judgment motion.
 Case 1:15-cv-00293-LTS-RWL Document 407 Filed 05/14/19 Page 2 of 2

COVINGTON
Hon. Laura Taylor Swain
May 14, 2019
Page 2

It appears that the document at issue was mistakenly marked non-responsive at the time
of Chase’s initial document review due to simple human error on the part of the reviewer. It is
entirely unsurprising that this type of inadvertent error occurred in the course of Chase’s
production of over a million pages of documents in this litigation. Any suggestion that the
document was deliberately withheld is incorrect and groundless.

Respectfully submitted,

s/ Robert D. Wick

Robert D. Wick
Counsel for Defendants

cc: All counsel of record (via ECF)