1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 17 JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA 2 3 DEUTSCHE BANK, NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE IN TRUST FOR 4 THE BENEFIT OF THE CERTIFICATE HOLDERS FOR AMERIQUEST MORTGAGE 5 SECURITIES TRUST 2005-R8, Case No. ASSET-BACKED PASS-THROUGH CACE09024188(1) 6 CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2005-R8, 7 Plaintiff, 8 vs. 9 ZAIDY L. GANTT, et al., 10 Defendants. _____________/ 11 12 DEPOSITION OF: BRYAN BLY 13 DATE: August 18, 2011 14 TIME: 1:54 p.m. to 2:12 p.m. 15 PLACE: Korte & Wortman, P.A. 3001 Executive Drive, Suite 300 16 Clearwater, Florida 17 PURSUANT TO: Notice by counsel for Defendants for purposes of 18 discovery, use at trial or such other purposes 19 as are permitted under the Florida Rules 20 of Civil Procedure

21 BEFORE: LISA A. SIMONS-CLARK, RPR, CRR Notary Public, State of 22 Florida at Large 23 Pages 1 to 27 1 APPEARANCES: 2 MEGHAN KENEFIC, ESQUIRE Shapiro & Fishman, LLP 3 1004 North Dale Mabry Highway, Suite 112 Tampa, Florida 33618 4 (813) 880-8888 Attorney for Plaintiff 5 BRIAN K. KORTE, ESQUIRE 6 Korte & Wortman, P.A. 2041 Vista Parkway, Suite 102 7 West Palm Beach, Florida 33411 (561) 228-6200 8 – and 9 MICHAEL SINGER, ESQUIRE 10 Korte & Wortman, P.A. 3001 Executive Drive, Suite 300 11 Clearwater, Florida 33762 Attorneys for Defendants 12 RYAN CHRISTOPHER RODEMS, ESQUIRE 13 Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. 501 East Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 790 14 Tampa, Florida 33602 (813) 489-1001 15 – and 16 ADINA L. POLLAN, ESQUIRE (VIA TELEPHONE) 17 Akerman Senterfitt 50 North Laura Street, Suite 3100 18 Jacksonville, Florida 32202

(904) 598-8629 19 Attorneys for Deponent 20 ALSO PRESENT: 21 Nicole Colson, paralegal 1 INDEX 2 PAGE 3 DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. KORTE 4 4 CERTIFICATE OF OATH 24 5 REPORTER’S CERTIFICATE 25 6 READ AND SIGN LETTER 26 7 ERRATA SHEET 27 8 9 DEFENDANTS’ EXHIBITS 10 ID’d MARKED 1 – Subpoena Duces Tecum 4 4 11 2 – Assignment of Mortgage 17 4 3 – Complaint 4 12 4 – Non-Party Witnesses Citi Residential Lending, Inc., Nationwide Title Clearing, 13 and Bryan Bly’s Motion for Protective Order 4 5 – Limited Power of Attorney 13 13 14 6 – Unanimous Written Consent of the Executive Committee of the Board of 15 Directors of Citi Residential Lending, Inc. 12 13 16 17 BLY EXHIBITS 1 – Transcript of Judge Lazarus hearing on 18 Tuesday, June 7, 2011 23 23 19 1 (Defendants’ Exhibit Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4 were

2 marked for identification.) 3 BRYAN BLY, 4 the witness herein, being first duly sworn on oath, was 5 examined and deposed as follows: 6 THE WITNESS: I do. 7 DIRECT EXAMINATION 8 BY MR. KORTE: 9 Q. Sir, will you state your name, spelling your 10 last for me, please? 11 A. Bryan Bly. It’s B-r-y-a-n, B-l-y. 12 Q. Mr. Bly, my name is Brian Korte. I’m going to 13 be taking your deposition today in the matter of 14 Deutsche Bank vs. Gantt. Did you receive a subpoena in 15 this case? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. All right, sir. What I’m going to do is just 18 give you some ground rules to a deposition — I’m sure 19 you’ve had your deposition taken in the past — and 20 just let me know whether or not you understand my 21 instructions. Okay? 22 A. Okay. 23 Q. Just — if you don’t know the answer to a 24 question, tell me I don’t know. If you need more time, 25 just please tell me that you need more time to respond 5

1 to a question before I move on; and, if you give me a 2 response to a question, you’ll — that will be the – 3 well, if you give me a response, I’ll assume that you 4 understood my question. 5 A. Okay. 6 Q. Is that fair? 7 A. Fair. 8 Q. All right. Sir, will you give me the benefit 9 of your educational background, starting from the time 10 you left high school? 11 MR. RODEMS: No. We’re not going to do that. 12 That’s not relevant to the case, and we’re not 13 going to get into that. 14 MR. KORTE: What do you mean? You’re 15 instructing him not to answer about his education? 16 MR. RODEMS: Right. 17 BY MR. KORTE: 18 Q. All right. Give me the benefit of your work 19 history, starting from the time that you left high 20 school. 21 MR. RODEMS: No. We’re not going to do that. 22 This man has been the subject of threats because 23 of the previous deposition that was posted. We’re 24 going to stick to relevant information. 25 MR. KORTE: The rules require as to attempt to

6 1 reach a resolution. I understand you filed a 2 protective order. The judge basically – 3 MR. RODEMS: He said take it on a 4 case-by-case, question-by-question basis. 5 MR. KORTE: Exactly. So you’re not going to 6 answer questions with education or his work 7 history? 8 MR. RODEMS: No. It’s not relevant. 9 MR. KORTE: I believe it is. So you’re 10 instructing him not to answer my questions as to 11 education or work history? 12 MR. RODEMS: Correct. 13 BY MR. KORTE: 14 Q. All right, sir. Can you tell me where you 15 currently work? 16 A. Nationwide Title Clearing. 17 Q. How long have you worked for Nationwide Title 18 Clearing? 19 A. Over eight years. 20 Q. And what position were you hired with with 21 Nationwide Title Clearing? 22 A. I think it was called post scanning. 23 Q. What did you do in post scanning? 24 A. Prepared and re — reassembled documents that

25 were scanned and prepared them to go out. 7 1 Q. And what position did you have after you left 2 post scanning? 3 A. I went into processing. 4 Q. What does a processor do? 5 A. Preparing the docs. to meet the legal 6 requirements to be recorded. 7 Q. What do you mean prepare them for legal doc.? 8 A. Well, for example, maybe the County requires a 9 legal property description, so you’re attaching that; 10 or if it requires a cover sheet, like New York, the 11 boroughs, I prepare that. 12 Q. Are these documents that have already been 13 executed, or are these documents that are being 14 reassembled, or what kind of documents are these? 15 A. They’re documents being prepared to be 16 recorded. 17 Q. Okay. And did you have another job after 18 processing? 19 A. Within processing I became into signing. 20 Q. What’s a signing job? I don’t understand what 21 it is. 22 A. Once you’re on the corporate resolution, 23 you’re authorized to sign on behalf of clients.

24 Q. Gotcha. So at some point in time while you 25 were a processor, you became also a signer? 8 1 A. Correct. 2 Q. So you did both. The big job was processor, 3 the little job was signer? 4 A. Right. 5 Q. Okay. Or was it the other way around? I 6 mean – 7 A. It — it became the other way around 8 eventually. 9 Q. You did more signing than processing? 10 A. Correct. 11 Q. Okay. Does that continue to today? 12 A. No. I’m in a different department. 13 Q. What department are you in now? 14 A. I’m in document inspection. 15 Q. What does a document inspector do? 16 A. I’m making sure that everything is completed 17 and ready to be sent to the County: Ensure all the 18 signatures, stamps, the mortgage has all the pages, 19 et cetera. 20 Q. Just basically a quality control job? 21 A. Right. 22 Q. Okay. Sir, what I’m going to do is I’m going

23 to — I’ve premarked some exhibits and given them to 24 your lawyer to review. I’m going to give you a copy of 25 the four exhibits I’ve gotten and ask you to refer to 9 1 them, and they’re tabbed for you. 2 A. Okay. 3 MR. RODEMS: This is my copy? 4 MR. KORTE: That’s your copy. 5 MS. POLLAN: While we’re on a break real 6 quick, do you mind if you can maybe move the phone 7 a little closer? I’m having a hard time hearing 8 people. 9 MR. KORTE: We’ll try. 10 MS. POLLAN: Okay. Thank you. 11 MR. KORTE: Are you having a hard time hearing 12 me or Mr. Bly? 13 MS. POLLAN: I can hear you better now, but 14 it’s mostly Mr. Bly. 15 MR. KORTE: All right. It’s closer. 16 MS. POLLAN: Thank you. 17 BY MR. KORTE: 18 Q. All right, sir. Well, you were sent a 19 subpoena duces tecum, which is at Tab 1 of the 20 exhibits. It’s Exhibit 1. If you’d do me a favor and 21 turn to that now.

22 A. Okay. 23 Q. You were asked to bring several documents with 24 you today; is that correct, sir? 25 A. Yes. 10 1 Q. Okay. And did you bring any documents with 2 you? 3 A. No. 4 Q. Why not? 5 A. They’re not applicable to what I’m doing. 6 Q. Okay. 7 MR. RODEMS: Well, let’s be clear. He doesn’t 8 have custody, possession, or control of these 9 documents. 10 MR. KORTE: Okay. Is that — are you 11 objecting to his answer, or are you objecting to 12 the question? 13 MR. RODEMS: No. I’m just trying to make the 14 record clear. It’s not — he’s not refusing to 15 produce it. He doesn’t have custody, control, or 16 possession of the documents you’ve requested. 17 THE WITNESS: Correct. 18 BY MR. KORTE: 19 Q. Well, let’s start with No. 1, sir. Do you 20 have any documents that are requested in No. 1 in your

21 custody or control? 22 A. No, I haven’t. 23 Q. Okay. Have you ever had those documents in 24 your custody or control? 25 A. No. 11 1 Q. Can you get those documents? 2 A. No. 3 Q. Okay. Let’s talk about No. 2 on the list, on 4 the duces tecum. Do you have any documents that are 5 responsive to that in your custody or control? 6 A. No. 7 Q. Have you ever had any in your custody or 8 control? 9 A. No. 10 Q. Okay. As to No. 3, employment records, do you 11 have any employment records in your custody or control? 12 A. No. 13 Q. Have you ever had any employment record in 14 your custody and control? 15 A. No. 16 Q. Did you make any effort to get any of those 17 employment records before coming here today? 18 A. No. 19 Q. Why not?

20 MR. RODEMS: Wait. That’s going to invade the 21 attorney-client privilege, so I’m going to 22 instruct him not to answer. 23 BY MR. KORTE: 24 Q. Other than discussions with your lawyer or 25 instructions from your lawyer, is there a reason why 12 1 you didn’t bring employment records with you today? 2 A. I’m not in possession of them. That’s the 3 personnel. They’re — they’re the custodian of those. 4 Q. Did you go to the personnel department and ask 5 them for those records? 6 MR. RODEMS: Again, that’s invading the 7 attorney-client privilege. 8 MR. KORTE: Whether he went to the personnel 9 department and requested the documents? 10 MR. RODEMS: Oh, that question? No. Okay. 11 You can answer that question. 12 THE WITNESS: No. 13 BY MR. KORTE: 14 Q. As to No. 4, all the records that purport to 15 give you the authority to sign or execute documents on 16 behalf of any person or entity, did you have any of 17 those documents in your possession or control? 18 A. I believe you have the corporate resolutions

19 already. 20 Q. I don’t, but did you bring those with you 21 today? 22 MR. RODEMS: Well, he didn’t but I did. I’ll 23 show you what is entitled UNANIMOUS WRITTEN 24 CONSENT OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE BOARD OF 25 DIRECTORS OF CITI RESIDENTIAL LENDING, INC., dated 13 1 November 20th, 2008, and another document entitled 2 LIMITED POWER OF ATTORNEY, which is signed by 3 several individuals; and the dates of signature 4 are October 10th of 2007. I believe those might 5 be responsive to No. 4. 6 BY MR. KORTE: 7 Q. All right, sir. Other than those two 8 documents, are there any other documents that would be 9 responsive to No. 4 that were in your custody or 10 control? 11 A. No. 12 Q. All right. Where did you get these documents 13 that your lawyer — and I’m going to mark these as 14 Defendants’ 5 and 6, if that’s okay. 15 (Defendants’ Exhibit Nos. 5 and 6 were marked 16 for identification.) 17 BY MR. KORTE:

18 Q. Sir, where did you receive Defendants’ 5 and 6 19 from that you brought here today? 20 A. From I guess it would be — I guess it was 21 Star Hillman, I guess. Any administrator executive 22 level can produce a copy for us. 23 Q. Did you request a copy before coming here 24 today? 25 A. We were under the assumption that you’ve had 14 1 them. They’ve been response, but they — they sent 2 them — my lawyer with them. 3 Q. Well, did you ask anybody else to give you any 4 other documents that would be similar to this that 5 would give you authority to sign on any other entity’s 6 behalf? 7 A. No. 8 Q. Why not? 9 A. Because it’s not — not relevant. This is on 10 Citi, and it’s not relevant on the other accounts. 11 Q. So you just — you were able to get the ones 12 for Citi. Were you also able to get the ones for other 13 entities? 14 MR. RODEMS: Let me object. These documents 15 were not in his custody, possession, or control at 16 any time. I have obtained those documents, and I

17 have brought them to you. He does not have an 18 obligation to go and ask for documents that are 19 maintained in somebody else’s custody, possession, 20 or control. 21 So I want to make sure the record is clear. 22 I’ve produced them today. They may be responsive 23 to No. 4. You have them. You can certainly 24 question him about them; but to the extent that 25 the record is implying that he produced these 15 1 today from his request to somebody to get them, 2 that would be a misperception. 3 BY MR. KORTE: 4 Q. Well, then let me ask this very simple 5 question to make it clear: Were these documents, 6 Nos. 5 and 6, Defendants’ Exhibits, in your custody and 7 control at any time? 8 A. No. 9 Q. So how did you come about their possession? 10 MR. RODEMS: Mr. Korte, I just explained to 11 you that I had them. I obtained them from other 12 places. So he’s never had them. 13 MR. KORTE: Well, you’re his agent. 14 MR. RODEMS: Right. 15 MR. KORTE: So he has them.

16 MR. RODEMS: No. I have them. 17 MR. KORTE: Well, I’m not going to play 18 semantics with you. I’m asking if he didn’t get 19 them, he had his agent get them for him. 20 MR. RODEMS: No. He didn’t have me do 21 anything. I have them, and now you have them. 22 MR. KORTE: Well, actually, I don’t. 23 Actually, they were produced under the duces 24 tecum. I want to know what he has in his custody 25 and control. 16 1 MR. RODEMS: Okay. 2 MR. KORTE: If he’s never had them in his 3 custody and control, then I don’t want them 4 produced. 5 MR. RODEMS: Okay. 6 MR. KORTE: I mean, I can take your deposition 7 right after this one and figure out where you got 8 them from, but I assume that’s not what you want 9 to do. 10 BY MR. KORTE: 11 Q. The duces tecum is directed to you, sir. What 12 documents did you have responsive to that question for 13 me today? 14 A. Oh, I’ve never had custody of these documents

15 or possession. 16 Q. And as to No. 5, sir, what documents did you 17 bring today that were responsive to No. 5 in the duces 18 tecum? 19 A. None. 20 Q. All right. So let’s just recap. You have no 21 documents responsive to any of the questions in the 22 duces tecum? 23 A. Correct. 24 Q. Sir, I’m going to ask you to turn to 25 Defendants’ No. 2, which is at Tab 2 in your packet. 17 1 Are you there, sir? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. All right, sir. Does your name appear on this 4 document? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. Okay. Did you cause your name to be placed on 7 this document, sir? 8 A. I authorized it. 9 Q. All right. So did you — let’s go back to 10 this document itself. This is a copy of a document, 11 correct, it’s not the original document? 12 A. Correct. 13 Q. Why don’t you take me through the process that

14 you go through on a day-to-day basis when you’re doing 15 signing work with an assignment of mortgage like this? 16 MR. RODEMS: I’ll tell you what. I object to 17 that because that’s not relevant. If you want to 18 ask him about this particular document, you can. 19 MR. KORTE: I’m asking him how he does his job 20 on a day-to-day basis. 21 MR. RODEMS: That’s not relevant to this case. 22 MR. KORTE: Well, I’m asking him. If you’re 23 instructing him not to answer, you can do it. 24 You’ve just got to say the words. 25 MR. RODEMS: I am instructing him not to 18 1 answer. 2 MR. KORTE: Will you let him answer any 3 questions relative to the scope of his work and 4 the way he does his job? 5 MR. RODEMS: Yes, as it relates to the 6 document he produced, which is relevant to this 7 case. 8 MR. KORTE: Well, just so that we’re clear, 9 sir: You’re not representing Deutsche Bank, are 10 you? 11 MR. RODEMS: No. Just Mr. Bly. 12 MR. KORTE: Okay. So your relevance to this

13 case — you’re making a determination this isn’t 14 legally relevant to the case itself? Is that your 15 position, sir? 16 MR. RODEMS: Is what illegally what? 17 MR. KORTE: Is — are you saying that his 18 scope of his employment is not relevant to the 19 case of Deutsche Bank vs. Gantt? 20 MR. RODEMS: Yes. That’s what I’m saying. 21 MR. KORTE: You’re making a legal 22 determination of relevance in a case you’re not 23 the lawyer for the plaintiff or the defendant on? 24 MR. RODEMS: No, I don’t have – 25 MS. KENEFIC: The plaintiff is going to make a 19 1 standing objection as to the relevance of the 2 assignment of mortgage. We understand the 3 assignment of mortgage was part of a composite 4 exhibit to the complaint, but the plaintiff will 5 not be relying upon the assignment of mortgage in 6 order to establish its standing. It will be 7 filing an affidavit of equitable interest. 8 MR. KORTE: I understand. That’s fine. I’m 9 just trying to figure out how the lawyer who 10 doesn’t represent the bank or the defendant is 11 discussing relevance on a document and how it

12 impacts that other case. 13 MR. RODEMS: Well, I — I can’t make that 14 determination, only the judge can, but I can 15 assert the objection; and, if we can’t agree on 16 the procedure, obviously the judge will need to 17 make the decision at some point. 18 But what I would suggest is it’s because I am 19 here to protect my client from harassment, 20 oppression, undue burden, that I object to him 21 discussing his job or anything having to do with 22 his job that’s not relevant to the lawsuit that 23 he’s here on. 24 Just because you filed a lawsuit or defended a 25 lawsuit or however you got here today, Mr. Korte, 20 1 does not mean you have a right to ask Mr. Bly 2 about anything you choose to. 3 Apparently this document that you’ve marked as 4 Exhibit 3 (sic) to this deposition is relevant to 5 the case, and you may ask him about this document, 6 and you may ask him anything you wish to know 7 about this document; but to ask him generally how 8 he does his job or what he does outside of this 9 case is not relevant, and I’m not going to permit 10 him to answer that because in the past when he has

11 been deposed, that deposition was released 12 publicly, and he was subjected to death threats 13 and threats of bodily harm. 14 So I have a duty to protect him, and I am not 15 making a determination as to relevance. I am 16 objecting on the basis of relevance, subject to 17 the — a Court’s review of it. 18 MR. KORTE: So is my question unduly 19 burdensome, sir, that he can’t tell me what he 20 does in a day at his job? 21 MR. RODEMS: Yes. 22 MR. KORTE: It’s harassing also? 23 MR. RODEMS: Yes. Absolutely. 24 MR. KORTE: And we’re not going to agree that 25 I can talk about how he does his job on a 21 1 day-to-day basis when he’s signing these 2 documents? 3 MR. RODEMS: Yes, sir. I think we’re in 4 agreement that that’s not something that I’m going 5 to let him go into. 6 MR. KORTE: All right. We’re – 7 MR. RODEMS: But you can ask him about 8 anything you wish to on Exhibit 3. 9 MR. KORTE: Unfortunately, that is basically

10 the core of where my case is going to go, 11 especially with education and background. It’s 12 actually as to 2 which was marked. 13 So I’m going to terminate the deposition at 14 this point in time, and we’ll come back when the 15 judge does a ruling. Have a good afternoon. 16 MR. RODEMS: So it’s clear: You don’t have 17 any intention of asking him the specifics about 18 the document that you’ve attached as Exhibit 3? 19 MR. KORTE: I have tons of expectation – 20 questions to ask about the document itself; but in 21 the context of his day-to-day employment, I’m 22 entitled to take the discovery in the way and the 23 manner I want to – 24 MR. RODEMS: No, you’re not. 25 MR. KORTE: I am. 22 1 MR. RODEMS: No, you’re not. 2 MR. KORTE: Well, that’s why we’re terminating 3 the deposition. 4 MR. RODEMS: You’re governed by the same Rules 5 of Procedure that I’m going by. I will not stop 6 you from asking any relevant questions about 7 Exhibit 3, and you have a full and fair 8 opportunity to do it.

9 If you choose to terminate the deposition and 10 not ask questions about this, I will ask the judge 11 to not allow you to re-depose my client because 12 that is also harassing and burdensome. 13 MR. KORTE: Well, in this particular case, 14 sir, I’ve asked him about how he does his job when 15 he signs these types of documents, and we’ll get 16 into the specifics of how he signed this 17 particular document thereafter; but, if you’re not 18 going to let me answer — ask questions about how 19 he does his job in this particular case, I’m going 20 to terminate the deposition. 21 If you need to file a protective order or 22 prevent me from taking it in the future – 23 MR. RODEMS: Just so that we’re clear: 24 Exhibit 3 is the assignment of mortgage that 25 Mr. Bly caused to be signed relating to Zaidy 23 1 Gantt, G-a-n-t-t, and Mr. Bly is prepared to 2 answer whatever questions you may have on this 3 document, including how his signature was placed 4 on this document and the circumstances surrounding 5 this document to the extent he has any knowledge 6 of it. 7 MR. KORTE: Well, I don’t agree that that’s

8 going to be sufficient. 9 MR. RODEMS: Okay. 10 MR. KORTE: We’re off. 11 (Discussion off the record.) 12 THE REPORTER: Do you want to go back on? 13 MR. RODEMS: Yeah. On the record. We do 14 intend to read, and I’d like to mark and attach, 15 as Mr. Bly’s exhibit, a copy of the transcript 16 from the hearing in front of Judge Lazarus, 17 L-a-z-a-r-u-s, dated Tuesday, June 7, 2011. 18 MR. KORTE: All right. We’re done. 19 (Deposition terminated at 2:12 p.m.) 20 (Bly’s Exhibit No. 1 was marked for 21 identification.) 22 23 24 25 24 1 CERTIFICATE OF OATH 2 3 4 STATE OF FLORIDA 5 COUNTY OF HILLSBOROUGH 6

7 8 I, Lisa A. Simons-Clark, RPR, CRR, Notary 9 Public, State of Florida, certify that BRYAN BLY 10 personally appeared before me on the 18th day of August 11 2011 and was duly sworn. 12 13 14 ______________________________ 15 Lisa A. Simons-Clark, RPR, CRR 16 Notary Public – State of Florida 17 My Commission Expires: 7/1/12 18 Commission No. DD 796785 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 25 1 REPORTER’S CERTIFICATE 2 3 STATE OF FLORIDA 4 COUNTY OF HILLSBOROUGH 5 I, Lisa A. Simons-Clark, Registered

6 Professional Reporter, Certified Realtime Reporter, certify that I was authorized to and did 7 stenographically report the deposition of BRYAN BLY; that a review of the transcript was requested; and that 8 the transcript is a true and complete record of my stenographic notes. 9 10 I further certify that I am not a relative, 11 employee, attorney, or counsel of any of the parties, nor am I a relative or employee of any of the parties’ 12 attorney or counsel connected with the action, nor am I financially interested in the action. 13 14 Dated this ____ day of August 2011. 15 16 17 _____________________________ Lisa A. Simons-Clark, RPR, CRR 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 21 the foregoing document and that the facts stated in it are true. 22 23

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful