Pinson v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, National Association et alRESPONSE in Opposition re MOTION to Compel Better Answers to Interrogatories MOTION to Produce MOTION an in Camera Inspection of DocumentsS.D. Fla.January 14, 2015UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION JOHN PINSON, Plaintiff, Case No. 9:13-cv-80720-KAM v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, a financial institution; CPCC DELAWARE BUSINESS TRUST a/k/a CPCC DELAWARE STATUTORY TRUST, an unknown entity; and JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., a publicly held company, Defendants. ______________________________________/ DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED MOTION TO COMPEL ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY Defendant, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (“Chase”), submits this response in opposition to Plaintiff’s Amended Motion to Compel Better Answers to Interrogatories, Production of Documents or, in the Alternative, for an In Camera Inspection of Documents [DE 100]. In response to the permissible interrogatory questions and discovery requests regarding the limited issue of the authenticity of the mortgage and whether Chase was the original lender, Chase served responses and responsive production that fell within the scope of this narrow issue. Specifically, Chase provided the name and position of its employee who responded to the interrogatories, identified itself as the original lender, and agreed to make the original note and mortgage available to Plaintiff to view. At the time it responded, Chase provided a copy of these original loan documents. Then, on December 12, Plaintiff came to the offices of the undersigned counsel, inspected the original note and mortgage, and asked for and received a color copy of both, front and back. Case 9:13-cv-80720-KAM Document 105 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/14/2015 Page 1 of 3 2 Any additional discovery beyond what has been provided is objectionable; the materials sought are outside of the scope of permissible discovery for what has been raised by the filing of a certified copy of the mortgage in support of the converted motion to dismiss. Chase responded to the portions of the interrogatories that were proper and objected to the remainder, and Plaintiff does not and cannot identify any unanswered interrogatory question that is limited to the narrow permissible issue: for interrogatory 1, the address of the responding Chase employee is irrelevant; for interrogatory 9, the only relevant information is who first held an ownership interest in the loan—the original lender; for interrogatory 14, there was no relevant question, but Chase nevertheless identified the mark as contained on a sticker affixed to the original mortgage and then provided an opportunity to examine the mortgage. In response to the request for production, Chase made the original note and mortgage available for inspection and copying, and objected to the production of any additional documents, in accordance with the Magistrate Judge’s protective order [DE 83]. On January 5, the Court entered an Order [DE 102] reaffirming its position as to the scope of discovery—denying Plaintiff any further discovery and providing though January 23, 2015, for Plaintiff to respond to the converted motion to dismiss. In light of that Order and the Court’s previous rulings on discovery [DE 75 and 83], Plaintiff does not believe that any further response to Plaintiff’s vexatious motion to compel is warranted, but requests that the Court provide Chase with an additional opportunity to respond if the Court requires a further response to anything raised by Plaintiff in its motion. Simply, and in conclusion, Plaintiff having received responsive discovery within the scope outlined by the Court and having inspected the original note and mortgage, should not be permitted any additional discovery. Case 9:13-cv-80720-KAM Document 105 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/14/2015 Page 2 of 3 3 WHEREFORE, Chase seeks the entry of an Order denying Plaintiff’s Amended Motion to Compel Better Answers to Interrogatories, Production of Documents or, in the Alternative, for an In Camera Inspection of Documents. GRAYROBINSON, P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1000 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 761-8111 Facsimile: (954) 761-8112 Counsel for Defendants s/Michael D. Lessne Michael D. Lessne Fla. Bar No. 0073881 michael.lessne@gray-robinson.com CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 14th day of January, 2015, a true copy of the foregoing was served (a) electronically upon all parties that have registered for the CM/ECF service list and (b) by first class mail and email to: John Pinson 526 Westwood Road West Palm Beach, FL 33401 john@pinson.com s/Michael D. Lessne Michael D. Lessne \823538\5200 - # 3371228 v1 Case 9:13-cv-80720-KAM Document 105 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/14/2015 Page 3 of 3