Wrightv.Suntrust Bank

United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta DivisionJul 21, 2006
Civil Action No. 1:04-CV-2258-CC (N.D. Ga. Jul. 21, 2006)

Civil Action No. 1:04-CV-2258-CC.

July 21, 2006


ORDER


CLARENCE COOPER, District Judge

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery [Doc. No. 51]. Plaintiff's Motion to Compel is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, as follows:

1. General Policies and Procedures

In Request No. 15 (SunTrust Mortgage), Plaintiff seeks documents addressing policies, practices and procedures relating to loan application processing and training for the preceding five years. Defendant SunTrust Mortgage agreed to produce documents responsive to this request, and the Court understands that some responsive documents have been produced. As an initial matter, the Court finds that this request is overly broad. Plaintiff submitted her loan application in June 2004. The only policies and procedures relevant to this action are those that applied to Plaintiff's 2004 loan application. Accordingly, to the extent that SunTrust Mortgage's production is incomplete and additional responsive documents exist with regard to 2004 policies, practices, and procedures, the Court DIRECTS SunTrust Mortgage to produce responsive documents within five (5) days of the date of this Order.

2. Prior Complaints and Compliance Reviews

In Interrogatory Nos. 4 (SunTrust Bank) and 9 (SunTrust Mortgage), Plaintiff seeks information relating to complaints, investigations, actions and allegations made regarding the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and/or Regulation B during the preceding five years. Defendants argue that five years is an overly-broad period of time and that the information is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This Court agrees that five years is an overly-broad period of time but nonetheless finds information relating to complaints and allegations regarding the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and/or Regulation B during 2003-2004 to be discoverable. Defendants are INSTRUCTED to respond to Interrogatory Nos. 4 and 9 within five (5) days of the date of this Order, subject to the limitation described herein. The Court notes that Defendants may address privacy concerns by redaction and that a confidentiality order has been entered in this case.

In Request No. 17 (SunTrust Mortgage), Plaintiff seeks internal self or external audits of credit applications, evaluations, extension and collection programs, rules, policies, procedures, and standards in each of the preceding five years. Defendant SunTrust Mortgage objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, irrelevant, and privileged. SunTrust Mortgage also contends that the request is vague. The Court agrees that the request is overly broad and vague; however, the Court finds that information related to internal or external audits of credit applications and procedures related to credit applications to be discoverable. Defendant SunTrust Mortgage is DIRECTED to provide such responsive information to Plaintiff, if such responsive information exists, within five (5) days of the date of this Order.

In Request No. 18 (SunTrust Mortgage), Plaintiff seeks copies of Community Reinvestment Act Performance Evaluations. Defendant SunTrust Mortgage states that it has produced the requested information as to the years 2004 and 2005, and the Court finds that earlier information would not lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff's Motion to Compel as to Request No. 18 is therefore DENIED.

3. Database Information

In Interrogatory Nos. 5 (SunTrust Bank) and 10 (SunTrust Mortgage), Plaintiff asks for the identity of any and all databases shared by Defendants. Defendants have provided significant information about the databases used by Defendants, both in their initial discovery responses and in a supplemental letter, and the Court finds that Defendants have complied with this request. Plaintiff's motion to compel is DENIED as to Interrogatory Nos. 5 and 10.

4. Information Relating to Loan Officer Williams a. Interrogatory No. 5 (SunTrust Mortgage)

Plaintiff asks Defendant SunTrust Mortgage to identify persons employed as loan officers in the same office or branch as Mr. Williams, from July 1, 2002 to September 30, 2004. Defendant contends that the interrogatory is overly broad, irrelevant, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The Court agrees that the request is overly broad but finds that the identity of other loan officers in Mr. William's office is discoverable. Defendant is ORDERED to respond to Interrogatory No. 5 within five (5) days of the date of this Order, with the limitation that Defendant need only identify those loan officers employed in the same office or branch as Mr. Williams from April 30, 2004 to September 30, 2004 (during Mr. Williams' last six months of employment with SunTrust Mortgage).

b. Interrogatory No. 11 (SunTrust Mortgage)

Plaintiff asks Defendant SunTrust Mortgage to identify all mortgage loan processors employed in the Operations Department in Georgia in June 2004. SunTrust Mortgage objects on the grounds that the interrogatory is overly broad, irrelevant, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff argues that the witnesses may have information about training and observations of Mr. Williams' procedures in submitting loan applications. The Court agrees that the information is discoverable and INSTRUCTS Defendant to respond to Interrogatory No. 11 within five (5) days of the date of this Order.

c. Request No. 25 (SunTrust Mortgage)

Plaintiff seeks evaluations received by Mr. Williams during his employment with SunTrust Mortgage. Defendant SunTrust Mortgage argues that the request is irrelevant, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and that the evaluations are personal and private to Mr. Williams. Notwithstanding the privacy concerns raised by SunTrust Mortgage, the Court finds that this information is discoverable and INSTRUCTS Defendant SunTrust Mortgage to provide responsive documents within five (5) days of the date of this Order.

d. Request Nos. 30 and 31 (SunTrust Mortgage)

Plaintiff requests that Defendant SunTrust Mortgage produce all loan applications obtained by Mr. Williams by telephone in June 2004 (Request No. 30) and all loan applications that Mr. Williams transmitted to the Operations Department in June 2004 (Request No. 31.). SunTrust Mortgage objects to these requests on the grounds that they are overly broad, irrelevant, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. SunTrust Mortgage additionally argues that the Requests seek the disclosure of third party financial information and would be unduly invasive to the privacy rights of the third parties. SunTrust Mortgage states, however, that there are no documents responsive to this request.

Even if responsive documents exist, the Court finds that the requests seek confidential banking records and notes that Plaintiff has failed to comply with O.C.G.A. § 7-1-360. The Court further finds that the requests are unduly invasive to the privacy rights of third parties and that the amount of redaction needed to protect the privacy interest of third parties would render the requested information meaningless. Plaintiff's Motion to Compel with respect to Request Nos. 30 and 31 is therefore DENIED.

e. Request No. 3 (SunTrust Bank)

In this request, Plaintiff seeks all loan applications Mr. Williams submitted to SunTrust Bank in June 2004, the month in which Plaintiff applied for a loan. Defendant SunTrust Bank responds that Mr. Williams was not employed by SunTrust Bank and therefore SunTrust Bank has none of the requested information. Plaintiff's motion to compel with respect to Request No. 3 is accordingly DENIED.

f. Request No. 28 (SunTrust Mortgage)

Plaintiff has requested documents relating to complaints filed against Mr. Williams. Defendants state that this information has been produced, and Plaintiff states that Defendants have not produced this information. The Court INSTRUCTS Defendant SunTrust Mortgage to produce responsive information, to the extent such information has not been previously produced, within five (5) days of the date of this Order. The Court notes that a confidentiality order has been entered in this case.

The Court notes that Plaintiff's Motion to Compel was filed outside of the discovery period in this action. Although the Court will overlook this violation of Local Rule 37.1 for the purposes of the instant motion, no additional discovery will be permitted except as mutually agreed by the parties. To the extent that Plaintiff requests an opportunity to proceed with a 30(b)(6) deposition that was not properly noticed during the discovery period, this request is DENIED.

The Court notes that Plaintiff has been granted an extension of time to file a response to Defendants' motion for summary judgment. In light of the Court's ruling as described herein, the Court will extend the response period an additional ten (10) days to permit Plaintiff to review the supplemental discovery responses. Accordingly, Plaintiff's response to Defendants' motion for summary judgment must be filed within thirty (30) days of the date of this order. Defendants may file a reply as permitted by Local Rule 7.1. The Court will hear oral argument on Defendants' motion for summary judgment on September 18, 2006 at 9:30a.m.

SO ORDERED.