Matches in SCALES for { <http://schemas.scales-okn.org/rdf/scales#DocketEntry/ilnd;;1:16-cv-08074_de96> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 6 of
6
with 100 items per page.
- ilnd;;1:16-cv-08074_de96 RegisterActionDate "2019-08-05" @default.
- ilnd;;1:16-cv-08074_de96 RegisterActionDescriptionText "MINUTE entry before the Honorable Manish S. Shah: Plaintiff's motion for a protective order 88 is denied. Defendant's discovery requests are fairly covered by the punitive-damages umbrella. Plaintiff's actual injury and plaintiff's understanding of Ocwen's conduct are relevant factors. Plaintiff need only provide answers within her knowledge or control. Plaintiff must answer all outstanding requests (subject to the parties meeting and conferring to limit the burden and to speed up compliance). Plaintiff's motion to compel 86 is denied in part, granted in limited part. Plaintiff's argument that evidence related to RealServicing is relevant to punitive damages under Rule 404(b) is not persuasive for purposes of discovery, because the inference that this alleged misconduct bears on the intent or knowledge at issue in this case is not direct. Instead, the inference goes through a propensity inference. Ocwen's misconduct in one area makes it more likely that it intended or knew of its misconduct toward plaintiff only because it suggests Ocwen has a character trait to act wantonly. The Illinois Consumer Fraud Act's reference to general consumer harm is tied to the business practice at issue (which in this case is not RealServicing). Admissibility and discoverability are different, of course, but proportionality is a limiting principle to discovery and the RealServicing issues are too collateral to be worth the effort. Plaintiff already has access to other evidence of Ocwen misconduct and may make a 404(b) argument for admissibility at the appropriate time, but additional discovery on that issue will not be compelled. Defendant shall, however, answer Interrogatory 10, limited to calendar year 2015 (the relevant year in this case), because the staffing levels of the compliance department may bear on the willfulness of errors in handling plaintiff's loan modification. In addition, defendant shall state, in a supplemental response to Interrogatories 11-14, the number of Senior Loan Analysts assigned to litigation matters from 2016 to 2019 (the years when this matter was in litigation), their general role as it relates to litigation, and their average caseload of matters in litigation. Defendant is not required to name the analysts, provide contact information, or identify every instance of testimony. The point here is to provide some background to allow plaintiff to cross-examine Ocwen's assigned corporate representative. The court is satisfied that Ocwen adequately responded to the requests for admission, and will not compel further response. Both sides shall complete their supplemental productions in response to this order by September 19, 2019. A status hearing is set for September 6, 2019, at 9:30 a.m. No other discovery requests may be propounded. Discovery is closed except for the matters referenced in this order. Notices mailed. (psm, ) (Entered: 08/05/2019)" @default.
- ilnd;;1:16-cv-08074_de96 AdministrativeID "95" @default.
- ilnd;;1:16-cv-08074_de96 OntologyLabel minute_entry @default.
- ilnd;;1:16-cv-08074_de96 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilnd;;1:16-cv-08074_de87 @default.
- ilnd;;1:16-cv-08074_de96 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilnd;;1:16-cv-08074_de89 @default.