Matches in SCALES for { <scales/DocketEntry/ilnd;;1:11-cv-07590_de368> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 4 of
4
with 100 items per page.
- ilnd;;1:11-cv-07590_de368 RegisterActionDate "2015-03-11" @default.
- ilnd;;1:11-cv-07590_de368 RegisterActionDescriptionText "MINUTE entry before the Honorable Young B. Kim: Defendants' motion to order the deposition of KPMG 361 is denied. The subpoena served on KPMG is quashed only to the extent that it seeks oral testimony. On December 19, 2014, the court ordered the parties to identify and to schedule the remaining depositions they require in this case. (R. 328.) In response to this order the parties filed a joint status report on January 19, 2015, listing the depositions each side requires. (R. 338.) Defendants did not identify KPMG as a deponent in this status report. (Id. at 2.) However, Defendants now argue that they should be permitted to depose KPMG because KPMG's deposition may reveal relevant information to challenge the payments FDIC made to UCB and because, according to Defendants, they did not become aware of KPMG's significance until February 19, 2015. At the motion hearing, Defendants added that by deposing KPMG they hope to gain information pertaining to FDIC's failure to mitigate damages, UCB's independent contribution to increasing damages, and KPMG's take on an internal FDIC memorandum criticizing UCB's compliance with the loss share agreement. FDIC objects to this additional deposition for two reasons: (1) Defendants did not identify KPMG as a deponent by January 19, 2015, as required; and (2) this additional deposition will not lead to any relevant information because the assigned District Judge has struck the defenses of failure to mitigate and superceding-intervening cause. The court agrees with FDIC and sustains its objections. First, Defendants knew of KPMG's criticisms of UCB's lack of compliance as of October 2014. Second, FDIC is correct that the assigned District Judge struck the defenses of failure to mitigate and intervening cause more than two years ago. (R. 168.) Third, the court is not persuaded that a deposition of KPMG is necessary in light of FDIC's in-court representation that it will be willing to stipulate to the necessary foundation for admitting the KPMG reports (if permitted at trial) and the lack of any arguments or information that the reports themselves are not adequate. A status hearing is scheduled for April 3, 2015, at 11:00 a.m. in courtroom 1019. FDIC should be prepared to report to the court whether any of its five experts need to supplement or modify their reports. Mailed notice (ma,) (Entered: 03/11/2015)" @default.
- ilnd;;1:11-cv-07590_de368 AdministrativeID "364" @default.
- ilnd;;1:11-cv-07590_de368 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilnd;;1:11-cv-07590_de365 @default.