In re JPMorgan Chase Mortg. Modification Litig.

Full title: In re: JPMORGAN CHASE MORTGAGE MODIFICATION LITIGATION

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

Date published: Jun 1, 2012

CASE NO. 11-md-02290-RGS (D. Mass. Jun. 1, 2012)

Opinion

CASE NO. 11-md-02290-RGS

06-01-2012

In re: JPMORGAN CHASE MORTGAGE MODIFICATION LITIGATION

Richard G. Stearns

ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL

PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

STEARNS, D.J.

Plaintiffs seek to compel all documents, including all emails and preparatory drafts of JPMorgan Chase's (Chase) polices and procedures implementing HAMP, as opposed to the operating versions given to Chase's HAMP personnel. Plaintiffs seek this material for the following RFP Nos.: 13, 16, 24, 26, 27, 29, 31, 32, 55, 57, 60-62, 64, 66-69, and 71. The motion to compel all "email, drafts, commentary, and analysis" is DENIED with respect to Nos. 13, 16, 29, 31, 32, 55, 57,¹ 60-62, 64, 66-69. This ruling is not intended to lessen the obligation of Chase to respond to the request for operating versions of these documents (as defendant has represented it will to the plaintiffs. The court concludes, however, that the request for every "email, draft, commentary, and analysis" is overbroad, excessively burdensome, and likely to delay the progress of the litigation without conferring any corresponding benefit in terms of shaping plaintiffs' case.

1 The court notes that Chase has represented that it will produce all loan origination files for the named plaintiffs. Chase is also ordered to respond to Nos. 55, 57, 62, 64, 69, and 71 with respect to the named plaintiffs.

With respect to RFP Nos. 24, 26, and 27, the motion is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part. Chase will produce each formally issued change to its HAMP procedures or processes provided to customer service personnel working with borrowers during the relevant time period at issue (February of 2009 - present).

Plaintiffs seek to compel loan level modification data Chase previously submitted to the Department of the Treasury and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, in response to RFP Nos. 44, 45, and 46. Plaintiffs' motion is DENIED.

Plaintiffs seek to compel all individual borrower complaints (redacted, as appropriate) in response to RFP No. 47. This motion is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part. Chase will produce all HAMP related complaints from borrowers kept by Chase in the regular course of its business.

SO ORDERED.

Richard G. Stearns

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE