Opinion
Civil Action No. 03-1605.
July 13, 2004
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
On June 14, the undersigned partially denied Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel production of documents. In doing so, the court explained that the Plaintiffs' requests were overly broad and burdensome. In the requests at issue, the Plaintiffs, a re-lender which had a line of credit through Summit, sought information regarding Fleet's merger with Summit Bank, Summit's acquisition of Fremont, and the alleged termination of Summit's re-lending business by Fleet. The Plaintiffs sought this discovery to support a theory that Fleet's mistreatment of Texas Capital was "part of a systematic plan . . . to eliminate the re-lending business of Summit Bank." The case at bar, however, involves a single line of credit between Texas Capital and Fleet. The court held that "[t]he problem with these requests is that production of such documents would appear to shed no light whatsoever on the single contract/credit line between Texas Capital and Fleet, or on whether Texas Capital defaulted on the credit."
The Plaintiffs have now sought reconsideration of this decision, arguing that their Complaint was sufficient to support a theory that the actions taken by Fleet with reference to Texas Capital were part of a larger plan to eliminate the re-lending business completely. Despite their assertions to the contrary, the Plaintiffs never alleged any conspiracy based on Fleet's desire to shed its re-lending business. Rather, in the two paragraphs of the Complaint now cited by the Plaintiffs, they identified three other re-lenders with whom Plaintiffs alleged Fleet had engaged in similar fraudulent conduct and alleged that Fleet's motive for its treatment of Texas Capital was related to its treatment of other re-lenders. (Complaint, at ¶¶ 113, 114). Never did Plaintiffs allege that Fleet's ulterior motive was to shed its re-lending business.
Now, Plaintiffs have attached the Complaints filed by two of the three re-lenders identified in their own Complaint. It appears that these two entities are alleging conduct on Fleet's part similar to that for which Plaintiffs have brought suit. In one of the two attached Complaints, the OSA Complaint, the Plaintiff has alleged a more widespread scheme to "abandon the rediscount market." (OSA Complaint, at ¶ 6). In the Charlotte Complaint, the Plaintiff claimed that Fleet attempted to sell off its rediscount portfolio. (Charlotte Complaint, at ¶ 25(a))
This evidence, which does not appear to be newly discovered as required for reconsideration, see Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir. 1985) (the purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence), does not alter the fact that this case involves one line of credit, the actions of that one customer, and the actions of Fleet with respect to that one customer. The theories of recovery presented in the Complaint pertain to only this one line of credit and the parties to that loan agreement. At this point, any marginal relevance that the information concerning the entire rediscount program has is clearly outweighed by the burden and expense of producing such documentation. See New Park Entertainment L.L.C. v. Electric Factory, 2000 WL 62315 (E.D. Pa Jan. 13, 2000) (Rueter, J.) (citing City of Waltham v. U.S. Postal Serv., 11 F.3d 235, 243 (1st Cir. 1993) ("The court has broad power to control discovery. In doing so, it can weigh discovery burdens against the likelihood of finding relevant material.") Therefore, the motion with respect to Requests 6, 7, 8, 9, and 11 will be denied.
With respect to the requests for documents regarding Msrrs. Cottone and Friedman, Requests 13 through 22, the Plaintiffs have now offered to narrow their Requests. Originally, the Plaintiffs sought the entire employment file for each, any documentation concerning their termination, any agreements that the Defendants had with them, and any communications between either of the two and the Defendants. (Documents Requests 13-22). Again, we found these requests to be overbroad and suggested that counsel "narrow these requests to limit the information sought to the facts of this case and the relationship between the Plaintiffs and Defendants." (Memorandum and Order, at 3).
In the Motion for Reconsideration, the Plaintiffs state that they are amenable to narrowing their requests. However, even their newest proposal, which does not appear to have been presented to the Defendants, narrows the request only with respect to time. It still seeks any and all information relating to the elimination of the re-lending business. As we stated before, and for the reasons discussed earlier in this Memorandum, the discovery should be limited to the facts of this case and the relationship between these parties.
An appropriate Order follows.