Filed: Apr. 18, 2019
Latest Update: Apr. 18, 2019
Summary: ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO COMPEL ROBERT S. LASNIK , District Judge . This matter comes before the Court on a motion to compel filed by defendants HSBC Bank USA, N.A. as Trustee on Behalf of Ace Securities Corp. Home Equity Loan Trust and for the Registered Holders of Ace Securities Corp. Home Equity Loan Trust, Series 2007-WM2, Asset Backed Pass-Through Certificates ("HSBC"), MERSCORP Holdings, Inc. and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (collectively, "MERS"), and Ocw
Summary: ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO COMPEL ROBERT S. LASNIK , District Judge . This matter comes before the Court on a motion to compel filed by defendants HSBC Bank USA, N.A. as Trustee on Behalf of Ace Securities Corp. Home Equity Loan Trust and for the Registered Holders of Ace Securities Corp. Home Equity Loan Trust, Series 2007-WM2, Asset Backed Pass-Through Certificates ("HSBC"), MERSCORP Holdings, Inc. and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (collectively, "MERS"), and Ocwe..
More
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO COMPEL
ROBERT S. LASNIK, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on a motion to compel filed by defendants HSBC Bank USA, N.A. as Trustee on Behalf of Ace Securities Corp. Home Equity Loan Trust and for the Registered Holders of Ace Securities Corp. Home Equity Loan Trust, Series 2007-WM2, Asset Backed Pass-Through Certificates ("HSBC"), MERSCORP Holdings, Inc. and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (collectively, "MERS"), and Ocwen Mortgage Servicing, LLC ("Ocwen") (collectively, "defendants"). Dkt. #54.
Defendants filed their motion to compel discovery responses from plaintiff Jessica Saepoff on October 31, 2018. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37. On December 5, 2018, plaintiff filed a response.1 Dkt. #58. The delay was apparently due to counsel's litigation schedule and personal medical issues, as well as a notification from local counsel at the time, Jill Smith, of her intent to withdraw from the case. Id. at 2. The response also stated that plaintiff's counsel intended to serve the discovery responses within ten days; i.e., on December 15, 2018. Id. Defendants did not file a reply. The Court accordingly finds that the motion is moot, although plaintiff is advised to adhere to her deadlines in the future.
For all the foregoing reasons, defendants' motion is DENIED.
FootNotes
1. Plaintiff's response was late. See LCR 7(e). However, for the sake of completeness, the Court will take plaintiff's response into consideration.
