Case Number: GC047773

Motion to compel further responses to Requests Nos. 1, 2 and 14 of the Third Set of Requests for Production of documents is granted. The objections are overruled; however, the terms of the Stipulated Protective Order may be invoked where appropriate. Defendant is ordered to provide further written responses, and to permit inspection and copying of all responsive documents within 10 days.

As to Request No. 1, the court finds “general practices” to be vague and ambiguous.
The court orders further production of responsive documents setting forth or describing policies, procedures and eligibility criteria that would be applicable to plaintiff for defendant’s loan modification program during the period of January 1, 2009 and December 31, 2011.
As to Request Nos. 2 and 14, defendant is ordered to provide all information requested and to fully comply with CCP section 2031.220.

The court finds that the documents sought in the requests are discoverable, in that they relate to loan modification eligibility requirements applicable to plaintiff, not a third party, seek to explore the truth or falsity of certain representations alleged to have been made by defendant, as well as circumstantial evidence of intent not to perform an alleged promise, and seek information concerning plaintiff’s allegation that defendant’s agent was poorly and inadequately trained to perform her duties as a Loss Mitigation Specialist. The court is not persuaded by defendant’s argument that the documents concerning the agent’s training are not relevant because plaintiff was not promised a loan modification and has not alleged he qualified for one. That argument ignores the allegations of the complaint that a misunderstanding was created concerning whether plaintiff had 30 days after the final payment was made to obtain a determination concerning his qualification for a loan modification before he had to pay the arrearages in full to reinstate the loan and avoid foreclosure. In addition, whether plaintiff qualified for a loan modification could be relevant to the issue of whether he has suffered any damage.

Last, defendant has failed to meet its burden to establish that the documents sought contain trade secrets or that the production sought is overly broad or burdensome.

Monetary sanctions in the amount of $3560 are awarded in favor of plaintiff and against defendant CitiMortgage, Inc., and its counsel of record, jointly and severally, payable within 30 days. CCP sections 2031.310(h), 2023.010(e) and (f), 2023.030(a).