United States District Court, D. Kansas
RANDALL A. and AMY L. SCHNEIDER, Plaintiffs,
CITIMORTGAGE, INC., et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Gary Sebelius U.S. Magistrate Judge
matter comes before the court upon plaintiffs' Motion for
Finding of Violation of Rule 30(b)(6)(ECF No. 419).
Plaintiffs contend that Primerica, Inc.'s
(“Primerica's”) designee as a corporate
representative under Fed. R. Civ. 30(b)(6) was unprepared for
the deposition that occurred on December 29, 2016. For the
following reasons, this motion is granted in part and denied
Randall A. Schneider and Amy L. Schneider, bring claims
against defendants, CitiMortgage, Inc.
("CitiMortage"); Citibank, National Association
("Citibank"); Citigroup, Inc.
("Citigroup"); and Primerica Financial Services
Home Mortgages, Inc. ("Primerica"), for breach of
contract and for violations of the Kansas Consumer Protection
Act ("KCPA"). The claims involve defendants'
alleged misconduct in handling the Schneiders'
residential mortgage loan, and their 2010 loan refinance. The
Schneiders allege that they were wrongfully assessed
overcharges and fees and they were denied a loan refinance
for which they were qualified.
in this case has been difficult. Both sides are responsible
for the many problems that have occurred. The court has
repeatedly attempted to get counsel to work cooperatively,
but success has been limited. Rather than recount all of the
transgressions, the court shall turn immediately to the facts
that underlie the instant motion.
parties' efforts to complete the Rule 30(b)(6)
depositions have been particularly difficult, to say the
least. In August 2014, plaintiffs served their Rule 30(b)(6)
notices. The defendants responded with a motion to
quash the deposition notices. On September 29, 2014, the court
conducted a telephone conference on this motion and other
matters in the case. As a result of the telephone conference,
plaintiffs agreed to withdraw the Rule 30(b)(6) notices. The
court then denied the motion to quash as moot. On March 12,
2015, plaintiffs again filed Rule 30(b)(6)
notices. Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Conference
to address the disputes concerning the Rule 30(b)(6)
topics. Defendants then filed another motion for
protective order and/or to quash plaintiffs' deposition
notices. Defendants again raised issues of
overbreadth, undue burden and relevance.
January 28, 2016, the court denied plaintiffs' motion for
conference, finding that a telephone conference would not aid
the parties. In ruling on that motion, the court noted
that “[t]hroughout this litigation the parties have
failed to cooperatively resolve
disputes.” The court directed the parties to resolve
their disputes about plaintiffs' topics with some
additional guidance provided in the order. The court ordered
plaintiffs to file corrected Rule 30(b)(6) notices that
complied with the court's directives by February 22,
2016. The court directed plaintiffs to narrowly
tailor their topics to comply with the “reasonable
particularity” requirements of Rule
30(b)(6). The court also found that
plaintiffs' notice violated the court's prior orders
to limit discovery to the claims still at issue in the
case. The court noted that if the defendants
still sought a protective order after the plaintiffs'
renewed notice, the parties were to confer and promptly seek
to resolve their dispute. The court stated:
Only after the parties have conducted this second, good-faith
discussion will the court consider any additional motion on
the issue. If briefing is necessary, the defendants shall
list the topics for which they seek a protective order by
number. Then for each topic they shall be required to show
good cause why the court should issue a protective order
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)'s enumerated
categories: annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue
burden or expense.
were held by the parties after the court's order of
January 28, 2016. The parties conferred in excess of six
hours in conferences on February 22, 2016, and March 2, 2016.
After the first conference, plaintiffs provided a revised
list, which the parties discussed at the second conference.
On March 3, 2016, plaintiffs served another list of topics
which included a number of new topics.
April 7, 2016, plaintiff filed a notice to take the
Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(b)(6) deposition of Primerica's corporate
designee on May 10, 2016. The notice listed 23 topics
for examination.On May 6, 2016, Primerica filed a motion
for protective order and a motion to quash.Primerica
sought protection from and to quash certain topics in
plaintiffs' notice. On May 9, 2016, the court stayed the
case after the parties sought mediation. Mediation
occurred on June 23, 2016. On July 6, 2016, the court was
advised that the mediation was unsuccessful.
October 31, 2016, the court granted Primerica's motion in
part and denied it in part.The court quashed 13 of the
topics designated in plaintiffs' notice. The court denied
Primerica's motion concerning the following topics: 13ii,
48, 49, 49yy and 50. The court directed the parties to
complete the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition by December 31,
2016. The deposition was subsequently
scheduled for December 29, 2016.
produced Michael Turnage, a 30-year employee. Currently, he
is in charge of field education. This position involves
preparing new recruits for “life pre-licensing
training.” He has been in this position for three
years. Prior to that, he was involved in marketing
deposition ultimately proceeded on the following twelve
9. Whether any marketing agreements existed, and if so, the
roles assigned to each or between each the defendants
(CitiGroup, CitiMortgage, CitiBank, Primerica) or
CitiAssurance (the PWP administrator or the a.k.a. American
Health and Life Insurance Company) for the products (or
features, referred to as the "PWP" waiver, $MART
Equity Builder) on the Schneider 2007 loan or the 2010
10. The role and relationship of Primerica to CitiGroup, Inc.
as it relates to the Schneider's 2007 loan or 2010
13ii. All sources of indirect and direct revenue and total
amount of revenue anticipated to be received by Primerica as
a result from the Schneiders' initial loan application to
Citibank (or Primerica) in or around May 2010, if the
application had been approved.
41. Identify, describe and explain the terms, "Smart
Loan Center", "Smart Solutions",
"Citi-Quick", E-ZPay, and Timely Rewards as these
applied to the Schneiders loan.
47ww. During May 2010 (the timeframe of the Schneiders'
2010 loan refinance application to Citibank submitted through
Primerica), describe whether there were two application
processes and the disclosures, or lack of disclosures,
involved in each.
47zz. The corporate structure as between Primerica and
Citibank, CitiMortgage, and CitiGroup in 2007 and 2010.
48. Explain and identify all sources of income received by
Ms.Cobb, by Primerica related to the Schneiders 2007 mortgage
loan, the Schneiders investments with Ms. Cobb, the
Schneiders' insurance policies with Ms. Cobb, and the
anticipated revenue for the Schneiders' 2010 refinance.
48xx.The timing of disclosures if disclosures were required
in connection with a loan refinance application submitted
through Primerica to Citibank during May 2010 (the timeframe
of the Schneiders' 2010 loan refinance application to
49. Explain and identify Primerica structure by divisions and
associates by job category that make up the Primerica entity
that dealt with Randal and Amy Schneider in the 2007 loan and
2010 refinance if any structural changes.
49yy. All direct and indirect sources of revenue and total
amount of revenue anticipated by Primerica to be received by
Primerica or Kerry Cobb in connection with the Schneiders
' initial refinance loan application to Citibank in or
around May 2010, had the application been approved.
50. Identify and describe the Primerica compensation as it
relates to the percentage in accordance with the
organizational chart. (Divisions and for associates,
employees, vice presidents, or other representatives that
make up the Primerica entity including Ms. Cobb as the only
62. Explain the features of the 2007 loan Primerica arranged
for the Schneiders through Kerry Cobb including the
$.M.A.R.T. Equity Builder, $.M.A.R.T. loan, the Payment
Waiver Protection Program and any other names used to
describe these programs.
their motion, plaintiffs raise a variety of arguments.
Plaintiffs suggest that Mr. Turnage was not adequately
prepared because he had no knowledge of home loans.
Plaintiffs point out that Mr. Turnage's experience was in
the area of life insurance, securities and human resources.
Plaintiffs also suggest that Mr. Turnage did not adequately
review the relevant documents. Plaintiffs specifically point
to Mr. Turnage's failure to consider a 2006 marketing