Banking,
Civil Litigation
Jan. 22, 2020
Sacramento seeks extensive discovery in suit against Wells Fargo
The bank argued for phased discovery, citing the two-year statute of limitations in the state law cited by the city, the Fair Employment and Housing Act, and the court’s broad discretion to limit discovery.
The Sacramento city attorney's office has filed an opposition motion seeking expansive discovery in its case alleging discriminatory loan practices by Wells Fargo & Co.
City Attorney Susana Alcala Wood's motion filed Friday was liberally sprinkled with terms such as "smokescreen" and "irrelevant." She was responding to a Dec. 20 motion by the bank to limit discovery "to loans issued between February 23, 2016 through February 23, 2018." City of Sacramento v. Wells Fargo & Co., 2:18-cv-00416-KJM-AC (E.D. Cal., filed Feb. 23, 2018).
The bank's motion, filed by K&L Gates LLP partner Edward P. Sangster, argued for phased discovery. He cited the two-year statute of limitations in the state law cited by the city, the Fair Employment and Housing Act, and the court's broad discretion to limit discovery.
Sangster also noted phased discovery motions approved in other, similar cases against Wells Fargo around the country, in particular City of Los Angeles v. Wells Fargo & Co., 2015WL 4398858 (C.D. Cal. July 17, 2015).
"The same phasing approach has achieved the quick and efficient resolution of other FHA lawsuits that are virtually identical to this one, resulting in case-ending decisions from two federal circuit courts of appeals," Sangster wrote.
But the city's reply said, "Wells Fargo omits a critical fact" in the Los Angeles case: "Parties stipulated to bifurcated discovery. ... The district court was never called upon to adjudicate a contested bifurcation motion."
Wood went on to argue the bank is seeking to duplicate a strategy it has used in other cases alleging the bank discriminated against non-white home buyers and engaged in predatory lending practices, curtailing discovery and then seeking summary judgment based on that limited evidence. She wrote the city's case is based on continuing violation of the act going back to 2004, and the statute of limitations is not triggered until "the termination of an alleged discriminatory act."
-- Malcolm Maclachlan
Malcolm Maclachlan
malcolm_maclachlan@dailyjournal.com
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
Jeremy_Ellis@dailyjournal.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 213-229-5424
Send a letter to the editor:
Email: letters@dailyjournal.com