United States District Court, D. Massachusetts
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO
ALLISON D. BURROUGHS, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
pending before the Court is Defendant Ocwen Loan Servicing,
LLC's (“Ocwen”) motion to quash a subpoena
duces tecum issued by Plaintiff Fred Ponder to non-party
StoneTurn Group, LLC (“StoneTurn”). For the
reasons set forth below, Defendant's motion to quash [ECF
No. 1] is GRANTED.
Ponder, alleging credit reporting issues related to his
mortgage, has sued Ocwen, his mortgage servicer, under the
Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act, and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act.
See Second Am. Compl., Ponder v. Ocwen Loan
Servicing, LLC, No. 16-cv-04125 (N.D.Ga. Nov. 6, 2017).
Prior to this lawsuit, in 2011, 2012, and 2014, Ocwen entered
into several Consent Orders with the New York Department of
Financial Services (“NY DFS”). [ECF No. 2 at 2
n.3]. StoneTurn served as one of the Compliance Monitors for
a Consent Order dated December 5, 2012. [Id.]. At
the termination of its two-year engagement, which began in
June 2013, StoneTurn was required to return all documents and
material belonging to Ocwen, NY DFS, and other regulators.
[Id. at 5-6].
parties have been engaged in discovery since the end of 2018.
During that time, Mr. Ponder has served Ocwen with 32
interrogatories, 230 requests for admissions, and 62 requests
for production. [Id. at 3]. These requests have
included: “all reports by the Compliance Monitor
identified in ¶ 9” of the December 19, 2014
Consent Order and “all reports by the Operations or
Compliance Monitors generated” pursuant to the December
19, 2014 Consent Order. [Id.].
7, 2019, Mr. Ponder issued a subpoena duces tecum to
StoneTurn (“Subpoena”). [ECF No. 2-1]. The
Subpoena commanded StoneTurn to appear on May 21, 2019 for a
30(b)(6) deposition and to produce the following documents:
1. All Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC (Ocwen) borrower electronic
or printed loan files produced or provided to you by Ocwen
for audits in connection with any Consent Order entered by
Ocwen with the New York Department of Financial Services
2. All audits, reports, evaluations, business plans (or the
like), summaries or communications generated or received by
you regarding the violations, complaints, problems, or
compliance issues reported or discovered by you during and
after the audits of Ocwen borrowers' files pursuant to
the Consent Orders identified at ¶ l, supra.
3. All documents and communications that refer or relate to
4. All communications and other documents, whether electronic
or printed, which evidence or relate to Ocwen's
compliance with federal or state laws; including, but not
limited to, the Consent Orders identified at ¶ 1,
[Id. at 7]. Ocwen filed the instant motion to quash
on May 17, 2019. [ECF No. 1].
Rule of Civil Procedure 45 allows parties to serve
third-party subpoenas. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45. The
scope of discovery that may be sought from a non-party is the
same as what may be sought from a party under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 34, but parties serving non-party subpoenas
are required to “take reasonable steps to avoid
imposing undue burden or expense on a person subject to the
subpoena.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 45(d)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 45
advisory committee's note to 1991 amendment. A court
“must quash or modify a subpoena that: . . . subjects a
person to undue burden” on timely motion from a party
or non-party. Fed.R.Civ.P. 45(d)(3). “When determining
whether a subpoena duces tecum results in an undue burden on
a party such factors as ‘the relevance of the documents
sought, the necessity of the documents sought, the breadth of