United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
JAMES C. FOCHT and KAREN FOCHT, Plaintiffs,
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, d/b/a MR. COOPER, as successor in interest to SETERUS, INC. Defendant.
the Court is Plaintiffs James and Karen Focht's Motion to
Compel Discovery and Impose Sanctions. (ECF No. 25.)
Defendant Nationstar Mortgage, LLC filed a response (ECF No.
26) and Plaintiffs filed a reply. (ECF No. 27.) Accordingly,
the Motion is ripe for disposition. For the reasons that
follow, the Court will GRANT Plaintiffs'
Motion IN PART.
case arises from a dispute regarding a mortgage on a home
that Plaintiffs own in Tyrone, Pennsylvania. (ECF No. 1-3
¶ 3.) Seterus, Inc. is a mortgage-servicing company that
serviced Plaintiffs' mortgage. (Id. ¶¶
4-6.) Plaintiffs allege that Seterus - and its successor in
interest Nationstar Mortgage, LLC doing business as Mr.
Cooper (collectively "Defendant") -violated federal
and Pennsylvania law by failing to accept payment to satisfy
the mortgage and failing to adequately communicate with the
Plaintiffs. (ECF No. 1-3 ¶¶ 40-100.)
instant discovery dispute arises from Defendant's alleged
failure to respond to Plaintiffs' discovery requests.
Plaintiffs served a set of interrogatories and requests for
production of documents upon Defendant on February 5, 2019.
(ECF No. 25 at 1.) Plaintiffs agreed to extend the deadline
to respond to those requests until June 7, 2019. (ECF No. 25
at 1-2; ECF No. 26 at 1.)
did not respond to Plaintiffs' interrogatories until June
12, 2019. (ECF No. 25 at 1.) Defendant did provide Plaintiffs
with relevant documents on a rolling basis while the
discovery requests were outstanding. (ECF No. 26 at 1-2.)
their Motion, Plaintiffs argue that:
(1) Defendant should be precluded from objecting to
Plaintiffs' interrogatories because Defendant waived its
right to object by responding untimely and without good cause
(ECF No. 25 at 2-3);
(2) Defendant should be required to serve verified answers to
Plaintiffs' interrogatories (id. at 3);
(3) Defendant should be compelled to answer or supplement its
answers to Interrogatories one through four and seven through
thirteen (id. at 3-7); and
(4) Defendant's failure to respond to Plaintiffs'
discovery requests and failure to provide adequate responses
justifies the imposition of sanctions, (id. at 7-9.)
disagrees with each of Plaintiffs' arguments. (ECF No. 26
at 2-5.) Defendant attached amended responses to
Plaintiffs' interrogatories that address many of
Plaintiffs' arguments regarding the sufficiency of
Defendant's interrogatory responses. (ECF No. 26-3.)
filed a reply brief addressing Defendant's response to
Plaintiffs' Motion and the amended interrogatory
responses it attached. (ECF No. 27.) In their reply,
Plaintiffs argue that Defendant should be precluded from
presenting fact witnesses at trial beyond those listed in
their amended interrogatory responses. (Id. at 2-3.)