Robinson v. Quicken Loans, Inc.

Robinson v. Quicken Loans, Inc.

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's request for reimbursement of travel expenses incurred in the taking of a second deposition of Defendant Quicken Loans pursuant  [*2] to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6). (ECF No. 134). Defendant has filed an objection to the request, arguing that Plaintiff is not entitled to reimbursement because her counsel was not required to travel in order to attend the deposition. (ECF No. 140). For the reasons that follow, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's request for reimbursement and ORDERS defendant Quicken Loans, Inc., or its counsel, to reimburse Plaintiff the sum of $1037.96 within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order.

I. Relevant Background

This civil action involves claims by Plaintiff that the Defendant, Quicken Loans, Inc. ("Quicken"), fraudulently induced her to procure an adjustable, high-interest home equity loan that was based upon an intentionally inflated property valuation. According to Plaintiff, the loan was originated by Quicken for purchase by Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., who obtained and began servicing the loan shortly after its origination. (ECF No. 87 at 1).

On September 28, 2012, Plaintiff's counsel corresponded with Quicken's counsel by electronic mail, requesting dates for the deposition of a Rule 30(b)(6) witness. (ECF No. 87-1 at 1). In the e-mail, Plaintiff's counsel outlined six  [*3] topics of inquiry, including "the ownership of the loan" and "any agreements related to loan transfers." Id. On October 1, 2012, Quicken's counsel replied to the e-mail, indicating that the deposition would have to occur in Detroit and raising questions about four of the six topics of inquiry. The only two topics about which Quicken's counsel raised no questions were "the ownership of the loan" and "any agreements related to loan transfers." Id. at 2.

After waiting another week to receive dates for the deposition, Plaintiff's counsel noticed it to take place on November 2, 2012. (ECF No. 47). The notice set forth the topics to be addressed at the deposition, which were the six topics contained in the email sent by Plaintiff's counsel and one additional topic pertaining to Plaintiff's attempts to refinance her loan. (Id). One week later, on October 15, 2012, before purchasing an airline ticket, Plaintiff's counsel contacted Quicken's counsel to ensure that a corporate representative would be available for the deposition as scheduled. At that time, Quicken's counsel advised Plaintiff's counsel that no one could be available on November 2, 2012 and agreed to provide alternative dates "in  [*4] the next couple of days." (ECF No. 87-1 at 4). After waiting another month to receive the alternative dates, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel Quicken to produce a Rule 30(b)(6) witness.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.