Motion for Child Support in Hsbc Bank Usa, National Association, In Its Capacity As Trustee Of Nomura Home Equity Loan, Inc., Asset Backed Certificates, Series 2007-2 v. Nomura Credit & Capital, Inc.| Trellis.Law

On January 30, 2013 a Motion-Secondary was filed involving a dispute between Hsbc Bank Usa, National Association, In Its Capacity As Trustee Of Nomura Home Equity Loan, Inc., Asset Backed Certificates, Series 2007-2, and Nomura Credit & Capital, Inc., for Commercial Division in the District Court of New York County.

Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/16/2018 09:39 PM INDEX NO. 650337/2013
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 423 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/16/2018

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK

NOMURA ASSET ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION
ALTERNATIVE LOAN TRUST, SERIES 2006-S3, Index No. 652619/2012
by HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, in its capacity as Trustee pursuant to IAS Part 60
a Pooling and Servicing Agreement, dated as of July
1, 2006, Justice Marcy S. Friedman

Plaintiff, Mot. Seq. 014

-against- ORAL ARGUMENT
REQUESTED
NOMURA CREDIT & CAPITAL, INC.,

Defendant.

NOMURA CREDIT & CAPITAL, INC.,

Third-Party Plaintiff,

-against-

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. and OCWEN LOAN
SERVICING, LLC,

Third-Party Defendants.

1 of 19
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/16/2018 09:39 PM INDEX NO. 650337/2013
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 423 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/16/2018

NOMURA ASSET ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION
ALTERNATIVE LOAN TRUST, SERIES 2006-S4, by Index No. 653390/2012
HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, in
its capacity as Trustee, IAS Part 60

Plaintiff, Justice Marcy S. Friedman

-against- Mot. Seq. 013

NOMURA CREDIT & CAPITAL, INC.,

Defendant.

NOMURA CREDIT & CAPITAL, INC.,

Third-Party Plaintiff,

-against-

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. and OCWEN LOAN
SERVICING, LLC,

Third-Party Defendants.

2 of 19
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/16/2018 09:39 PM INDEX NO. 650337/2013
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 423 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/16/2018

NOMURA HOME EQUITY LOAN, INC., SERIES
2006-FM2, pursuant to a Pooling and Servicing Index No. 653783/2012
Agreement, dated as of October 1, 2006, by HSBC
BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, solely in IAS Part 60
its capacity as the Trustee,
Justice Marcy S. Friedman
Plaintiff,
Mot. Seq. 014
-against-

NOMURA CREDIT & CAPITAL, INC.,

Defendant.

NOMURA CREDIT & CAPITAL, INC.,

Third-Party Plaintiff,

-against-

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. and OCWEN LOAN
SERVICING, LLC,

Third-Party Defendants.

3 of 19
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/16/2018 09:39 PM INDEX NO. 650337/2013
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 423 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/16/2018

NOMURA HOME EQUITY LOAN, INC., SERIES
2007-3, pursuant to a Pooling and Servicing Index No. 651124/2013
Agreement, dated as of April 1, 2007, by HSBC BANK
USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, solely in its IAS Part 60
capacity as the Trustee,
Justice Marcy S. Friedman
Plaintiff,
Mot. Seq. 014
-against-

NOMURA CREDIT & CAPITAL, INC.,

Defendant.

NOMURA CREDIT & CAPITAL, INC.,

Third-Party Plaintiff,

-against-

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. and OCWEN LOAN
SERVICING, LLC,

Third-Party Defendants.

NOMURA ASSET ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION
ALTERNATIVE LOAN TRUST, SERIES 2007-1, by Index No. 652842/2014
HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, in
its capacity as Trustee, IAS Part 60

Plaintiff, Justice Marcy S. Friedman

-against- Mot. Seq. 006

NOMURA CREDIT & CAPITAL, INC.,

Defendant.

4 of 19
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/16/2018 09:39 PM INDEX NO. 650337/2013
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 423 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/16/2018

NOMURA HOME EQUITY LOAN, INC., HOME
EQUITY LOAN TRUST, SERIES 2007-2, by HSBC Index No. 650337/2013
BANK USA, National Association, as Trustee,
IAS Part 60
Plaintiff,
Justice Marcy S. Friedman
-against-
Mot. Seq. 014
NOMURA CREDIT & CAPITAL, INC.,

Defendant.

NOMURA CREDIT & CAPITAL, INC.,

Third-Party Plaintiff,

-against-

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. and OCWEN LOAN
SERVICING, LLC,

Third-Party Defendants.

5 of 19
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/16/2018 09:39 PM INDEX NO. 650337/2013
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 423 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/16/2018

NOMURA ASSET ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION
MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, Index No. 652614/2012
SERIES 2006-AF2 TRUST, by HSBC Bank USA,
National Association, as Trustee, IAS Part 60

Plaintiff, Justice Marcy S. Friedman

-against- Mot. Seq. 014

NOMURA CREDIT & CAPITAL, INC.,

Defendant.

NOMURA CREDIT & CAPITAL, INC.,

Third-Party Plaintiff,

-against-

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.

Third-Party Defendant.

TRUSTEE’S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF ITS REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF THE
SPECIAL DISCOVERY MASTER’S AUGUST 6, 2018 ORDER

McKool Smith, P.C.
One Bryant Park
New York, New York 10036
(212) 402-9400

Holwell Shuster & Goldberg LLP
425 Lexington Avenue
New York, New York 10017
(646) 837-5151

Attorneys for the Trustee

August 16, 2018

6 of 19
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/16/2018 09:39 PM INDEX NO. 650337/2013
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 423 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/16/2018

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT .....................................................................................................1

BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................................3

ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................................5

I. NOMURA SHOULD RESPOND TO INTERROGATORY NO. 9 BECAUSE
THE ATRIUS GROUP ACTED AS A DE FACTO NOMURA ENTITY, AND
NOMURA MIGHT HAVE KNOWLEDGE ABOUT ATRIUS DOCUMENTS. ..5

II. INTERROGATORIES NOS. 10 AND 11 PROPERLY REQUEST THAT
NOMURA IDENTIFY CERTAIN DOCUMENTS AND INFORMATION, NOT
PRODUCE NEW DOCUMENTS. ..........................................................................8

III. NOMURA’S OBLIGATION TO ANSWER THE INTERROGATORIES WAS
NEVER EXTINGUISHED. .....................................................................................9

CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................................................10

i
7 of 19
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/16/2018 09:39 PM INDEX NO. 650337/2013
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 423 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/16/2018

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page(s)
Cases

Allen v. Crowell-Collier Publ’g Co.,
21 N.Y.2d 403 (1968) ..................................................................................................................... 5

Balestriere PLLC v. BanxCorp,
No. 650919/10, 2013 WL 3646085 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. June 27, 2013)................................................ 9

Bassett v. Bando Sangsa Co.,
94 A.D.2d 358 (1st Dep’t 1983) ..................................................................................................... 9

Vignali v. Apex Brand Int’l,
No. 650956/2016, 2017 WL 945035 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Mar. 10, 2017) ............................................. 7

Grande Prairie Energy v. Alstom Power,
798 N.Y.S.2d 709, 5 Misc. 3d 1002(A) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2004)........................................................ 8

Reckson Operating P’ship v. N.Y. State Urban Dev. Corp.,
No. 00-6126, 2006 WL 6853741 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Apr. 18, 2006) ................................................... 8

Other Authorities

CPLR § 3101(a) .............................................................................................................................. 5

CPLR § 3103(a) .............................................................................................................................. 5

Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(f) ........................................................................................................................ 7

ii
8 of 19
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/16/2018 09:39 PM INDEX NO. 650337/2013
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 423 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/16/2018

Plaintiff HSBC Bank USA, National Association, solely in its capacity as Trustee for the

Nomura Asset Acceptance Corp., Series 2006-S3 Trust, Nomura Asset Acceptance Corp., Series

2006-S4 Trust, Nomura Asset Acceptance Corp., Series 2007-1 Trust, Nomura Asset Acceptance

Corp. 2006-AF2 Trust, Nomura Home Equity Loan, Inc., Series 2006-FM2 Trust, Nomura Home

Equity Loan, Inc., Series 2007-2 Trust, and the Nomura Home Equity Loan, Inc., Series 2007-3

Trust (respectively, the “Trustee” and the “Trusts”), pursuant to Section III.E of the December 7,

2015 Case Management Order (the “First CMO”), hereby requests a review of the August 6,

2018 Order (the “Order”) of the Special Discovery Master Theodore H. Katz (the “Special

Master”), which denied the Trustee’s motion to compel Nomura Credit & Capital, Inc.

(“Nomura”) to respond to three discrete interrogatories.1

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

The Trustee seeks a response to three interrogatories regarding the loans and trusts at

issue in these actions. Nomura does not dispute that the requested information is relevant. And

Nomura has made no showing that responding to any of these interrogatories would impose a

meaningful burden. Instead, Nomura claims the interrogatories are targeted toward third parties

or seek “additional search terms” and “additional deposition time.” Nelson Ex. A at 5. This is

simply not true. The interrogatories ask only that Nomura identify specific individuals and

information. They do not require Nomura to produce additional witnesses or documents. Nor do

the interrogatories seek information from third parties.

First, Interrogatory No. 9 properly asks Nomura to identify the individuals involved in

creating and updating a spreadsheet that was apparently ,

1
Submitted herewith is the August 16, 2018 affirmation of Meredith J. Nelson; exhibits attached to that affirmation
are referred to as “Nelson Ex. __”.

9 of 19
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/16/2018 09:39 PM INDEX NO. 650337/2013
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 423 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/16/2018

including pertaining to loans in five of the Trusts. The spreadsheet was produced by the

Atrius Group, a vendor , but which operated

as a de facto department of Nomura. The Special Master concluded that Nomura should not be

compelled to provide information about a document produced by a third party. Nelson Ex. B at

2. But the Atrius Group is not an arms’ length third party. It is a small consulting firm whose

principal and primary employee, Christopher Scampoli, . In

any event, the Trustee is not asking Nomura to answer the interrogatory on behalf of Atrius; the

Trustee merely asks that Nomura respond to the Interrogatory on its own behalf by providing

whatever information Nomura has. Given the close relationship between Nomura and Atrius, it

is reasonable to infer that Nomura might have information about the document, and the Special

Master erred by holding that the purported separateness of Atrius was sufficient as a matter of

law to insulate Nomura from discovery on this issue.

Second, Interrogatories Nos. 10 and 11 are traditional interrogatories that call for Nomura

to identify a narrow set of documents and information. Interrogatory No. 10 requests that

Nomura identify documents relating to a

. Interrogatory No. 11 asks Nomura to identify all

information provided by Nomura to any rating agency in connection with the Trusts. The

Special Master stated he was “not persuaded that the gravamen of the Trustee’s request[s] is

Nomura’s mere ‘identification’” of documents. Nelson Ex. B at 2. But “identification” is

precisely what the Trustee requests through these interrogatories. The Trustee is not asking

Nomura to run new or additional search terms or to produce new documents. If Nomura

produced documents on these topics, Nomura should identify them. If Nomura is aware of oral

communications on these topics, Nomura should describe them. That is all the Trustee seeks.

2
10 of 19
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/16/2018 09:39 PM INDEX NO. 650337/2013
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 423 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/16/2018

BACKGROUND

The Special Master stated in the Order that the Trustee failed to promptly pursue

responses to its interrogatories. That is incorrect. The time spent pursuing these interrogatories

was lengthy because Nomura had represented that it would consider the Trustee’s positions, and

only later did Nomura disclose it had no intent to continue negotiating over the scope of the

interrogatories.

The Trustee served the interrogatories at issue in this appeal on February 27 and 28,

2018. Nelson Exs. C (NAAC 2006-AF2), D (NHELI 2007-2), E (NAAC 2007-1). Nomura served

its interrogatories on the Trustee on February 28, 2018. E.g., Nelson Ex. F. The Trustee

responded to Nomura’s Interrogatory No. 2, but otherwise objected to Nomura’s interrogatories.

E.g., Nelson Ex. G. Nomura refused to provide substantive responses to any of the Trustee’s

interrogatories, instead lodging wholesale objections to every single one. Nelson Exs. H, I, J.

During the subsequent months, the parties engaged in meet-and-confers to attempt to

resolve their disputes over the interrogatories. During a call on April 20, the Trustee made

certain proposals to address Nomura’s concerns regarding the Trustee’s interrogatories—

including proposals pertaining to the three interrogatories at issue in this appeal—and Nomura’s

counsel agreed to take those proposals back to their client. Nomura’s agreement to consider the

proposals was memorialized in an email sent by the Trustee’s counsel to Nomura on April 27,

2018. Nelson Ex. K (Hendler 4/27/18 Email). Although the parties spoke again on April 27,

2018, both parties’ summaries of that meet-and-confer make clear that the Trustee’s

interrogatories to Nomura were not discussed on that date. Nelson Ex. L (Fleming 5/4/18 Email;

Ebersole 5/18/18 Email). During these meet-and-confers, the Trustee agreed to provide

supplemental responses to certain Nomura interrogatories. After conferring with their client over

the course of May and June, the Trustee’s counsel then served amended responses to Nomura’s

3
11 of 19
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/16/2018 09:39 PM INDEX NO. 650337/2013
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 423 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/16/2018

interrogatories on July 5, 2018.

Following the meet-and-confer on April 20, the Trustee understood that Nomura was

conferring with its client on the interrogatories that it had agreed to “take back.”

Notwithstanding its many opportunities to do so, Nomura never disabused the Trustee of that

notion. The Trustee then contacted Nomura on July 10 to resume the negotiations over the

Trustee’s interrogatories. Nelson Ex. K (DeLucia 7/10/18 Email). On July 12, Nomura refused

the Trustee’s request, stating that “[f]ollowing the April 27 call, [Nomura] did not understand

there to be any reasonable dispute regarding Nomura’s objections to HSBC’s interrogatories.”

Id. (Kahn 7/12/18 Email). Although Nomura made a similar assertion in its submission to the

Special Master (Nelson Ex. A at 4), this claim is belied by the parties’ written correspondence.

The Trustee’s email summarizing the April 20 meet-and-confer clearly states that Nomura’s

counsel had agreed to take back certain proposals to their client. Despite the parties’

documented history of memorializing teleconferences and then writing to correct one another’s

alleged mischaracterizations of the same, Nomura never responded to the Trustee’s summary of

the interrogatory responses nor clarified that Nomura had no intention of actually “taking back”

to its client the issues raised by the Trustee, instead waiting nearly 11 weeks to inform the

Trustee of its refusal to confer about the interrogatories. Nelson Ex. K (Kahn 7/12/18 Email).

After the Special Master extended the fact discovery deadline to July 31, the Trustee

again asked Nomura to resume negotiations regarding the Trustee’s interrogatories. During a

meet-and-confer on July 26, Nomura refused to provide written responses to the interrogatories

or to educate its corporate representative to address them, a compromise the Trustee proposed to

reduce the purported burden on Nomura. Nelson Ex. K (Sullivan 7/28/18 Email). On July 31,

the Trustee and Nomura filed a joint submission before the Special Master regarding

4
12 of 19
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/16/2018 09:39 PM INDEX NO. 650337/2013
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 423 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/16/2018

interrogatories. Nelson Ex. A. To limit the scope of the dispute, the Trustee moved only on

three of its five outstanding interrogatories. Id. at 1. Nomura opposed the motion and requested

that, should the Special Master grant the Trustee’s motion, the Trustee be directed to provide

complete responses to certain of Nomura’s interrogatories. Id. at 5–6. On August 6, the Special

Master denied both the Trustee’s and Nomura’s motions. Nelson Ex. B.

ARGUMENT

New York law requires full disclosure of “any facts bearing on the controversy which

will assist preparation for trial by sharpening the issues and reducing delay and prolixity. The

test is one of usefulness and reason.” Allen v. Crowell-Collier Publ’g Co., 21 N.Y.2d 403, 406

(1968); see also CPLR § 3101(a). The three interrogatories at issue in this appeal seek

information that is clearly relevant. The Trustee is thus entitled to responses to its interrogatories

unless responding would impose an unreasonable burden on Nomura. See CPLR § 3103(a). But

other than Nomura’s insistence that the interrogatories seek “additional search terms” and

“additional deposition time”—which are unfounded—Nomura has made no showing whatsoever

that complying with these interrogatories would impose an unreasonable burden. Nor did the

Special Master make any findings that the information sought by the Trustee was irrelevant or

unduly burdensome for Nomura to produce.2

I. NOMURA SHOULD RESPOND TO INTERROGATORY NO. 9 BECAUSE THE
ATRIUS GROUP ACTED AS A DE FACTO NOMURA ENTITY, AND NOMURA
MIGHT HAVE KNOWLEDGE ABOUT ATRIUS DOCUMENTS.

Interrogatory No. 9 requests that Nomura “[i]dentify any and all Persons who participated

in drafting, authoring, revising, inserting comments into, modifying, or otherwise contributing to

2
Under the First CMO, this Court reviews the Special Master’s findings of fact for clear error, conclusions of law de
novo, and rulings on procedural matters for abuse of discretion.

5
13 of 19
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/16/2018 09:39 PM INDEX NO. 650337/2013
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 423 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/16/2018

the contents of” a single spreadsheet. This spreadsheet was produced by the Atrius Group, a

third-party vendor that operated virtually within Nomura. The first tab of the spreadsheet

. On the second tab of the

spreadsheet, titled is a single illuminating comment:

Nelson Ex. M (emphases added). The significance of this document is self-

apparent. It suggests Nomura acted when reviewing the

repurchase requests for loans at issue. Yet when the Trustee questioned Christopher Scampoli,

the Atrius Group’s corporate representative, about this spreadsheet, he responded that

tab. Nelson Ex. N at 237:9–247:21. The Trustee then sought additional information

about the authors of this spreadsheet through its interrogatory to Nomura.

In denying the Trustee’s motion to compel a response, the Special Master relied entirely

on the fact that the spreadsheet was produced by a purported third party, not by Nomura. Nelson

Ex. B at 2. The Special Master found that it would neither be “fair[]” nor “logic[al]” to compel

Nomura “to search-for-and-produce detailed information about an Atrius spreadsheet that

Nomura indisputably did not produce in discovery” and “relative to which Atrius has itself been

unable to provide the same information.” Id. That analysis is incorrect for two reasons.

First, as a factual issue, the Special Master committed clear error by failing to address the

evidence demonstrating that Nomura and Atrius are closely intertwined. The Atrius Group

Nelson Ex. N at 24:15–22.

6
14 of 19
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/16/2018 09:39 PM INDEX NO. 650337/2013
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 423 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/16/2018

Id. at 44:11–54:21; Nelson Ex. O at 122:24–123:9. Nomura is , the

Atrius Group has received . Nelson Ex. N

at 56:23–57:2, 58:11–19. It is represented by Nomura’s litigation counsel in these actions. And

Mr. Scampoli has in many regards acted as a de facto Nomura employee:

Id. at 67:24–68:2, 73:16–18, 136:11–137:2.

Indeed, Neil Spagna, a Nomura employee

Nelson Ex. P at 202:12–203:11. Despite this

evidence, the Special Master appeared to assume Atrius was an ordinary third party.3 But

Nomura should not be allowed to rely on the corporate separateness of the Atrius Group to shield

itself from a valid interrogatory. Cf. Vignali v. Apex Brand Int’l, No. 650956/2016, 2017 WL

945035, at *3 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Mar. 10, 2017) (requiring defendants to produce responsive

documents held by a third party, but within defendants’ control).

Second, the Special Master committed legal error by interpreting the interrogatory as

requiring Nomura to answer on behalf of Atrius, and then concluding that Nomura may not be

forced to answer for another party. To the contrary, the interrogatory merely asks Nomura to

answer on its own behalf about whatever information Nomura has in its possession relating to the

spreadsheet. Because of the relationship between Atrius and Nomura, Nomura

personnel might have information regarding the spreadsheet, even if Atrius’s witness did not.

3
The Trustee presented substantial, but not exhaustive, evidence of the relationship between Atrius and Nomura to
the Special Master. The Trustee includes additional such evidence here pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(f), which
governs the scope of this Court’s review under the First CMO and which provides that this Court “may receive
evidence” when acting on a ruling from the Special Master.

7
15 of 19
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/16/2018 09:39 PM INDEX NO. 650337/2013
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 423 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/16/2018

If Nomura does have any such information, then Nomura should provide it. If Nomura has no

such information, then it should say so. But this Court should not preclude the Trustee from

seeking a response to a valid interrogatory solely because the Atrius witness did not know the

answer—that would be tantamount to denying discovery on a topic merely because one

employee was not knowledgeable about it. See Reckson Operating P’ship v. N.Y. State Urban

Dev. Corp., No. 00-6126, 2006 WL 6853741 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Apr. 18, 2006) (requiring plaintiff to

produce its own employees at a deposition when its consultants could not answer questions on a

relevant topic); Grande Prairie Energy v. Alstom Power, 798 N.Y.S.2d 709, 5 Misc. 3d 1002(A),

at *3 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2004) (granting motion to compel party to produce for a deposition a non-

employee within its control based on the non-employee’s significant ties to the party). Neither

Nomura nor the Special Master has provided legal support for anything approaching that

proposition.

II. INTERROGATORIES NOS. 10 AND 11 PROPERLY REQUEST THAT
NOMURA IDENTIFY CERTAIN DOCUMENTS AND INFORMATION, NOT
PRODUCE NEW DOCUMENTS.

Interrogatory No. 10 asks Nomura to identify documents relating to the

Nelson Ex. Q. Interrogatory No. 11 requests that

Nomura identify any information provided by Nomura to any rating agencies in connection with

any of the at-issue securitizations.

Nomura claimed, and the Special Master appeared to agree, that the Trustee is using these

interrogatories to “seek additional search terms.” Nelson Exs. A at 5, B at 2. Not so. For

Interrogatory No. 10, the Trustee simply seeks a response from Nomura identifying which

already-produced documents relate to . While Nomura can

8
16 of 19
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/16/2018 09:39 PM INDEX NO. 650337/2013
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 423 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/16/2018

draw on its institutional knowledge to identify these documents more accurately, the Trustee is

forced to rely on inferences and guesswork to identify which documents relate to which topics.

The use of identification interrogatories under these circumstances is entirely appropriate. See

Balestriere PLLC v. BanxCorp, No. 650919/10, 2013 WL 3646085, at *5 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. June

27, 2013) (compelling responses to interrogatories requiring defendants to identify certain

documents); cf. Bassett v. Bando Sangsa Co., 94 A.D.2d 358, 361 (1st Dep’t 1983)

(acknowledging the usefulness and propriety of identification interrogatories “when the answers

will require an examination of records and documents and consultation with others”).

Furthermore, with respect to Interrogatory No. 11, in the MLPAs for many of the Trusts,

Nomura represented and warranted that “the information provided to the rating agencies was true

and correct according to rating agency requirements.” Nelson Ex. R at 8. The Trustee is thus

entitled to discovery about the information that Nomura transmitted to the rating agencies.

Because the Trustee has no way of knowing whether Nomura provided information to rating

agencies through methods such as phone calls, hard-copy deliveries, or faxes, the Trustee

properly propounded an interrogatory targeting that information. The Trustee is entitled to a

statement from Nomura detailing how and when information was provided to the rating agencies

and, most importantly, which kinds of information were transmitted. As with Interrogatory No.

10, if Nomura produced documents on this issue, Nomura can identify them; if Nomura is aware

of phone calls or similar information, Nomura can describe them. None of this has anything to

do with “search terms” or “deposition time.”

III. NOMURA’S OBLIGATION TO ANSWER THE INTERROGATORIES WAS
NEVER EXTINGUISHED.

The Special Master also stated that he did not find that “good cause exists to ‘reopen’ any

issues related to the Parties[’] interrogatories,” because of “the Parties’ failure to promptly

9
17 of 19
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/16/2018 09:39 PM INDEX NO. 650337/2013
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 423 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/16/2018

pursue the issues raised within their July 31, 2018 joint-letter.” Nelson Ex. B at 2. This finding

was incorrect. As detailed above, Nomura’s counsel informed the Trustee on April 20 that it

would consider certain proposals and then revert to the Trustee on the open issues. Nomura now

claims that from April 27 onward—a period during which Nomura was aware that the Trustee

was diligently working to supplement its own interrogatory responses, as the Trustee promised it

would (see Nelson Ex. L (Ebersole 5/18/18 Email))—it had no intent to continue negotiations on

the Trustee’s interrogatories. Merely because Nomura waited to inform the Trustee of its

intentions does not mean that these issues were “closed.”

Although Nomura purported to seek relief on its own interrogatories, the Special Master

never considered the merits of those arguments, and those issues are not ripe for review. In the

event the Court concludes that those requests for relief should be entertained, they should be

addressed by the Special Master in the first instance. For example, several of Nomura’s

interrogatories seek information that is privileged, and this Court should not rule on privilege

issues for the first time on appeal. Moreover, the Trustee was not under the impression that the

parties were at impasse on several of the topics for which Nomura sought relief. Therefore,

Nomura’s requests for relief should be addressed by the Special Master, not this Court.

CONCLUSION

For these reasons, the Trustee respectfully requests that the Court reverse the Order and

compel Nomura to respond to Interrogatories Nos. 9, 10, and 11.

10
18 of 19
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/16/2018 09:39 PM INDEX NO. 650337/2013
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 423 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/16/2018

Dated: August 16, 2018
New York, New York MCKOOL SMITH, P.C.

By: /s/ Christopher P. Johnson

Christopher P. Johnson
(cpjohnson@mckoolsmith.com)
Robert W. Scheef
(rscheef@mckoolsmith.com)
Daniel J. Fleming
(dfleming@mckoolsmith.com)
One Bryant Park, 47th Floor
New York, New York 10036

HOLWELL SHUSTER & GOLDBERG LLP

By: /s/ Daniel M. Sullivan

Michael S. Shuster
(mshuster@hsgllp.com)
Daniel M. Sullivan
(dsullivan@hsgllp.com)
Meredith J. Nelson
(mnelson@hsgllp.com)
425 Lexington Avenue, 14th Floor
New York, New York 10017

Attorneys for the Trustee

11
19 of 19

Case Info

Judge

Melissa Anne Crane Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

August 16, 2018

Case Filing Date

January 30, 2013

County

Parties

CHERNOV, JOEL A Attorney for the Defendant
CRANER, MATTHEW LAWRENCE Attorney for the Defendant
Darden Restaurants Attorney for the Plaintiff
DELUCIA, EILEEN MONAGHAN Attorney for the Plaintiff
DEMAY, BRENDON THOMAS Attorney for the Plaintiff
DUNOGUE, AGNES Attorney for the Defendant
EBERSOLE, JOSHUA TIMOTHY Attorney for the Defendant
Freedom Trust 2011-2 Non Party
GIUDICE, LAUREN NICOLE Attorney for the Plaintiff
HEALY, DWIGHT A. Attorney for the Plaintiff
HEIDLAGE, BENJAMIN FREDERICK Attorney for the Plaintiff
Holwell Shuster & Goldberg LLP Attorney for the Plaintiff
HOPPIN LEGAL, PLLC Attorney for the Plaintiff
HOPPIN, MARGARET BARRINGER Attorney for the Plaintiff
HOSCHANDER, JEFFREY DAVID Attorney for the Defendant
HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, in its capacity as Trustee of Nomura Home Equity Loan, Inc., Asset Backed Certificates, Series 2007-2 Plaintiff
ISRAELI, AVI BRIAN Attorney for the Plaintiff
KAHN, DANIEL AARON Attorney for the Defendant
KLEBAN, DAVID SAMUEL Attorney
NELSON, MEREDITH JAYNE Attorney for the Plaintiff
NOMURA CREDIT & CAPITAL, INC. Defendant
Olifant Fund, Ltd., FFI Fund Ltd., and FYI Ltd. Non Party
ORDWAY, DEMIAN ALEXANDER Attorney for the Plaintiff
SELENDY GAY ELSBERG PLLC Attorney for the Plaintiff
SHOLL, HANNAH SUZANNE Attorney for the Plaintiff
SHUSTER, MICHAEL STEVEN Attorney for the Plaintiff
STOVALL, AMIANNA Attorney for the Defendant
SULLIVAN, DANIEL MARTIN Attorney for the Plaintiff
TEPLIN, STEPHANIE ANN Attorney
UNGAR, DORIT Attorney for the Plaintiff
JAYANT TAMBE Attorney
HOWARD SIDMAN Attorney
JULIET BUCK Attorney
ZACHARY MAZIN Attorney
ABDALLAH SALAM Attorney
WILLIAM FOLEY Attorney
JOSEPH BOYLAN Attorney
LERON THUMIM Attorneys for Plaintiffs
TOBY FUTTER Attorneys for Plaintiffs
JOHN ANSBRO Attorneys for Defendants
Richard Jacobsen Attorneys for Defendants
KATHERINE MACO Attorneys for Defendants
ELISABETH MUELLER Attorney
KATHERINE STOLLER Attorney
PHILIPP SMAYLOVSKY Attorney
ALVIN LI Attorneys for Plaintiffs
NATHAN MONROE-YAVNEH Attorneys for Plaintiffs
CHRISTOPHER JOHNSON Attorney
COURTNEY STATFELD Attorney
AYANA RIVERS Attorney
KAREN SEBASKI Attorneys for Plaintiffs
CEALAGH FITZPATRICK Attorney
MATTHEW MOORE Attorney
ADAM GOLDSTEIN Attorney
KEISHA JAMES Attorney
BLAIR KAMINSKY Attorney
DANIEL GOLDBERG Attorney
NEIL LIEBERMAN Attorney
COLIN FITZPATRICK Attorney
ANDREW BREIDENBACH Attorney
ANGELA GIL Attorney
ADAM KIRGIS Attorney
NADIA KLEIN Attorney
DANIEL FLEMING Attorney
DAVID MARK Attorney
KALITAMARA MOODY Attorney
ROBERT SCHEEF Attorney
JOSEPH FRANK Attorney
DAVID SCHIEFELBEIN Attorney
JACK CHEN Attorney
ASHLEY HAMMETT Attorney
LANI PERLMAN Attorneys for Plaintiffs
CASEY HOWARD Attorney
FRED KNOPF Attorneys for Plaintiffs
HARRIS BERKMAN Attorneys for Plaintiffs
LARA ROMERO Attorney
MATTHEW WARGIN Attorney
PAUL LEVINSON Attorneys for Plaintiffs
CINDY MCBENNETT Attorney
JONATHAN KOPPELL Attorneys for Plaintiffs
EMILY SCHULTZ Attorney
MICHAEL FAY Attorney
RACHEL GUPTA Attorney
JANE BYRNE Attorney
D. TRICE Attorney
HOLLY ENGELMANN Attorneys for Plaintiffs
MARTHA PAMPEL Attorney
NANCY PRAHOFER Attorney
PARUL BHATIA Attorney
AMANDA DOLLINGER Attorney
JOHN PAUL Attorney
MARK SULLIVAN Attorneys for Plaintiffs
MICHAEL CARLINSKY Attorney
MARK ZAUDERER Attorney
CRAIG SINGER Attorney
JASON COHEN Attorneys for Defendants
BARAK STEINER Attorney
MICHAEL ONUFER Attorney
JEAN KIM Attorney
BRUCE CLARK Attorneys for Defendants
WILLIAM PORTER Attorney
JONAH PERLIN Attorney
NOAH WEISSMAN Attorney
DORIT BLACK Attorneys for Plaintiffs
CARLA BROWN Attorney
DAVID WOLLMUTH Attorney
JAY HANDLIN Attorney
Ronald Aranoff Attorney
SAMANTHA GLAZER Attorney
PAUL RUGANI Attorneys for Defendants
JENNY KIM Attorneys for Defendants
THOMAS EGLER Attorneys for Plaintiffs
STEPHEN POSS Attorneys for Plaintiffs
WILLIAM BRADY Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Christopher Johnson Attorney
JAMES SERRITELLA Attorney
JARED SIEGEL Attorney
BRENDAN CARROLL Attorney
ANDREW SPILLANE Attorney
LAUREN WEINSTEIN Attorney
BRIAN WEINSTEIN Attorney
JENNIFER DELGADO Attorney
ALEXANDRA DROZ Attorney
JEFFREY SCOTT Attorney
Michael Ware Attorney
PAMELA MILLER Attorney
MONIQUE GAYLOR Attorney
DANIEL GIMMEL Attorney
STEPHEN SELTZER Attorney
MARIA DA SILVA Attorney
Andrew Benard Attorney
CHRISTOPHER FONTENELLI Attorney
EARL KNOTT Attorneys for Plaintiffs
MICHAEL SCHUSTER Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Erik Haas Attorneys for Plaintiffs
BARRY LEVIN Attorneys for Defendants
DAVID WOLL Attorneys for Defendants
MARY VYSKOCIL Attorneys for Defendants
Brian Weinstein Attorneys for Defendants
ELISABETH GRIPPANDO Attorneys for Defendants
ERIK HAAS Attorneys for Plaintiffs
John Ansbro Attorneys for Defendants
DANIEL BROCKETT Attorneys for Plaintiffs
PHILIPPE SELENDY Attorneys for Plaintiffs
PENNY SHANE Attorneys for Defendants
Darrell Cafasso Attorneys for Defendants
MATTHEW LIPPERT Attorneys for Defendants
ANDREW BRAUNSTEIN Attorney
William Foley Attorney
EVAN STEIN Attorney
RICHARD LANDAU Attorney
JONATHAN KOPP Attorney
MICHELLE PARTHUM Attorneys for Plaintiffs
MATTHEW CORMACK Attorneys for Defendants
DANIEL MAGY Attorneys for Defendants
LESLEY CHEN Attorneys for Defendants
DAVID KISTENBROKER Attorney
DANIEL HENDLER Attorney
Christopher Malloy Attorney
P. JOHNSON Attorneys for Plaintiffs
ALEX COHEN Attorneys for Defendants
RYAN NELSON Attorneys for Defendants
PETER SHAKRO Attorneys for Defendants
JORDAN BOTJER Attorneys for Defendants
NATHANIEL BRONSTEIN Attorneys for Defendants
ELIZABETH CURRAN Attorney
ALEXANDER SHAPIRO Attorney
Henry Ricardo Attorneys for Plaintiffs
CORBAN RHODES Attorneys for Plaintiffs
JOEL BERNSTEIN Attorneys for Plaintiffs
LAUREN MOSKOWITZ Attorneys for Defendants
HENRY NEWMAN Attorney
RICHARD KIM Attorney
JAMES BOYLAN Attorney
DAVID HOLAHAN Attorney
William Russell Attorney
Isaac Rethy Attorney

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Motion-Secondary: Hsbc Bank Usa, National Association, In Its Capacity As Trustee Of Nomura Home Equity Loan, Inc., Asset Backed Certificates, Series 2007-2 v. Nomura Credit & Capital, Inc.

Preview

Case Info

Parties