Brent S.

Tantillo

1629 K Street
Suite 300
Washington, DC 20006

T 786-506-2991
btantillo@tantillolaw.com
December 19, 2016

Via Email

Mr. Christian Pistilli, Esq.

Covington & Burling LLP
One City Center
850 Tenth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001-4956

Re: S&A Capital Partners, Inc., et al. v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.,
et al.
Civil Action No. 15-CV-293 (LTS) (JCF)

Dear Chris:

This will confirm our global meet and confer on Friday wherein Plaintiffs
sought to address outstanding discovery issues, including, but not limited to those
raised in Plaintiffs letters to Defendants dated November 10, 2016, November 21,
2016, November 28, 2016 (two letters), December 2, 2016, December 5, 2016,
December 6, 2016 and December 9, 2016.

Protective Order

Defendants have no objection to Plaintiffs’ filing a motion for entry of the

protective order in the D.C. case. Defendants will not stipulate to Plaintiffs’ filing
of an amended complaint or supplemental brief pursuant F.R.C.P. 15.

Loan Level Data

1. Plaintiffs’ have reviewed documents produced by Defendants to

date, and it does not appear that loan level documents such those
1
 typically found in loan files, i.e. documents such as note,
mortgage, payment history and servicing records are present in
your November 30 production. You stated that Defendants have
produced a “spreadsheet” with most of that information and that
Plaintiffs never asked for and Defendants never agreed to produce
documents such as the actual paper files regarding the loans. You
said that you have searched all relevant systems of record for loan
data. Please provide the bates stamp number for this spreadsheet,
since more than one spreadsheet has been produced. You refused
to delineate whether Chase had searched these following
databases: Vendor Lending System (VLS), Advanced Loan
Systems (ALS), Mortgage Servicing Platform (MSP), Docline and
WinCMSS, LISA, POTS, FORTRACS, and Fastrieve

When asked if the data provided along with Eddie Guerrero’s

February 25, 2009 email was Exhibit A to the MLPA, you said you
would not take a position on this issue.

2. With respect to production of the S&A and 1st Fidelity note sale
agreement files, you said that you would take that request back to
your client but you were not sure those documents were available
anymore.

The Wick Letters

Defendants refuse to produce documents related to the investigations
referred to in these letters. It is your position that they are not relevant and/or
related to a subject matter that has been stayed by Magistrate Francis. It is
Plaintiffs’ position that the investigations conducted by your client to determine the
information in these letters is encompassed by Magistrate Francis’ Order on the
Motion to compel, page 8, where he orders Chase to produce “Documents relating
to communications, investigations, research, policies, or selection criteria
connected to loan forgiveness letters sent on September 13, 2012, December 13,
2012, and January 13, 2012, are also relevant, as are similar documents relating to
the Pre-DOJ Lien Release Program, even though these documents relate also to
loans not sold to the plaintiffs.

2
Criteria for Placing Loans in RCV1

You advised us that that you have sent us the policies and procedures
governing charge-offs which determine which loans were put into RCV1.
As of this writing, we have not located any documents with such criteria nor
information regarding the process, flow or servicing system of records for
which loans are placed in the RCV1 system of records.

30(b)(6) Deposition

It is Defendants’ position that it will not agree to a 30(b)(6) deposition

if Plaintiffs reserve their right to pursue topics on issues stayed by the
Magistrate pending ruling on the motion to dismiss.

Additional Search Terms and Custodians

1. You are still reviewing Plaintiffs’ proposed additional search terms

and acknowledge that you owe us a response. You will do so in
writing. You have agreed to add Adamovic as a custodian; you
have produced some documents from his files and will be
producing more by December 31, 2016.
2. You said that you have used a set of targeted search terms
potentially responsive to the Magistrate’s order. We asked that you
tell us those search terms. You agreed to ask your client and get
back to us. With respect to our other requested custodians, e.g.,
Palazzo, Rubino, Palletas, Hemperly, and Driver, you will not
agree to produce their files unless we convince you that their
documents are noncumulative and relevant to non-stayed issues.
You take the same position as to the depositions of Driver,
Hemperly, and Whitty. We will follow-up in a separate letter
regarding our justification for these custodians. Please provide
legal justification for such a position, as Plaintiffs have yet to
exceed the 10-deposition limitation, pursuant to F.R.C.P.
30(a)(2)(A), although we reserve the right to seek leave for further
depositions. Considering the fact that we have yet to reach such a
limitation, Plaintiffs find your opposition puzzling and without a
legal basis.

3
Deposition Schedule
1. You advised that Paxton and Boyle are no longer employed by
Chase and could not schedule their depositions until you confirm
your representation of them.
2. You still have no dates for the depositions of Solomon, Kassem
and Oquendo. At our request, you will try to schedule them all for
a single week in Arizona. Solomon is having surgery in January
and that it is difficult to pick a week when all three witnesses are
available. We told you that if it is more expeditious to schedule the
depositions separately, Plaintiffs will agree to that. However, we
expect to conduct these depositions in January, as several of these
depositions were noticed on May 17, 2016, over seven months ago.
3. Please confirm that you have produced all relevant documents
related to the depositions of Solomon, Kassem, Oquendo, Paxton
and Boyle.
4. With respect to the depositions of Plaintiffs, we agreed to come to
your offices and allow you to pick the dates to accommodate your
schedule. You said that you would not schedule Plaintiffs
depositions until you had received all of their documents. We
believe production of Plaintiffs’ documents is substantially
complete with the remaining documents being produced by
January 6, 2017. Please give us some dates in January.
Photos, Text Messages and Other E Discovery Still Not Produced
1. Plaintiffs asked if Defendants had searched for and produced other
forms of discovery such as photos and text messages. You said that
Defendants had looked on all available systems for the witnesses
that you had agreed were relevant and there were none. You said
that if we had in mind some other Chase employee, we should tell
you.
2. Plaintiffs will be sending you additional discovery in this category
shortly.
Privilege Logs
1. On Monday, December 19, 2016, you will be sending us a second
privilege log covering the documents Defendants produced on
November 30, 2016.

4
 2. There are several outstanding issues regarding the previous
privilege log, which Plaintiffs have addressed in prior written
communications.
-Will Defendants agree to bates stamp each page of a withheld
document?
-Will Defendants provide at a minimum the information provided
as to documents on your privilege log with respect to documents
labeled “Document Cannot Be Processed”, as well as advising
whether Defendants have searched for an alternative source of this
information?
-Will Defendants provide additional factual information as to
“SAR” documents and/or fulfill their burden by explaining why
they are entitled to complete protection from discovery?
-Will Defendants provide the name of counsel when counsel is
mentioned in a privilege log description but the document is not to,
from or cc’d counsel?
-Will Defendants provide the factual and legal basis for their
assertion that “confidential supervisory information” is privileged?
-Will Defendants provide the factual and legal basis for claiming
that communications between Hudak and Wick are privileged
since communications with a third party, even if a government
entity, are not privileged?
Communications with Collection Agencies
We asked whether you had searched for communications with collection
agencies related to loans sold to Plaintiffs. You said that you have only searched
for such documents in the custodial files you agreed to search since a system-wide
search is not possible.
Communications Between Defendants and Plaintiffs’ Borrowers
We asked whether you had searched for communications between
Defendants and borrowers whose loans had been sold to Plaintiffs. You said that
you have only searched for these documents in custodial files and that a system-
wide search is not possible.
Communications Between Defendants’ Note Sale Representatives and
Plaintiffs Regarding Note Sale Agreements
Defendants have produced the information contained in in any such
documents in the spreadsheet provided. When we asked if Defendants would
produce additional documents related to the note sale agreement, you said that you
5
were not sure any more could be produced. Please get back to us with
confirmation.
Communications with the Monitor Re: Investigations, Research,
Policies or Selection Criteria for Loan Forgiveness Letters and Pre-DOJ Lien
Release Program
Defendants have not searched for these documents because they believe they
are outside the scope of the Magistrate’s Order.
Loans for Which Defendants’ Took Credit Under the NMS and RMBS
Settlements
We asked whether you continue to refuse to produce documents related to
this category. When we specifically asked whether you took the loans offered or
sold to Plaintiffs and bumped them up against the loans for which Defendants took
credit, you said that it is irrelevant whether Defendants got credit.

Very truly yours,

Brent Tantillo
Managing Shareholder

cc: Robert Wick

Michael Maya
Philip Levitz
Mary Jane Fait