UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., )
ex rel. LAURENCE SCHNEIDER, ) Case No. 1:14-cv-01047-RMC
)
Plaintiffs, ) Judge Rosemary M. Collyer
)
v. )
)
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., )
et al., )
)
Defendants. )
)

DEFENDANTS’ REPLY TO RELATOR’S OPPOSITION TO THE GOVERNMENT’S

APPLICATION FOR A PARTIAL LIFTING OF THE SEAL

Defendants JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., JPMorgan Chase & Co., and Chase

Home Finance LLC (collectively, “Chase”) respectfully request that the Court grant the

Government’s Application for a Partial Lifting of the Seal as to the United States District Court

for the Southern District of New York.

The purpose of the Government’s motion is to allow Chase to show a copy of the

First Amended Complaint in this action (the “FCA Complaint”) to Judge Swain of the Southern

District of New York to enable Judge Swain to determine whether this action is substantially

related to an action pending before her. In the action before Judge Swain, three entities

controlled by the relator in this action, Laurence Schneider (“Schneider”), seek damages from

Chase based largely on the same set of facts that are alleged in this action. See Mortg.

Resolution Servicing, LLC v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., No. 15-CV-00293 (LTS)(JCF)

(S.D.N.Y.) (the “Schneider Private Action”). Chase intends to demonstrate to Judge Swain that
the two actions present overlapping issues of fact and law that warrant the transfer and/or

coordination of the two actions in order to avoid a waste of judicial and party resources.

Schneider opposes the Government’s motion largely on the ground that the two

actions are unrelated. That issue, however, is not yet before this Court or Judge Swain. Rather,

the only issue currently before the Court is whether Judge Swain will be allowed to review the

FCA Complaint in order to make a reasoned determination of whether the two actions are related

and, if so, what steps should be taken to transfer or coordinate them. No useful purpose would

be served by keeping Judge Swain in the dark about the contents of the FCA Complaint. The

only apparent purpose of Schneider’s opposition to the motion is to obstruct and delay Chase’s

efforts to present a full and accurate picture of the two actions to Judge Swain.

In any event, Schneider’s arguments that the two actions are unrelated are

unconvincing. Both this action and the Schneider Private Action allege that (1) Chase created a

secret “second set of books” allegedly designed to hide its charged-off loan portfolio from the

Government, (2) Chase engaged in a pattern of violations of the National Mortgage Settlement

(“NMS”) and the Home Affordable Modification Program (“HAMP”) from the inception of

these programs to the present, and (3) Chase purported to forgive loans owned by the Schneider

companies and then claimed credit for releasing those loans under the NMS. Even Schneider is

therefore forced to admit that both actions “allege similar facts” and that the Schneider Private

Action relies on the same allegations that are made in the FCA Complaint “to demonstrate

motive, intent and a pattern of wrongful conduct by Chase that have damaged the Schneider

Entities.” (Opp’n at 4, 7.)

Schneider fares no better with his puzzling assertion that if Chase is permitted to

file the FCA Complaint under seal for examination by Judge Swain, he should be permitted to

2
file the FCA Complaint “to aid in his defense” in various state court foreclosure and bankruptcy

proceedings in which he is involved. (Opp’n at 8.) This argument makes no sense. The fact that

Schneider filed the FCA Complaint would not provide him with a “defense” in any of his state

court litigation. By contrast, filing that Complaint under seal before Judge Swain would serve

the useful purpose of allowing her to make a reasoned determination of whether the Schneider

Private Action is related to the Schneider qui tam action pending before this Court.

For the foregoing reasons, the Government’s motion should be granted.

Dated: May __, 2015 Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Michael M. Maya

Robert D. Wick (DC Bar No. 440817)
Michael M. Maya (DC Bar No. 991742)
COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
One CityCenter
850 Tenth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001-4956
Telephone: (202) 662-6000
Facsimile: (202) 662-6291
rwick@cov.com
mmaya@cov.com

Attorneys for Defendants

3
 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on May 4, 2015, true and correct copies of the foregoing

document were served via email and first-class mail, postage prepaid, on the following:

William C. Edgar
Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch
Civil Division, Department of Justice
P.O. Box 261 Ben Franklin Station
Washington, DC 20044
William.Edgar@usdoj.gov

Brian P. Hudak
Assistant United States Attorney
555 Fourth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Brian.Hudak@usdoj.gov

Attorneys for the United States

Joseph A. Black
Daniel E. Cohen
THE CULLENLAW FIRM, PLLC
1101 30th Street, NW
Suite 300
Washington, DC 20007
jab@cullenlaw.com

Roberto L. Di Marco
Jennifer Martin Foster
WALKER & DI MARCO, P.C.
350 Main Street
First Floor
Malden, MA 02148
rdimarco@walkerdimarcopc.com

Attorneys for Relator

/s/ Michael M. Maya

Michael M. Maya

Attorney for Defendants