Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
N Ambac Assurance Corporation, et al., Plaintiffs–Respondents, v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., et al., Defendants–Appellants, Bank of America Corp., Defendant.
_
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.), entered December 17, 2013, which denied defendants-appellants' (collectively, Countrywide) motion to compel plaintiffs (collectively, Ambac) to produce certain documents relating to Ambac's self-assessment of its shortcomings in underwriting residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS), unanimously affirmed, with costs.
The court providently exercised its discretion in denying Countrywide's motion to compel (see Cook v. HMC Times Sq. Hotel, LLC, 112 AD3d 485 [1st Dept 2013] ). The court's order limiting disclosure of a subset of documents addressing Ambac's recognized shortcomings and deficiencies in its RMBS underwriting, referred to as “self-analysis documents,” did not deprive Countrywide of a full and fair opportunity to litigate their defenses. Ambac has already agreed to produce self-analysis documents that specifically identify Countrywide or one of the RMBS transactions at issue. The burden that would be imposed upon Ambac to search for additional documents falling under this category would outweigh Countrywide's need for them (see Kavanagh v Ogden Allied Maintenance Corp., 92 N.Y.2d 952, 954 [1998] ). Further, Countrywide has not demonstrated that the documents are material and necessary in the defense of this action (see CPLR 3101[a] ). Indeed, as the court found, evidence of hindsight analysis would not tend to reveal Ambac's knowledge at the time it entered into the transactions at issue (see DDJ Mgt., LLC v. Rhone Group L.L.C., 15 NY3d 147, 154 [2010] ).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
_
CLERK
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: 1291 0
Decided: June 26, 2014
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)