Ocwen and Scott Anderson

t-rr ll-*t,t tnATi-
LJU|'LILF\iL
IN THH, UNITED STATES DISTRICT EOURT
NORTITERN DISTRICT OT' GEORGIA
ATLA}I"IA DIVISION
CFTERYL DAVIS, )
)
Plaintiff, ) CIVIL ACTION
) FrLE NO,
vs. ) I:09-CV-01462-TCB
)
HOME AIVIERICAN CREDIT,INC. dlblu )
UPLAND MORTGAGE , OCWEN LOAN )
SERVICING, LLC, DEUTSCI{E BAhiK )
NATIONAL TRUST COMPAhIY, )
RICHARD B.IvIANE& P.C. and JOHN )
DOE(s), )
)
Defendants. )
ocwpN Lo4r{ SEByICTNGTLLC'S BFSPONqF,S TO FLATNTry"S
ERST REpUEST FOR ApMISSTOI{E
Pursuant to Rules 26 and 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
Defendant Ocwen Loan $ervicing, LLC ("Defendant") serves these objections and
responses to Plaintiff s First Requests for Admissions, stating as follows:
GENERAL OBJECTIONS
t. Defendant objects to the extent the requests exceed the scope of
pennissible discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
TB 39Vd NOS0IAV0 rsl68l6Bu EF:68 8187"/68/S8

2. Defendant further objects to each request to the extent it seeks
information that is protected from discovery by the attorney-client privilege,
investigative privilege, work product docffine, or any other applicable privilege.
3. Except for facts explicitly stated herein as being admitted by
Defendant, no incidental and/or implied admissions axe intended by Defendant.
No inferences may be drawn from any response by Defendant.
Subject to the foregoing, Defendant responds as follows:
RESPONSES
1) Scott Anderson did not personally place his sigpature or mark on the
assignment of deed to secure debt attached as Exhibit A.
Response: Defendarrt objects to this Request on the grounds that it is
irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence. Without waiving its objections, Defendant admits that Mr. Anderson did
not sign Exhibit A. However, Exhibit A was sigred by an employee of Ocwen
duly authorized by h&. Anderson to sign his rrarne.
2) The mark placed on the assignment of deed to secure debt attached as
Exhibit A as Scott Andersons is not Scott Andersqn's signature.
Responsel Defendant objects to this Request on the grourtds that it is

irrelevant, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
za fgvd N05(IilVO F9L6BL6BLL gF:EA 8T87./6A/98

evidence and is redundant. Without waiving its objections, Defendant adrnits that
Mr. Anderson did not sign Exlribit A. However, Exhibit A was signed by an
employee ofocwen duly authorized by Mt. Anderson to sign his name,
Exhibit A as Scott Andersons wEls placed by another ernployee of your company,
not $cott Anderson"
Response: Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that it is

evidenee. Without waiving its objections, Defendant admits that Exhibit A was
signed by * employee of Ocwen duly authorized by Mr. Anderson to sign his
name.
Exhibit A as Scott Andersons was placed by another employee of your company
who is also a notarf.

inelevant, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence and is redundant. Without waiving its objections, Defendant lacks
sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in Request No- 4.
E8 lSVd NOSOIAVO tst5816Bt_t gt:58 EIBZ/68/9A

5) $con Anderson was not in the presence of Leticia Arias when the
assignment of deed to secure debt attached as Exhibit A was trxecuted with his
signaftre or mark.
evidence. Without waiving its objections, Defendant lacks sufficient information
to admit or deny the allegations in Request No. 5.
6) An 2l?512009, the assignment of deed to secure debt attached as
Exhibit A was notarized in Pahn Beach County by Florida notary Leticia N. Arias.
Reeponse; Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that Exhibit
d a writterr document, speaks for itself, Insofar as firrther re$ponse to the Request
is required, Defendant state that the notary public "stamp" appearing on the face of
Exhibit A identifies Leticia N. Arias as the notary.
7) The assignment of deed to secure debt attaohed as Exhibit A was then
recorded in the Haralson County, GA public offtcial records book 869, page 554.
Response; Denied. By way of further explanation, the assignrnent of the
deed to secure debt auached as Exhibit A was recorded in the Haralson Coutrty,
Georgia real estate records in Deed Book 978,Page 322,
9E 35Vd NOSorAVq FELEEL5BLL g':6A AT8Z/6A/96

E) The assignment of deed to $ecure debt attached as fxhibit A was sent
to Haralson County, GA via the U.$. mail or other delivery service.
Responsel Admitted insofar ae the Request seek$ an admission that the
Assignment was sent for recording to the Clerk of the Superior Court of Haralson
County.
9) The assignment of deed to secure debt attached as Exhibit A was used
to support an advertisement for foreclosure sale of the Plaintiffs Properly.
Response: Defendant objects to Request No. 9 on the grounds that it is
evidence. AccordingJy, and responding to the best of its ability, Defendant denies
this Request,
l0) The signing agent of Residential Loan Seroicing, Ocwen Loan
Seroicing as attorney-in-fact-for was Scott Andersono a Senior Vice President of
Ocwen,
Response: Denied.
1l) Denise A. Marvel, Manager of Document Control and Contract
Management prepared Exhibit A.
Response: Denied.
FB 35Vd N050IAVO FSL68/6At/ gF:58 A|AZ/68/9A

12) Ms. Marvel took information from an Ocwen Computer system to
create Exhibit A.
Responre: Denied.
13) In Exhibit A, under *Attssted By" are witnesses Oscar Traveras and
Doris Chapman.
Responsel Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that Exhibit
A, a written document speaks for itself. Insofar as further response to this Request
is required Defendant state that the signafirres on Exhibit A are identified in type
as those of Oscar Taveras and Doris Chapman-
l4) Oscar Traveras and Doris Chapman are employees of your company.
Response: Admitted insofar as Doris Chapman and Oscar Taveras wers
ernployees of Ocwen at the time of the execution of Exhibit A.
15) Oscar Traveras notarizes documents on behalf of your company and
its officers.
Response: Denied.
16) Doris Chapman notarizes documents on behalf of your company arrd
its officers.
Response; Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that it is

overbroad, irrelevant, ffid not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
gB f9vd NOSOIAVO FSL6EL6ALL gF.6A BIAZ/68/5A

adrnissible evidence. Without waiving its objections, Defendant admits the
allegations in Request No. 16.
17) Leticia Arias notarizes documents on behalf of your company and its
ofEcerc,
Responser Admified-
18) Oscar Traveras has placed Scott Anderson's signature or mark on

docuurents he notarized docurnents on behalf of your company and Scott
Anderson.
Responser Denied,
19) Doris Chapman has placed Scott Anderson's signature or mark on
documents he notarized documents on behalf of yor.u company and Scott
Anderson.

overbroad, irrelevant, ild not reasonably calcutated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence. Accordingly, and responding to the best of its ability,

Defendant denies this Request.
2q Leticia Arias has placed Scott Anderson's signahue or mark on
documents he notarized documents on behalf of your oompany and Scott
Anderson.
LA 39Vd NDSOIAVd rgt5s46a/l gt:68 arTz/68/98

Response: Defendant objects to thie Request on the grounds that it is
overbroad, irrelevan! and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence. Accordingly, and responding to the best of ito ability,

2L) Oscar Traveras has placed Scott Anderson's signature or mark on
documents notarized by others on behalf of your company and $cott Anderson.
Response: Denied.
22) Leticia Arias has placed Scott Anderron's signanue or mark on
documents notarized by otherc on behalf of your conrpany and Scott Anderson.
overbroad, irrelevant, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of

23) Doris Chapman has placed Scott Anderson's signafure or mark on
documents notarized by others on behalf of your company and Scott Anderson.
8B 35Vd NOS0IAVq V9LEEL6BLL 9F'6A BTBZ|EA|gB

24) Your company employs the notaries that notarize the assignments of
rnortgages and deeds your company prepares.
Response: Defendant objecm to this Request on the grounds that it is

evidence. Without uraiving its objection, Defendant admits the allegations in
RequestNo.24.
ZS) Yoru company preparcs assignments of mortgage, deed to secure
trust, and deeds of trust in India.

overbroad, irrelevanf and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence. Fwther, Ocwen does not originate loans, so it does not
pr€pare deeds of tmst. Assignments af,e prepared in orre of Ocwen's Florida
Iocations, Accordingly, and responding to the best of its ability, Defendant denies
this Request.
26) Your company's employees exeoute assigrunents of rnortgages and
other real estate property records as officers of corporations they are not employed
and paid by.
overbroad, irrelevant, f,nd not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
58 lSVd N050rAVO FgrSBt6Bll st:6a al6z/6a/98

admissible evidence. Without waiving its objections, Defendanr denies the
allegations in Rsquest No. 26.
27) Doris Chapman notarizes documents on behalf of yoru company and
its officers.
Response: Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that it has
been asked and answered in Defendant's Response to Request No. 16. Defendant
further re-states its objections to Request No. 16.
28) Leticia Arias notarizes documenk on behalf of your company and its
ofifrcers.
Response: Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that it has
been asked and artswered in Defendant's Response to Request No. 17. Defendant
further re-states its objections to Request No. 17.
29) The assigrunent of deed to secure debt attached as Exhibit A was

"prepared" by Maria Alverez of Ocwen Loan Servicing.
Response; Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that Exhibit
A, a written document, speaks for itself. Insofar as further re$ponse to this Request
is required, Defendant states that the document nfooteril on Exhibit A identifies
Maria Alvarez as the preparer of the document.
l0
8T f9vd NOSOII\VO rqt68tEBtl 9F:EB AT.A7,/6A/9A

30) Deutsche Bank National Trust Company conducts business at lffl
Worthington Road, Suite 100, West Palm Beach, FL 33409.
Responser Denied.
31) Deutsche Bank National Trust Company employs officers ar 166l
Wortfiington Road, Suite 100, IVestPalm Beach, FL 33409.
Responser Denied.
32) Deutsche Bank National Trust Company employs paid employees at
1661 Worthington Road Suite 100, West PaIm Beach, FL 33409.
Reeponse; Denied,
33) Deutsche Bank National Trust Company may be senred with lawsuits
and seryice ofprocess et 1661 \Vorthingfon Road, $uite 100, West Palm Beach, FL
33409.
Responsel Denied.
34) You have not informed officers and management of Deutsche Bank
National Trust Company ofthis lawsuit.
Response: Denied.
35) Deutsche Bank National Trwt Company did not approve the
foreclosure of Plaintiffs loan and property.
Responser Denied.
ll
IT fSVd N050IAVO ,qLEBLBBLL g':6A AIBZ|EB/9E

36) Your company has been sanctioned by state and Federal Courts for
your mortgage servicing practices.

vague, overbroad, irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery
of admissible evidence. Accordingly, Defendant denies this request.
37) Your company has been sanctioned by state and Federal Courts for
your foreclosure practices.

vague, overbroad, irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery
of adprissible evidence. AccordingJy, Defendant denies this request.
38) Your company has filed pleadings and affidavits in Courts in the state
of Florida that claimed original promissory notes were lost, stolen, or destroyed.
Response: Defendant objects to this Request on the grorurds that it is
overbroad unduly burdensome irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to
the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to these objections, Ocwen states
that as while it is possible that Ocwen as servicer has supplied a lost note affidavit
in a given case, it does not generally own the mortgages it services, so it does not
generally file lawsuits or pleadings.
L2
zI 35Vd NOSCIInvq FSt6Sl6Et/ gf:58 aIBZ/6A/98

39) Your company has filed false pleadings and affidavits in Courts in the
state of Florida that claimed original promissory notes were lost, stolen, or
destuoyed whert in fact you knew the location of the original note.
Responre: Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that it is

overbroad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to
the discovery of admissible evidence. Accordingly, and responding to the best of
its abilify, Defendant denies this Request.
40) Your company has filed foreclosure actions in its name as Plaintiff
claiming it owned promissory notes when in fact it was only a servicer and other
entities or persone owned the note.
Responsel Defendant denies this Request insofar as the Request seeks
information regarding foreclosures conducted in the state of Georgia, Georgia
statute provides that foreclosures may be conducted through a non-judicial process
(as was the foreclosure that is the subject of the case at Bar). Therefore there is no
I'plaintiff' as defined in this Request. Insofar as Plaintiff seeks infonuration
regarding the foreclosure process of any other state, such Request is overly broad,
unduly burdensome and not calculated to lead to the discovery of evidence
admissible in this mafier.
13
eT fSvd N0sqrnvo FSr.FBtEBtl gt :6a alaz/6a/9a

41) Your company received a report claiming that Scott Anderson's ruilme
was being forged on assignments of mortgages and deeds.
vague, irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of

admissible evidence. This "report" is not identifred in the request nor is the person
who allegedly received such inforuation and Defendant does not have knowledge
of such a report. Without waiving its objection, Defendant denies the allegation in
RequestNo.4l.
42) Federal Judge Arthur Schack criticized your company and Scott
Anderson's practices in opinions and court orders he issued.
Responre: Defendant objects to this Request on the grorrnds that it is
evidence. Further, it calls for an admission of opinion on these nrlings and not for
an admission of fact. Defendant states that Judge Schack is a state court judge in
New York, and has issued some opinions in foreclosure actions, both of which
were appealed. One has already been rwersed and remarrded and the other is
currerrtly pending appellate argument. Accordingly, and responding to the best of
its ability, Defendant states that these opinions are of public record, and whether
l4
FI fSVd N0SflI1tV0 VELEBL5BLL gF:58 AT87,/6A/9A

the opinions amount to criticisrn is a matter of opinion; therefore, Deferrdant can
neither admit or deny this request.
43) Federal Judge Arthur Schack denied your right to foreclose in cases in
the state of New York.
evidence. Judge $chack is a New York state court judge who refused under the
rules of procedure in New York to issue an order of reference. Both of cases were
appealed and one has already been reversed. Accordingly, and responding to the
best of its ability, Defendent denies this Request as written.
44) Your company has been notified by regulators, U.S. trustee's office,
U.S., Attomeys, U,S. Justice Department and/or state Attorney Gerrerals that your
company is under investigation for its assigrrment of mortgage and deeds practices.
Responsel Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that it is
vag$e, overbroad, inelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery
of admissible evidence. Accordingly, and responding to the best of its ability,
45) The assignment to secure debt attached as Exhibit A is dated and

notarized with a date of 2/25/ZAQ9.
l5
ET 39Vd NOSOIAVO F9L6EL6ALL EF:66 BIA4/EB/98

Response: Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that Exhibit
A, a written document speaks for itself. Insofar as further response to this Request
is required, Defendant state that the date of the assignmeut and the date indicated
in the paragraph concernirtg the notary are both identified as February 25,ZA0g.
46) The assignment to secure debt attached as Hxtribit A is ,*made and

entered": as of 51112005,
Responce: Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that Exhibit
A, a written document speaks for ieelf. Insofar as further response to this Request
is required, Defendant state ttrat the date referenced in the Request appears on
Exhibit A.
47) The assignment to secure debt attached as Exhibit A states a

Properly/Asset transfer from HomeAmerican Credit D/F,IA Upland Mortgage
whose address is Ocwen Loan Sewicing 1661 Worthington Road, Suite 100, West
Palm Beach, FL 33409 (the "Assignor") to Deutsche Bank National Trust
Company, As Indentrue Trustee for the Registered Holders of Ocwen Real Estate
Asset Liquidating Trust 2001-1, Asset-Backed Notes Series 2007*1, whose address
is c/o Ocwen Loan Servicing 166l Worthington Road, Suite 100, West Palm
Beach, FL 33409 (the "Assigree").
16
9T ISVJ N05(rAVO tgl68tSBtt gt:6a aral,lEa/ga

evidence. Without waiving its objection, Defendant states that the "Assignment of
Deed to Secure Debt" attached as Exhibit A speaks for itself. Aoeordingly, and
responding to the best of its ability, Defendant denies this Request.
48) Your company's ernployees executed Exhibit A for both the Assignor
and Assignee.
evidence. Without waiving i* objections, Defendant states that the "Assignrnent
of Deed to Secure Debf' attached as Exhibit A speaks for itself. Accordingly, and
responding to the best of its ability, Defendant denies this Request.
49) Exhibit A was assigned in 2009, but backdated to be effective in 2005.

evidence. Without waiving its objections, Defendant states that tlre "Assignment
of Deed to Secure Debt" attached as Exhibit A speaks for itself. In addition, the
"effect" of the assignment would be governed by the applicable law and title
17
LI fgvd NOS0IAVq V9LEEL6A/-L EF:58 BIA7,/6A/98

standards. Accordingly, and responding to the best of its ability, Defendant denies
this Request.
50) Ocwen REAL ESTATE ASSET LIQTIIDATING TRUST 2007-l was
not in existence in 2005.
Response; Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds tlrat it is
evidence. Without waiving its objections, Defendant admits the allegations in
RequestNo.50.
5l) There was no lawfirl way for HomeAmerican Credit DIB/A Upland
Mortgage to assign Plaintiffs Originat Promissory Note and her Deed to Secrxe
Debt to Ocwen REAI" ESTATE ASSET LIQUIDATING TRUST 2007-I in 2005.
evidence. Defendant further objects to this Request because it requires Defendant
to draw a legal conclusion, Accordinglyr and responding to the best of its abiliry,
Defendant denies this Request,
52) There was no lawful way for HomeAmerican Credit DiBlA Upland
Mortgage to assign Plaintiffs Original Promissory Note and her Deed to Secure
Debt to an entity that didn't exist until 2047.
t8
8I 39Vd NOSOIAVO DELSBLEALL g':5A A18Z/68/98


to draw a legal conclusion. Accordingly, and responding to the best of its ability,
53) Securitized trusts such as Ocwen REAL ESTATE ASSET
LIQUIDATINC TRUST 2007-l have definitive closing dates wherein the lawtul
assets in promissory notes must transfer to the trust within specific time frames.
Responsol Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that it is

evidence. Defendant firrther objects to this Request because it requires Defendant
to speculate. Accordingly, and responding to the best of its ability, Defendant
denies this Request.
54) You czumot legally nansfer a promissory note into a securitized tnrst
that has elected REMIC status two years after the trtrst's creation and its closing
date-

l9
6T tgvd NOSoIAVO V9L68L6ALL E'!68 818Z/6A/98

55) You cannot transfer a promissory note into a securitized tnrst that has
elected REMIC status two years before a tnrst's creation and its closing date.
inelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence. Defendant fuither objects to this Request because it requires Defendant
to draw a legal conclusion. Accordingly, alld responding to the best of its ability,
56) It is unlawful to backdate assignments of deeds of trust and mortgage
to assign a promissory note that was not assigned into a trust two years earlier.
Responsel Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds th,at it is
57) You never paid cash or any monetary consideration for the Ptaintiffs
promissory note.
20
ad 39vd NOSOIAVq FSrbEiSBtr Et:6A BIAZ/68/9A

Responser Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that it is
irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead ts the discovery of admissible
evidence. Without waiving its objection, Defendant denies the allegation in
Request No. 57 in that the Depositor for this trust, prior to depositing this rnortgage
into the pool purchased the loans for value.
58) Another securitized tnrst assigned you the right to service Plaintiffs
loan.
Response; Defendant states that it held servicing rights to a Deed to Secure
Debt conveyed by Cheryl Davis, but as written, the question is unanswerable;
thereforeo Defendant denies this Request.
59) Another securitized trust owned the Plaintifi's Original Promissory
Note prior to any alleged transfer to Ocwen REAL ESTATE ASSET
LIQTTTDATING TRUST 2AA7 -l .

evideuce. Acoordingly, and responding to the best of its ability, Defendant denies
this Request.
60) Your company and Scott Anderson claim in Exhibit A that they have
a right under a Power of Attomey to execute docurnents on behalf of the Assignor.
2l
Tl NOSOlAVfl E9L6BL6ALL EF:6A 8TAZ/68/98

=9Vd
evidence. Without waiving its objection, Defendant admits the allegations in
Request No. 60.
6l) Your company knows tlrat it is unlawful in the state of Florida and
Georgia to forge a signature or rnark on real property recordg such as assignments
of deeds to secure debt and mortgages,
Response; Defendant objects to this Request on the gror.urds that it is

evidence. Defendant fi"rrther objects to this Request because it requires Defendant
to draw a legal conclusion. Accordinglyr and responding to the best of its ability,
62) Your company knows that it is unlawful in the state of Florida and
Georgia to have notaries place another person's signature or mark on real properfy
records such as assignments of deeds to secure debt and mortgages and then
notarize such documents.
"r1
4Z NOSOIAVO FSL6SL6ELL g':68 BIAZlEElgA

=9Vd
to draw a legal conclusion. Accordingly, and responding to the best of its abiliry,
Georgia to backdate assignments of deeds to secure debt and mortgages and then
notarize such documents to reflect a date different.
evidence. Defendant finttrer objects to this Request because it requires Defendant
Georgia to file assignments of deeds to secure debt and mortgages for loans whose
promissory note were n6ver lawfully sold, transfened or assigned.
Retponse: Defendant objects to this Reguest on the grounds that it is
furelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
23
87, :5Vd NOSOIAVq ,9L6EL6BLL gF:60 8IAZ/68T98

65) Your company knows that if it intentionally separates or bifurcates a
promissory note from its deed to secure debt or mortgage that the mortgage and
deed become a nullity.

evidence. Defendant further objecu to this Request because it requires Defendant
to speculate and draw a legal conclusion, Accordingly, and responding to the best
of its ability, Defendant denies this Request.
66) Your company knows that no real transfer of ownership interests in a
promissory note occurs if only an assignrnent of mortgage or deed to secure debt
occurs.
irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of adurissible
evidence, Defendant further objects to thie Request because it requires Defsndant
67) Notaries employed by you have signed Scott Anderson's signature on
assignments of rnortgages, deeds of trust, and/or deeds to secure debt.
24
F4 rgvd NOSdIAVO F9L68L6BLL g':6A BIBEIEB|gA

redundant and a repeat of other Requests found herein. Further, Defendant
obvjects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad, irrelevant and not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of evidence. Without waiving its
objections, Defendant admits that lvlr. Anderson did not sign Exhibit A. However,
Exhibit A was sigred by an employee of Oswen duly authorized by Mr.Anderson
to sign his narr,e.
68) There are at least a dozen contracts and designated agre€ments in
existence relating to Ocwerr REAL ESTATE ASSET LIQUIDATING TRUST

2007-1.
overbroad, irrelevan! and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of

admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this Request because it requires
Defendant to speculate. Accordingly, and responding to the best of its ability,
69) Officers of your company have owrtership interests in the certificates
of Ocwen REAL ESTATE ASSET LIQUIDATING TRUST 2007-t.
Responue: Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that it is
overbroad, irrelevant, dlrd not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
25
sz fSvd N05qI/1U0 FS468t6814 gF:68 ArgT,lEB/ga

70) Ronald Faris has ownership certifioates in Ocwen REAL ESTATE

ASSET LTQUIDATING TRUST 2007-r.

overbroad, irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of

7l) William Erby has ownership certificates in Ocwen REAL ESTATE
ASSET LIQIJIDATn{G TRUST 2A07-1.
Response: Defendarrt objects to this Request on the grounds that it is

overbroad, irrelevant, md not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of

72) Your company's ofFrcers and employees have purchased REO assets
and properties foreclosed on by your company.
overbroad, inElevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence. Ocwen has been in business sincE January I, 1997. It is
26
9Z 39Vd NOSOIAVO V9LEEL6ALL EF:68 ATBl,lEA/3A

possible that an employee or former employee has somewhere in the United States
in the last 13 years bought an REO property, but as written it is impossible to
determine. Accordingly, and responding to the best of its ability, Defendant denies
this Request.
73l. Faurily members of your company's offrcers and employees have
purchased REO assets and properties forpclosed on by your company.
overbroad, irrelevant, and rrot reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible eviderrce. Oowen has been in business since January l, 1997. It is
possible that a family member of an employee or former employee has somewhere
in the United States in the last 13 years bought an REO property, but as unitten it is
impossible to determine. Accordingly, and responding to the best of its ability,
Defendant denies this Request-
74) Friends and business colleagues of your company's officers and

employees have purchased REO assets and properties foreclosed on by your
company.
Response: Defendant objects to ttris Request on the grounds that it is

admissible evidence, Ocwen has been in business since January l, 1997. It is
27
Ll 39Vd N0s0IAVq FEtSEtSAtt Et:68 ALAZt6A/gE

possible that a friend or business colleague of an employee or former employee has
somewhere in the United States in the last 13 ysa.rs bought an REO property, but as
written it is impossible to determine. Accordingly, and responding to the best of
its ability, Defendant denies this Request.
75) Friends and business colleagues of your company's officerr and

employees have purchased REO assets and properties foreclosed on by yotu
company at a discount.
Rerponser Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that it is
overbroad irrelevant, flrld not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of

Defendant denies this Request as REO properties are priced based on market value.
Georgia Bar l.lo. 26LSl5

Charles T. Huddleston
Georgia Bar No. 373975
BAKER" DONELSON, BEARMAN, Jonathan E. Green
CAI,DWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC Georgia Bar No. 3Q7A53
3414 Peachtree Road, N.E., Ste 1600 Counsel for Defendant Ocwen Loan
Atlanta, Georgia 30326 Serticing, LLC
Fh: (aOa) 577-6000;Fax; (404)22t'
6501
lfinley@bakerdonel son. aom
chuddleston@bakerdonelson. com
j e gr een@b akerdonel son. com
28
87, fSVd NCISOIAVO F9L6EL6ALL 9t:68 BTAZ|EAt\A

$ERTIFTCATE or SEB,yrcE
I have this day served upon all necessary parties of record with a copy of
ocwEN LOAFT SERVTCTNG, LLC'S RESPONSES TO PLATNTIFF"S
F'IRST REQUEST FOR AITMISSIONS by the CIvIIECF orrline frling system
with the U.S. Disrict Court for the Northern District of Georgia to the following;
Preston Halliburton, Esq,

Law Office of Prestorr Flaliburton
1378 Scenic Hwy. N.
Snellville, GA 30078
EFstonhal ibur.t, on@v, fl hoo, gom
This 4ft day of June 2010.
Georgia Bar No- 373975
BAKER. DONELSON BEARMAN,

CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC
3414 Peachtree Road, N.E.
Monarch Plaza, Suite 1600
Atlanta, Georgia 30326
Phone: (404) 577-6000
Facsimile; (aAQ 221-6501
chuddlestonl@bakerdonelson.com
for Defendant
C ouns el Qcw en
Loan Seruicing, LLC
29
6Z !5Vd ND50IAV0 VgL6BL6ALL E?:56 AIB7,/6A/9A

Ocwen and Scott Anderson

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ocwen and Scott Anderson

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ocwen and Scott Anderson

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

t-rr ll-*t,t tnATi-

responses to Plaintiff s First Requests for Admissions, stating as follows:

pennissible discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

TB 39Vd NOS0IAV0 rsl68l6Bu EF:68 8187"/68/S8

information that is protected from discovery by the attorney-client privilege,

investigative privilege, work product docffine, or any other applicable privilege.

3. Except for facts explicitly stated herein as being admitted by

Defendant, no incidental and/or implied admissions axe intended by Defendant.

No inferences may be drawn from any response by Defendant.

Subject to the foregoing, Defendant responds as follows:

assignment of deed to secure debt attached as Exhibit A.

Response: Defendarrt objects to this Request on the grounds that it is

irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible

not sign Exhibit A. However, Exhibit A was sigred by an employee of Ocwen

duly authorized by h&. Anderson to sign his rrarne.

2) The mark placed on the assignment of deed to secure debt attached as

Exhibit A as Scott Andersons is not Scott Andersqn's signature.

Responsel Defendant objects to this Request on the grourtds that it is

za fgvd N05(IilVO F9L6BL6BLL gF:EA 8T87./6A/98

3) The mark placed on the assignment of deed to secure debt attached as

Exhibit A as Scott Andersons wEls placed by another ernployee of your company,

not $cott Anderson"

Response: Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that it is

signed by * employee of Ocwen duly authorized by Mr. Anderson to sign his

4) The mark placed on the assignment of deed to secure debt attached as

Exhibit A as Scott Andersons was placed by another employee of your company

who is also a notarf.

Response: Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that it is

evidence and is redundant. Without waiving its objections, Defendant lacks

sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in Request No- 4.

E8 lSVd NOSOIAVO tst5816Bt_t gt:58 EIBZ/68/9A

Response: Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that it is

irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible

evidence. Without waiving its objections, Defendant lacks sufficient information

to admit or deny the allegations in Request No. 5.

6) An 2l?512009, the assignment of deed to secure debt attached as

Reeponse; Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that Exhibit

Exhibit A identifies Leticia N. Arias as the notary.

7) The assignment of deed to secure debt attaohed as Exhibit A was then

Response; Denied. By way of further explanation, the assignrnent of the

Georgia real estate records in Deed Book 978,Page 322,

9E 35Vd NOSorAVq FELEEL5BLL g':6A AT8Z/6A/96

to Haralson County, GA via the U.$. mail or other delivery service.

Responsel Admitted insofar ae the Request seek$ an admission that the

9) The assignment of deed to secure debt attached as Exhibit A was used

to support an advertisement for foreclosure sale of the Plaintiffs Properly.

Response: Defendant objects to Request No. 9 on the grounds that it is

irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible

l0) The signing agent of Residential Loan Seroicing, Ocwen Loan

Seroicing as attorney-in-fact-for was Scott Andersono a Senior Vice President of

1l) Denise A. Marvel, Manager of Document Control and Contract

Management prepared Exhibit A.

FB 35Vd N050IAVO FSL68/6At/ gF:58 A|AZ/68/9A

Responsel Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that Exhibit

as those of Oscar Taveras and Doris Chapman-

Response: Admitted insofar as Doris Chapman and Oscar Taveras wers

ernployees of Ocwen at the time of the execution of Exhibit A.

15) Oscar Traveras notarizes documents on behalf of your company and

16) Doris Chapman notarizes documents on behalf of your company arrd

Response; Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that it is