Jacqueline Segui

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
--------------------------------------------------------------X
:
In re: Jacqueline Segui, : Chapter 13
:
: Case No. 17-13441
:
Debtor. :
:
--------------------------------------------------------------X
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO COMPEL
COUNSEL:1
Linda Tirelli, Esq.
Tirelli Law Group, LLC
50 Main Street, Suite 1265
White Plains, NY 10606
Attorney for Debtor
Wesley T. Kozeny, Esq.
12400 Olive Blvd, Ste 555
St. Louis, MO 63141
Attorney for Creditor, for Specialized Loan Servicing LLC as Servicer for the Bank of New
York Mellon as Secured Creditor
CECELIA G. MORRIS
CHIEF UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE
The Debtor, Jacqueline Segui, brings this Motion to Compel Discovery Responses asking
the Court to compel production of responses to discovery requests. For the reasons set forth in
1 Due to limitation on live court appearance by the Coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak, the Court’s ruling is based
on the documents filed.
17-13441-cgm Doc 76 Filed 03/20/20 Entered 03/20/20 10:47:26 Main Document
Pg 1 of 5

Page 2 of 5
this Memorandum Decision and Order, the Debtor’s Motion to Compel Discovery Responses is
granted.
Jurisdiction
This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334(a), 28 U.S.C. §
157(a) and the Amended Standing Order of Reference signed by Chief Judge Loretta A. Preska
dated January 31, 2012.
Background
On November 30, 2017, Jacqueline Segui (the “Debtor”) filed a petition for relief under
chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code. On May 23, 2019, the Debtor requested Loss Mitigation
with Specialized Loan Servicing LLC as servicer for the Bank of New York Mellon FKA The
Bank of New York, as Trustee for the certificate-holders of CWABS, Inc., Asset-Based
Certificates, Series 2007-1 (the “Creditor”). On June 10, 2019, the Court entered an Order
Granting Loss Mitigation. On March 4, 2020, the Debtor filed this Motion to Compel Discovery
Responses (the “Motion to Compel,” ECF No. 72). On March 6, 2020, the Creditor filed its
Objection to the Motion to Compel (the “Objection,” ECF No. 74).
The Debtor’s Motion to Compel states that on November 1, 2019, the Debtor submitted
her initial loss mitigation package and supporting documents. Motion to Compel ¶ 3, Ex. A. On
December 10, 2019, the Creditor denied the Debtor’s loan modification request. Id. On
December 17, 2019, pursuant to the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”) and its
implementing regulation, 12 C.F.R section 1024.35(a) (the “Regulation X”), the Debtor served a
Notice of Error on the Creditor, requesting for the guidelines, raw data and analysis relied upon
for the denial. Motion to Compel ¶ 4, Ex. B. The Creditor did not provide the requested
information. Motion to Compel ¶ 5, Ex. C. On January 6, 2019, the Debtor served a second
17-13441-cgm Doc 76 Filed 03/20/20 Entered 03/20/20 10:47:26 Main Document
Pg 2 of 5

Page 3 of 5
Notice of Error on the creditor to which the Creditor responded by refusing to disclose the
requested information, stating that the requested information was confidential, proprietary and
privileged. Motion to Compel ¶ 6-8, Exs. D-E. On February 13, 2020, the Debtor served a
Third Notice of Error on the Creditor. Motion to Compel ¶ 9, F. After a loss mitigation hearing
on February 20, 2020, the Creditor provided the numbers and in-system screenshot of data used,
but did not provide the requested requirements, guidelines, program rules and regulations used in
determining the loss mitigation denial. Motion to Compel, Ex. C.
The Debtor’s Motion argues that the Creditor’s failure to produce all “requirements,
guidelines, program rules and regulations set forth by any investors and/or servicers relied upon
to determine denial” is in violation of this Court’s Loss Mitigation procedures and rules. The
Creditor’s Objection, inter alia, argues that the requested information is excluded from
production pursuant to 12 C.F.R § 1024.35(e)(4), which provides that “a servicer is not required
to provide documents relied upon that constitute confidential, proprietary or privileged
information.”
Discussion
The Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”) and its implementing regulation
contemplate the participation of the loan servicer in the loss modification process, “including
how errors can be identified and addressed, how requests for information can be made.” In re
Coppola, 596 B.R. 140, 163 (Bankr. D.N.J. 2018) (holding that failure to provide the specific
reasons for its denial of the Debtor’s loss mitigation is a plausible claim for the Creditor’s
violation of RESPA).
The issue in this case is whether the Creditor has provided a substantive response to the
Debtor’s request for information. Despite the Creditor’s own references to “investors
17-13441-cgm Doc 76 Filed 03/20/20 Entered 03/20/20 10:47:26 Main Document
Pg 3 of 5

Page 4 of 5
requirements” and “the guidelines of the investors/owner” as basis for its denial and the Debtor’s
several requests for information upon which the denial was based, no such information was
provided by the Creditor. See Motion to Compel, Exs. C-E. Instead, the Creditor is invoking
blanket confidentiality. See Wilson v. Bank of Am., N.A., 48 F.Supp.3d 787, 806-07 (E.D. Pa.
2014) (Bank’s blanket refusal to provide requested documents such as the copies of servicing
logs, audio files, property inspection reports, invoices from the foreclosure firm and providing
contradictory explanations regarding denial of loan modification constitute a plausible RESPA
violation claim).
The Regulation X requires the servicer to make a substantive response within thirty
business days of the Debtor’s request for information. See 12 C.F.R § 1024.35(e); Zinetti v.
Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr. Co. as Tr. for Saxon Asset Sec. Tr. 2007-3, Mortg. Loan Asset Backed
Certificates, Series 2 (007-3, No. CV 19-1279-LPS-JLH, 2020 WL 409725, at *5 (D. Del. Jan.
24, 2020) (holding that a loan servicer has a duty to act on a notice of error or request for
information and is required to conduct a reasonable investigation in response to borrower’s
notice or error under RESPA and Regulation X).
Facilitating the understanding of how creditors reach their decision is precisely what the
Regulation X intended to achieve with procedures like Notices of Error and Requests for
Information. In re Coppola at 166. (“[S]eeking to understand how the Bank reached its different
income numbers, [is] precisely the type[] of error[] or deficienc[y] that the regulations seek to
address by Notices of Error and Requests for Information and by requiring specific reasons for
any denial.”) In this case, the Debtor is not challenging the denial of her loan modification
request, but rather requesting information about how the Creditor arrived at its determination to
deny the Debtor’s loss mitigation request. The Creditor’s blanket refusal to provide the
17-13441-cgm Doc 76 Filed 03/20/20 Entered 03/20/20 10:47:26 Main Document
Pg 4 of 5

Page 5 of 5
information not only fails to establish how the requested information qualifies as “confidential,
proprietary or privileged” under 12 C.F.R. § 1024.35(e)(4), but also does not assist the Debtor in
determining whether to appeal and what appeal should address.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, The Motion to Compel is GRANTED. It is hereby
ORDERED that the Creditor provide the requested information to the Debtor.
Dated: March 20, 2020
Poughkeepsie, New York
/s/ Cecelia G. Morris
_______________________
Hon. Cecelia G. Morris
Chief U.S. Bankruptcy Judge
17-13441-cgm Doc 76 Filed 03/20/20 Entered 03/20/20 10:47:26 Main Document
Pg 5 of 5