From the motion…
Defendant, ENRIQUE FABRE, (“FABRE”), hereby moves to compel compliance with this Court’s Order dated February 3, 2011, ordering Defendant, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., (“MERS”) to produce its Vice President, William Hultman, for deposition. FABRE moves for said relief on an emergency basis due to his suspicion that MERS is attempting to stall its required compliance with this Court’s Order until such time as Mr. Hultman no longer works for MERS. FABRE further moves for sanctions as deemed appropriate by the Court, including but not limited to a fine of $10,000 a day until Mr. Hultman is produced for deposition in compliance with the Court’s Order. In support thereof, FABRE states as follows:
Despite this Court’s Order, MERS’ Counsel Refuses to Produce HULTMAN for Deposition
FABRE has been seeking the deposition of William Hultman (“HULTMAN”) since March 2010. HULTMAN was formerly corporate secretary of MERS, the original mortgagee on the subject mortgage and the assignor of the rights to the mortgage to Plaintiff. This Court ordered the deposition of HULTMAN on December 6, 2010, when MERS failed to appear at a status conference to argue its Motion to Quash Subpoena and Motion for Protective Order. Despite MERS’ failure to appear to argue its motion, the Court allowed MERS to argue its subsequent Motion to Vacate Order Denying Motion to Quash Subpoena for Deposition and For Protective Order. The Court denied MERS’ Motion for Protective Order on February 3, 2011, explicitly ordering that: “Defendant MERS will produce Bill Hultman for deposition in Virginia within 30 days.”
Order on Def. MERS’ Mot. to Vacate Order Denying Mot. to Quash and Mot. for Protective Order, Feb. 3, 2011 (Judge Rosinek). The deposition was then scheduled to be held March 2, 2011. Despite having proper notice of this date and despite the Court order compelling HULTMAN to appear for Deposition, MERS’ counsel informed FABRE’s counsel a mere two days before the scheduled deposition that HULTMAN would not be produced for deposition. FABRE submits that MERS may be attempting to delay the deposition until such time as HULTMAN is no longer employed by MERS. In the span of time that FABRE has been seeking the deposition of HULTMAN, HULTMAN has already been removed from his position as Corporate Secretary. Accordingly, given that MERS’ counsel has refused to state a reason for refusing to produce HULTMAN for deposition, MERS fines its member organizations $10,000 when they break the MERS rules of membership. FABRE can only conjecture that MERS desires to delay the deposition until HULTMAN is no longer employed by MERS. This purposeful evasion of the Court’s Order dated February 3, 2011 must not stand.
Accordingly, this Court must fine MERS $10,000 for each day that MERS continues to disobey the Court’s rules and Orders.
Accordingly, it is undisputed that:
(1) MERS was ordered to produce William Hultman for Deposition at hearing on February 3, 2011;
(2) MERS has informed FABRE’s Counsel that Hultman will not be produced;
(3) MERS has refused to explain why it will not comply with the Order of this Court,
WHEREFOR, FABRE asks the Court to again order that William Hultman be produced for deposition immediately, to order that such deposition be taken in Miami-Dade County, to order sanctions in the amount of $10,000 a day until MERS decides to comply with the Court’s Order compelling production of Hultman for deposition, and including any other such sanctions as the Court deems appropriate, including but not limited to FABRE’s attorney’s fees for having to move for the above relief.
MERS Emergency Motion to Compel Hultman Depo