Mistaken Reliance on Notes Without Further Investigation Cannot Contradict Prior Statements

In its verified discovery responses, Defendant PHH identified two people as “key actors” in connection with the loan at issue.  Further: “At a hearing before this Court on this very point – the level of authority of these employees – PHH stood by its responses, a point which the Court confirms from its review of the audio recording.”  Mayer v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., 2026 WL 18783 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 2, 2026).

Plaintiff noted the depositions of those two people. PHH objected.  It belatedly asserted a need to serve then under the Hague Convention.  The court wrote:

PHH now claims that it was merely relying on its servicing notes in identifying Ms. Naik and Mr. Dsouza, rather than conducting the reasonable and diligent investigation required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. [emphasis in original].

PHH was not successful.  The court wrote: “PHH’s plea is unavailing in light of its interrogatory responses and representations to this Court.”

The Mayer court added:

In addition, PHH’s responses to the deposition notices for Ms. Naik and Mr. Dsouza fail to comply with the Rules to such a degree as to demonstrate bad faith. First, PHH does not dispute that the depositions were noticed on November 24, 2025 for depositions to proceed on December 10 and that PHH failed to meet and confer with Plaintiff’s counsel until just two days before the depositions, on December 8. At that late hour, PHH raised its objections for the first time – including that the witnesses were located in India and would need to be served via the Hague Convention. Any and all such objections have been waived. The proper method to object to a deposition notice is to move for a protective order under Federal Rule 26(c). And the requisite first step is to meet and confer….

The court wrote: “PHH’s belated reliance on the Hague Convention on this record further demonstrates its discovery gamesmanship. The time to inform Plaintiff of the location of these witnesses was at the time of disclosure. Indeed, once identified as key actors in response to verified interrogatories and by representations to this Court, PHH had an obligation to amend its initial disclosures to include these witnesses and provide contact information.”

It added: “In sum, PHH identified Ms. Naik and Mr. Dsouza as key actors with relevant information, and Plaintiff’s inference as to their status as managing agents on this record, thereby rendering notices of depositions sufficient under Rule 26, was reasonable. PHH’s arguments against making these witnesses available for remote video deposition do not sound in good faith, have been waived and are otherwise utterly unavailing.”