BLACKROCK ALLOCATION TARGET SHARES: SERIES S PORTFOLIO, et al., Plaintiffs, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Defendant. ROYAL PARK INVESTMENTS SA/NV, Plaintiff, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Defendant. NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMINISTRATION BOARD, Plaintiff, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Defendant. PHOENIX LIGHT SF LTD. et al., Plaintiffs, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Defendant. COMMERZBANK A.G., Plaintiff, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Defendant 14-CV-09371 (KPF)(SN), 14-CV-09764 (KPF)(SN), 14-CV-10067 (KPF)(SN), 14-CV-10102 (KPF)(SN), 15-CV-10033 (KPF)(SN) United States District Court, S.D. New York Filed November 04, 2016 Netburn, Sarah, United States Magistrate Judge ORDER *1 On October 18, 2016, Wells Fargo filed a motion to compel Plaintiffs to produce RMBS models and related materials used to evaluate RMBS, including “the relevant data inputs, codes, and algorithms reflecting Plaintiffs’ qualitative judgments and views about the RMBS at issue.” ECF No. 220. Plaintiffs believe that the information sought by the motion to compel is irrelevant and would be unduly burdensome to obtain. See ECF No. 221. In addition, plaintiffs represent that they are already producing the “output and analysis from the models.” Plfs. Oct. 25, 2016 Ltr. The Court heard argument from both Plaintiffs and Wells Fargo regarding this issue at the discovery conference on October 28, 2016. Upon review of the submissions and the arguments presented by both sides at the conference, Wells Fargo's motion to compel is DENIED. Plaintiffs argue that such a production involves “complex and dynamic computer-based systems” that constitute proprietary and highly confidential trade secret information. ECF No. 221 at 2. The Court agrees that Wells Fargo is not entitled to a wholesale production in which seven financial institutions’ “software, code, algorithms, and formulas,” the very definition of proprietary information, are laid bare. Wells Fargo has not cited any authority by courts in this District or Circuit compelling a party in an RMBS action to produce its RMBS investment models. The other cases to which Wells Fargo cite in its letter motion are inapposite—they deal with employee compensation and promotion information, a company's revenue information, and customer inquiry information, not how highly complex financial instruments were valued at a specific moment in time. Wells Fargo asserts that extremely sophisticated models have been produced in other RMBS cases, perhaps in reference to the valuation models produced by Standard & Poor and Moody's (as Wells Fargo raised at the conference), but no such cases have been specifically identified for the Court's review. Wells Fargo's reliance on Judge Moses's opinion in Royal Park Investments SA/NV v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., No. 14-CV-04394 (AJN)(BCM), 2016 WL 4613390 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 31, 2016) is misplaced. Judge Moses held that Deutsche Bank was allowed to pursue discovery of “valuation analyses performed by or for [Royal Park Investments] or its assignors – formally or informally – and information concerning the prices at which they purchased, sold, or made or received offers to purchase or sell the Certificates (or the portfolio as a whole).” Deutsche Bank, 2016 WL 4613390, at *18. Wells Fargo emphasizes Judge Moses's citation of plaintiff expert's declaration, which defined “widely-used techniques” for valuing the instruments at issue in the case to include “valuation modeling.” Id. But Judge Moses made no mention of the underlying inputs, variables, algorithms, and assumptions used to produce the “valuation analyses.” The Court reads Judge Moses's opinion as allowing only the generalized information considered by Royal Park when it made its investment decisions. In fact, Wells Fargo concedes that Judge Moses's holding did not address a specific request for models. Judge Moses also clearly prohibited broad-based discovery that did not include the relevant RMBS instruments in question. Id. at *11 (“Discovery seeking information concerning specific securities will therefore be limited to the Certificates at issue in this action and the CDOs from which they were liquidated. This ruling does not preclude Deutsche Bank from seeking otherwise-relevant documents that pertain to the portfolio as a whole, or that incidentally mention other Certificates or CDOs. Nor does it permit RPI to withhold or redact documents simply because other securities are mentioned.” (emphasis supplied)). At the conference, Wells Fargo noted that its motion to compel may encompass some broad-based models used by Plaintiffs to evaluate non-RMBS investments. In accordance with Judge Moses's ruling, the Court is skeptical that the models Wells Fargo seeks can be dissected to contain only the RMBS investments in question. *2 Moreover, the Court is unclear as to what information Wells Fargo intends to extract from reviewing the RMBS models, and the relevance of and need for that information. Based on the parties’ submissions and the arguments presented at the conference, the Court understands a valuation model to consist of the computer code and program (i.e., the “soundboard”). What Wells Fargo has not justified is how knowing or replicating the underlying computer code will give it insight into “the material variables that impact the performance of RMBS.” ECF No. 220 at 1-2. Plaintiffs have additionally asserted that, for whatever reason, they did not keep records of what values the individual trader or portfolio manager set the “dials” to, so even if Wells Fargo did obtain the underlying program, it would not know whether its replication of the program matches the 2007 configuration of the “dials.” In short, Wells Fargo has demonstrated only a marginal need for a large undertaking. Plaintiffs will need time to identify the specific versions of the RMBS models and to copy the materials onto an external hard drive. Wells Fargo will then need to download, process, analyze, and review. Throughout the process, there will inevitably be disputes regarding whether the correct version was selected or whether any codes or formulas are missing, all of which hobble a discovery timetable that already contains a motion practice regarding sampling and a loan re-underwriting schedule. Wells Fargo's demand is therefore DENIED without prejudice to exploring the information it believes the RMBS models to contain at depositions, and renewing its request, if appropriate, on the record evidence. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 220 in the lead case, No. 14-cv-9371. SO ORDERED.