BLACKROCK ALLOCATION TARGET SHARES: SERIES S PORTFOLIO, et al., Plaintiffs, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Defendant 14-CV-09371 (KPF)(SN) United States District Court, S.D. New York Filed October 21, 2016 Netburn, Sarah, United States Magistrate Judge ORDER *1 The Court has received several letters regarding outstanding discovery disputes in this matter. See ECF Nos. 214, 215, 216 & 218. In disposing of these disputes, the Court assumes familiarity with the case and the underlying issues raised. Wells Fargo renews a request made in March and April 2016 that the Plaintiffs search centralized files and repositories for “core documents.” In the April 13, 2016 conference, the Court held that certain core documents–such as investor committee meeting minutes and investor complaints–were appropriate areas for discovery. ECF No. 125 at 45:3-5. At that conference, Plaintiffs’ counsel represented that these documents would be discovered through the ESI process, id. at 45:9-20, and the Court ordered the parties to narrow the years (proposing 2004-2008) to search for such core documents. Id. at 46:21-47:4. Although counsel maintained that the ESI process would capture these documents, he represented that he would confirm with his clients about the availability of a centralized repository. Id. at 46:6-18. The Court ordered the Plaintiffs to produce certain sample committee minutes and investor complaints to determine whether this information was relevant to the claims and defenses in this case. Id. at 53:6-8. Wells Fargo's recent letters suggest that the Plaintiffs have failed to search for these documents in a reasonable fashion, and that certain Plaintiffs have not produced any sample documents. Wells Fargo's complaint appears based on the suspicion that the Plaintiffs are not adequately searching their files, rather than on actual evidence of missing documents. In fairness, Plaintiffs’ explanation of what they have actually searched and what limitations they are imposing have been unclear. Plaintiffs represent that they have conducted a reasonable search that includes not only custodian files but central repositories of both ESI and hardcopy documents. Specifically, the Plaintiffs represent that they have “(1) identified within each Plaintiff's respective organization the sources of information—including relevant departments and employees—reasonably likely to contain responsive documents; (2) took reasonable efforts to preserve all such information; and (3) collected, searched, reviewed, and produced documents from those sources.” ECF No. 218. The Plaintiffs’ efforts are presumptively reasonable, and Wells Fargo has not met its burden of establishing that this representation is false. Moreover, Wells Fargo has not identified any specific gaps in the productions that Plaintiffs have made thus far. Accordingly, Wells Fargo's motion to compel the Plaintiffs conduct a further search is DENIED without prejudice as set forth below. Because the Plaintiffs represent that production is ongoing “subject to Plaintiffs’ objections and proportional to the needs of the case,” Plaintiffs must put in writing specifically those documents that are sought that they are not producing and the basis for that limitation. That is, Plaintiffs may not rely on a “proportionality objection” alone but rather must state with specificity how they are implementing such objection in practice. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(A), (C); Advisory Comm. Notes, 2015 Amendments. Specifically, this representation should set forth precisely what categories of documents they are not producing, or what time frame they are limiting their search to, and the basis for these restrictions. This letter must be served upon Wells Fargo by October 27, 2016. *2 Wells Fargo requests to add two additional Sealink custodians on the ground that the two custodians may have relevant information. This request to add custodians is DENIED as untimely and on the merits. Finally, Wells Fargo has filed a motion to compel the production of RMBS models and related materials. ECF No. 220. The Plaintiffs request an extension of time to oppose this motion. The Plaintiffs may file their opposition by 12:00 noon on October 25, 2016. ECF No. 221. Such opposition shall be a letter brief of no more than five pages. The Court strongly discourages the filing of substantial “competent evidence” to support its legal position. Wells Fargo may file a reply letter brief of no more than three pages by October 26, 2016. The Court does not intend to conduct an evidentiary hearing on these issues. The parties shall appear for a conference on Friday, October 28, 2016 at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 219, Thurgood Marshal Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, New York, NY. At this conference, the Court will address Wells Fargo's motion to compel, as well as the issues raised in its recent letter, dated October 20, 2016. ECF No. 222. The Plaintiffs may file a two-page letter responding to Wells Fargo's letter by October 26, 2016. The Court additionally intends to address issues related to expert discovery and loan re-underwriting as set forth in the parties letters at ECF Nos. 190, 195, 198, & 217. The parties have jointly requested an extension of the fact discovery deadline. The Court has repeatedly advised the parties that, despite the complexity of this case, the parties must be diligently and expeditiously engaged in discovery. The parties request until April 28, 2017 to complete fact discovery. This deadline, in light of others that have come and gone, is too long. The Court will grant the parties until February 28, 2017, to complete fact discovery. This means depositions will need to be conducted in 2016, and the parties should be coordinating notices immediately. The Court will discuss the expert schedule at the October 28, 2016 conference. Other than set forth in this letter, the parties are barred from filing any further letters before the October 28, 2016 conference. SO ORDERED.