BLACKROCK BALANCED CAPITAL PORTFOLIO (FI), et al., Plaintiffs, v. DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST CO., et al., Defendants 14-CV-09367 (JMF)(SN) United States District Court, S.D. New York Filed December 26, 2017 Netburn, Sarah, United States Magistrate Judge ORDER *1 Deutsche Bank moves to compel Plaintiffs to respond to certain of Defendants’ requests for admission (“RFAs”) and requests for production (“RFPs”). Plaintiffs oppose. The Court GRANTS Defendants’ motions in part and DENIES them in part. Requests for Admission Deutsche Bank moves to compel Plaintiffs to respond further to certain RFAs. Deutsche Bank contends that Plaintiffs’ responses are deficient because they are evasive, use lawyerly language to respond, or fail to comply fully with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36’s requirement that an answering party must “state in detail why the answering party cannot truthfully admit or deny” a given proposition. Deutsche Bank argues that the Court already ordered Plaintiffs to respond to a portion of these RFAs, that as a sophisticated investment management company, Plaintiffs should be able to respond without undue burden, and that these RFAs are important to develop Deutsche Bank's defenses. Plaintiffs respond that Deutsche Bank's RFAs violate Rule 36 and this Court's prior orders because they are vague, require a narrative response, and are not limited by a specific length of time. Plaintiffs further contend that they satisfied Rule 36(a)(4)’s requirements to make reasonable inquiry in responding to the RFAs. Plaintiffs dispute Deutsche Bank's contention that the burden of responding further is proportional to the needs of the case. Deutsche Bank places the purportedly deficient responses into three categories: (1) RFA responses in which the Plaintiffs objected to the term “Steering Committee” on grounds of vagueness (“Steering Committee RFAs”);[1] (2) RFA responses in which the Plaintiffs objected to the term “member” as it related to membership in certain financial organizations, again on grounds of vagueness and unspecified duration (“Membership RFAs”);[2] and (3) RFA responses in which the Plaintiffs purportedly failed to conduct reasonable inquiry in order to affirm certain documents (“Failure-to-Inquire RFAs”).[3] As an example of a Steering Committee RFA, Deutsche Bank asked for an admission that PIMCO was “a member of the so-called ‘Steering Committee’ represented by Gibbs & Bruns.” In response, PIMCO objected on vagueness grounds, “particularly as to the phrase ‘Steering Committee’ ” but it “[a]dmitted that Plaintiffs were represented by Gibbs & Bruns.” The other Steering Committee RFAs and Plaintiffs’ responses are materially similar. Plaintiffs fail to explain how the term “Steering Committee” is vague, particularly because they have employed it in an earlier letter motion to the court. See ECF No. 201. It is evident that Plaintiff understand the term, and so are ORDERED to either admit or deny the Steering Committee RFAs by January 5, 2018.[4] *2 With respect to the Membership RFAs, Deutsche Bank asked for an admission that PIMCO was “a member of AMI.” PIMCO responded that this proposition was “vague and ambiguous, particularly as to the phrase “member,” but “[a]dmitted that from time to time Plaintiffs’ employees participated in AMI activities.” The other Membership RFAs and Plaintiffs’ responses are materially similar. This is precisely the type of lawyerly response that “doesn't help move the case forward at all.” ECF No. 365 at 3. In their November 21, 2017 letter to the Court, Plaintiffs explained that the individual funds are not members of these associations; if that is true, and the “individual funds” fully encompasses Deutsche Bank's definition of “you” in the RFAs, then Plaintiffs should deny the Membership RFA. Plaintiffs are therefore ORDERED to admit or deny the Membership RFAs by January 5, 2018. As an example of a Failure-to-Inquire RFA, Deutsche Bank asked PIMCO for an admission that a certain document “was sent by the AMI on behalf of You and others.” PIMCO responded that this RFA was unfairly burdensome because it required an investigation not proportional to the needs of the case, but responded that “[a]fter performing a good faith search, Plaintiffs can neither confirm nor deny that the document was sent on behalf of the Plaintiffs and others.” The other Failure-to-Inquire RFAs and Plaintiffs’ responses are materially similar. Plaintiffs are not required to respond to these RFAs if they were unable to uncover an answer after reasonable inquiry. Accordingly, no further response to the Failure-to-Inquire RFAs is required. Requests for Production A. Valuation Documents Deutsche Bank seeks Plaintiffs’ contemporaneous, internal valuations of the RMBS at issue. Deutsche Bank argues that these Valuation Documents are relevant to the claims and defenses in this action and that such documents were encompassed within Deutsche Bank's original search terms but were not completely produced. Plaintiffs respond that Deutsche Bank's request is untimely, that the RFPs are overly broad, and that they produced to Deutsche Bank the same type of documents that they produced to Wells Fargo. In similar litigation against Wells Fargo, the Court has ordered Plaintiffs to produce documents reflecting the intrinsic value that the Plaintiffs assigned to the RMBS at issue during the relevant period of time. The Court has further held that the valuation documents that must be produced are business records that the Plaintiffs relied upon in valuing the certificates, such as reports or analysis. At this late stage in the litigation (after fact discovery has long closed), Plaintiffs will not be ordered to re-review ESI to locate informal assessments or casual communication that might be said to “reflect” or “concern” Plaintiffs’ valuation of the RMBS at issue. Plaintiffs have said that they have produced such business records; Deutsche Bank says they have not. The parties are directed to meet-and-confer with the Court's guidance that Plaintiffs must produce those daily, monthly or periodic reports that assess the contemporaneous, internal value assigned to the RMBS at issue. General documents that might be said to “reflect” or “concern” Plaintiffs’ valuation, or communications related to such valuation, need not be searched for beyond what has already been located and produced.[5] If agreement cannot be reached on Plaintiffs’ compliance, Deutsche Bank may take one 90-minute Rule 30(b)(6) deposition for each Plaintiff group to inquire into their valuation records. B. Non-Valuation Documents *3 Deutsche Bank further moves to compel the production of documents called for during depositions of Plaintiffs’ witnesses. In a complex litigation such as this one, where the parties negotiated a highly sophisticated ESI Protocol, documents demanded during a deposition should be targeted and particularized based on information that the questioner learns of during the course of the deposition and that can be readily located by the deponent. Such “deposition demands” are not an opportunity to propound demands for broad categories of documents. The majority of Deutsche Bank's deposition demands seek such sweeping discovery. See, e.g., Dep. Demand No. 1 to BlackRock (“All communications between any representative of BlackRock, on the one hand, and any representative of the Trustee, on the other hand.”); Dep. Demand No. 1 to PIMCO (“Write-ups or investment memoranda describing the thesis or rationale for RMBS purchases concerning the Covered Trusts.”); Dep. Demand No. 6 to PIMCO (“Analysis of RMBS ‘servicer and originator financial health’ concerning any entities that served as servicers or originators for the Covered Trusts at any point during the relevant time period, as performed within the framework of corporate credit.”). These demands, as Deutsche Bank points out, were called for by its earlier discovery demands. But the parties’ highly negotiated ESI Protocol was designed to capture these documents. On this record, the Court does not find a basis to doubt the Plaintiffs’ application of the Protocol and production of responsive documents. Demands made during a deposition are not the proper method for challenging Plaintiffs’ production. One document request, however, is specific enough to warrant production: PIMCO Number 11, which asks for Kent Smith's trip notes. PIMCO is ORDERED to perform a reasonable search to find this document and produce it if it exists. SO ORDERED. Footnotes [1] These RFAs are listed in footnote 4 and its correlating above-the-line sentence in Deutsche Bank's November 21, 2007 letter. Deutsche Bank mentions examples from PIMCO twice and omits Prudential's responses to these RFAs; the Court assumes this was error and its rulings apply to Prudential's responses as well. [2] These RFAs are listed in footnote 6 and its correlating above-the-line sentence in Deutsche Bank's November 21, 2007 letter. [3] These RFAs are listed in footnote 7 and its correlating above-the-line sentence in Deutsche Bank's November 21, 2007 letter. [4] Certain of the Steering Committee RFAs and Membership RFAs ask if the responding party “was a member” without date limitation. The Court strikes these RFAs as not proportionate and burdensome. [5] For illustrative purposes, PIMCO Categories 1, 8-9, and 43-44 appear to seek reports that should be produced; whereas PIMCO Categories 12-14, 22 and 29-33 appear to seek wide-ranging categories of documents that are insufficiently particularized, and Plaintiffs need not search for these anew. See Appendix B to Deutsche Bank Ltr., dated Nov. 21, 2017.