This includes the rights of the Defendants to challenge the following: (1) The applicability of [RFC’s] Sampling Protocol to loans outside the Population; (2) Both the methodology [RFC] uses in conducting its re-underwriting analyses of the loans included in the Samples and the results of those re-underwriting analyses; (3) The methodology [RFC] ultimately uses for extrapolating the results of its reunderwriting analysis for any Sample to the Population from which the Sample was drawn; (4) The weight a fact-finder should afford to any purported breach rate for any Sample or Population, including due to the margin of error associated with extrapolating the Breach Rate to the Population; and (5) Any opinions expressed by any of [RFC’s] experts to the extent those opinions (a) are not expressly set forth in the Sampling Protocol in Dr. Further, Defendants have preserved their rights to object to the implementation of the sample protocol. The parties should be guided in this effort by the discovery schedule already in effect, and by the procedures adopted in the parallel litigation before Judge Glenn in the bankruptcy proceedings in the Southern District of New York. f/k/a Wachovia Mortgage Corporation, First Union National Bank, and First Union Mortgage Corporation, No. Defendants will need to obtain this information not only to prepare their defense at trial, but also to assist them in deciding whether to conduct their own sampling or their own re-underwriting of the RFC’s samples. 13-cv-3523 (JNE/FLN) Residential Funding Company, LLC v. American Mortgage Network, LLC f/k/a American Mortgage Network, Inc., d/b/a Vertice and AMNET Mortgage LLC, f/k/a AMNET Mortgage, Inc., f/k/a American Residential Investment Trust, Inc. Snow indicates, the Sampling Defendants may not challenge on Daubert grounds that a 150-loan sample is sufficiently large to identify a breach rate with a margin of error at the 95% confidence level of no more than /- 8 percentage points for binary questions. And defendants will be pressing, as they already have, to find out the identity of each loan file sampled, the nature of any claimed defect in a loan for which breach is claimed, the process by which loan files were actually chosen for sampling, the process and details of the sample re-underwriting and the results obtained. Nor does this order foreclose Defendants’ argument that the overall breach rate derived by Dr. 10, 2015).) This includes, for example, the Defendants’ argument that the breach rate derived from the sampling has no relevance because the contract in issue requires RFC to prove breach on a loan-by-loan basis. 88 at 3 (“Plaintiffs apparently hope to obtain an early ruling on this issue in order to limit the scope of discovery”), with Pls.’ Mem. If relevant to RFC’s theories of liability and damages, the breach rate may be admissible (assuming the methodology was properly applied) and may be accorded such weight as appropriate.
13-cv-3524 (DSD/HB) Residential Funding Company, LLC v. 13-cv-3525 (SRN/JSM) Residential Funding Company, LLC and Res Cap Liquidating Trust v. 13-cv-3526 (JRT/JJK) Residential Funding Company, LLC and Res Cap Liquidating Trust v. 13-cv-3528 (ADM/TNL) Residential Funding Company, LLC v. Decision One Mortgage Company, LLC and HSBC Finance Corporation, No. Snow’s samples will contain time-barred loans sold prior to May 14, 2006. Snow’s expert testimony “into evidence” at the outset of the case: Alternatively, the Court should hold the protocol described in Dr. And prompt disclosure of the results of the actual re-underwriting of the sample loans will not only provide the parties with important information about the merits of the case but will also allow adequate time for defendants to conduct discovery about the re-underwriting process in preparation for trial. However, in those pre-consolidation sampling motions, RFC sought a determination that it could use expert testimony and analysis of statistical sampling to prove liability and damages at trial, which is what RFC originally sought when it filed the sampling motion now before this Court. Here, as noted above, RFC has significantly narrowed the request for relief in these 23 cases and seeks only a limited determination that Dr. 10 (“Plaintiffs do not seek by this motion to restrict Defendants’ ability to obtain discovery to which they are entitled, and this motion, if granted, would not do so.”). Snow is a qualified expert witness with respect to the selection and construction of RFC’s proposed samples, and the extrapolation of a breach rate from those samples to the populations from which they were drawn; (2) subject to the full reservation of the Defendants’ rights as set forth in this Order, the sampling protocol set forth in Dr. Accordingly, this Court grants the sampling motion only to the extent that RFC seeks the limited ruling that: (1) Dr. Snow’s sampling exercise does not purport to provide loan-by-loan proof of breach. Defendants did, however, suggest that it would be more efficient for the Court to wait until much later in the case to make any ruling on statistical sampling.