*1 On November 10, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed a joint letter seeking a conference or, in the alternative, to compel HSBC to supplement its responses to interrogatories. HSBC responded on November 15, 2016.

In this Court, the scope of interrogatories has been narrowed to reflect the Court's view that, generally, there is more effective and efficient way to obtain the information sought than through interrogatories. See generally Local Civ. R. 33.3; see also Erchonia Corp. v. Bissoon, No. 07 Civ. 8696, 2011 WL 3904600, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 26, 2011), aff'd, 458 F. App'x 58 (2d Cir. 2012) (“The Local Rules reflect a preference for other forms of discovery, such as depositions and document requests.”). This preference recognizes “the need for follow-up, observation of a prospective witness's demeanor, and avoidance of receiving pre-prepared answers so carefully tailored that they are likely to generate additional discovery disputes.” In re Subpoena Issued to Dennis Friedman, 350 F.3d 65, 69 n.2 (2d Cir. 2003) (citing cases).

Against this backdrop, the Court considers the plaintiffs’ arguments concerning alleged deficiencies in HSBC's interrogatory responses.

Interrogatories Related To Affirmative Defenses

Interrogatories Nos. 19, 20, and 21 seek information related to HSBC's asserted defenses of advice of counsel, failure to mitigate, and accord and satisfaction. Interrogatory 19 partially complies with Local Civil Rule 33.3 in that is seeks the identification of witnesses on whose work HSBC may have relied; the second component of the interrogatory, however, calls for a narrative response – “describe the advice and opinions of those Persons” – which is impermissible. In addition to Rule-based objections, HSBC argues that it cannot determine whether it will be asserting an advice-of-counsel defense until the plaintiffs have identified the specific breaches they accuse HSBC of failing to act on. Generic allegations that HSBC violated the Trust Indenture Act or breached terms of the Governing Agreements are insufficient for HSBC to determine whether it sought and relied on legal advice in its actions or omissions.

The Court assumes, based on its letter, that HSBC does not intend to assert generally that its conduct as Trustee was, on the whole, guided (and therefore protected) by legal advice. If that assumption is not correct, HSBC must immediately notify the plaintiffs whether it intends to waive its attorney-client privilege in order to assert that blanket defense. If, however, HSBC is considering asserting only a more limited defense in connection with a specific allegation of breach, then HSBC is entitled to better understand the plaintiffs’ claims. As such, the plaintiffs’ interrogatory No. 19 is arguably premature. The plaintiffs may, however, identify specific action or omission in connection with a specific trust or a specific loan that they believe constitutes a breach of HSBC's obligations. Upon receipt of such information, HSBC shall have 14 days to decide whether it intends to rely on an advice of counsel defense in connection with that specific allegation. Regardless, however, of the plaintiffs’ ability to identify specific information about the loan-level breaches and/or Events of Default in the Bellwether Trusts that they believe constitute a breach of the Governing Agreements of a violation of TIA, HSBC must decide whether it intends to assert an advice of counsel defense by January 27, 2017.

*2 Interrogatory No. 20, which seeks a narrative response – “Identify the way(s) that Plaintiffs failed to mitigate their damages” – is impermissible under the Local Rule. This information is better captured through document or deposition discovery. Interrogatory No. 21 asks HSBC to “[i]dentify all settlements, releases, or accords and satisfactions that bar Plaintiffs’ claims ....” HSBC should respond to this interrogatory as it might a document demand; that is, it should produce any documents in its custody or control that reflect any relevant settlement, release or accord in satisfaction. Otherwise, HSBC must supplement its answer at the conclusion of discovery.

Remaining Interrogatories

Interrogatory No. 1 is too broad. The information presumably sought can be obtained more efficiently through deposition discovery.

Interrogatory No. 11 is impermissibly vague. The information presumably sought can be obtained more efficiently through deposition discovery.

Interrogatory No. 13 is unduly burdensome in that it purports to require HSBC to compile a list of potentially thousands of foreclosure actions. To the extent, however, HSBC did store information related to notice of foreclosure actions in an accessible database, it is directed to provide that information to the plaintiffs. The Court, moreover, assumes that the information sought in this interrogatory would be captured by the parties’ ESI protocol and responsive documents would have been produced.

Interrogatory No. 14 is overbroad to the extent it seeks information related to HSBC's origination, servicing and foreclosure practices that is separate from its role as RMBS Trustee. HSBC must, however, supplement its response to identify, subject to any appropriate privilege objection, “any governmental investigation in which HSBC received a subpoena, civil investigative demand, or similar request for documents or information” concerning HSBC's role as RMBS Trustee.

HSBC's response to Interrogatory No. 16 is adequate.

HSBC's response to Interrogatory No. 17 is adequate. To the extent plaintiffs seek additional information, the parties are directed to meet and confer in an effort to address any outstanding inquiry.

The parties are directed to meet and confer with respect to Interrogatory No. 18. To the extent HSBC has modified its response to exclude “or similar agreements,” it must justify that modification to the plaintiffs. To the extent the plaintiffs believe that they are entitled to tolling or similar agreements with any Originator, Servicer or Sponsor that does not relate to the loans contained in the Bellwether Trusts, the plaintiffs must justify that scope to HSBC.

HSBC's response to Interrogatory No. 22 is adequate. Because of this ruling, the Court does not reach the issue of the invocation or application of the bank examiner's privilege.

HSBC's response to Interrogatory No. 23 is adequate.

To the extent the Court directed the parties to meet and confer on certain disputes, they must do so within one week. If disputes remain, the parties may each file a two-page letter on Tuesday, November 29, 2016, outlining their positions.

The Court requests the Clerk of Court to terminate the motions at ECF No. 222 in Case No. 14-cv-8175; ECF No. 246 in Case No. 14-cv-9366; ECF No. 162 in Case No. 14-cv-10101; ECF No. 175 in Case No. 15-cv-2144; ECF No. 115 in Case No. 15-cv-10032; and ECF No. 94 in Case No. 15-cv-10096.

SO ORDERED.