United Wholesale Mortgage (UWM) has been held in civil contempt and again ordered to produce CEO Mathew Ishbia for deposition in its ongoing “All-In” lawsuit against Atlantic Trust Mortgage Corp., marking a defensive turn in a case UWM itself brought more than two years ago.
U.S. District Judge Terrence G. Berg issued the order, June 8, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, granting Atlantic Trust’s motion and directing UWM to produce Ishbia for a deposition within 30 days. The deposition may not exceed four hours and must take place in Oakland County, Mich., where Ishbia works, according to the order.
The court also ordered sanctions against UWM in the form of attorney fees. Atlantic Trust has 14 days from the order to file a motion documenting the time and expenses incurred in bringing its motion to enforce the court’s prior deposition order.
“Failure to comply with this Order will be grounds for a second finding of contempt of court and will result in additional financial sanctions,” Berg wrote.
A Defensive Turn
The ruling escalates a discovery dispute in UWM’s contract case against Atlantic Trust, an independent mortgage broker. UWM sued Atlantic Trust in January 2024, alleging the broker violated its wholesale broker agreement by doing business with prohibited competitors under UWM’s “All-In” policy.
UWM’s amended complaint, filed in April 2024, included the agreement with the All-In Addendum. The company is seeking at least $355,000 in liquidated damages, along with other compensatory damages, attorney fees, costs and expenses.
Atlantic Trust moved to dismiss UWM’s amended complaint, but Berg denied that motion in March 2025, allowing UWM’s claims to proceed. Atlantic Trust later answered the complaint and filed counterclaims. UWM moved to dismiss those counterclaims, and Berg granted that motion on March 13, 2026, narrowing the case and leaving UWM’s claims and the question of damages at the center of the litigation.
UWM’s case against Atlantic Trust remains pending. But the battle has since shifted into a fight over discovery, and whether Ishbia must testify about the All-In initiative and its liquidated damages provision.
The Discovery Dispute
According to the June 8 contempt order, Berg ordered UWM during a Dec. 12, 2025, telephonic status conference to produce Ishbia and UWM Chief Digital Officer Justin Glass for deposition. The Dec. 12 conference was not on the record, according to the court docket, which later became central to UWM’s argument that the court’s statements were informal guidance rather than an enforceable order.
Berg rejected that argument in the June 8 contempt order.
“UWM’s contention that it understood the Court’s unequivocal order as mere ‘guidance’ or an informal suggestion is wholly implausible,” Berg wrote.
The court said the purpose of the Dec. 12 conference was to resolve whether Ishbia was required to testify, and that the court ruled he was required to do so. Berg wrote that UWM confirmed its understanding of the order during the conference and later produced Glass for deposition, but did not produce Ishbia.
Atlantic Trust repeatedly requested dates for Ishbia’s deposition after the Dec. 12 conference, according to the order. UWM did not provide a date. On March 25, Berg issued a text-only order reaffirming that UWM must produce Ishbia within 30 days for a deposition capped at four hours. UWM responded the next day with an emergency motion asking the court to reconsider and vacate that order and seeking leave to file a motion for protective order.
On April 9, Berg struck UWM’s emergency motion for failure to comply with local rules, but allowed the issue to be briefed. The court ordered Atlantic Trust to file a motion addressing whether Ishbia’s deposition was justified and whether UWM should be held in contempt for not complying with the Dec. 12 order.
Atlantic Trust filed that motion April 23. UWM responded May 7, and Atlantic Trust filed a supplemental brief May 14. Berg decided the matter without oral argument.
“The Court therefore finds that Atlantic Trust has shown by clear and convincing evidence that UWM violated a definite and specific order of the Court,” Berg wrote in his June 8 order.
The court also rejected UWM’s argument that Ishbia’s deposition would be unduly burdensome because of his role as CEO. Berg cited Sixth Circuit precedent rejecting the “apex doctrine,” which generally seeks to protect high-ranking executives from depositions when they lack unique personal knowledge.
“The Court further finds that Mr. Ishbia’s status as the CEO of UWM, by itself, is not the deciding factor in considering whether the deposition is unduly burdensome and whether it should proceed because the Sixth Circuit has rejected the so-called apex doctrine,” Berg wrote.
The court found that Atlantic Trust had shown a sufficient factual basis to conclude Ishbia has personal, relevant knowledge of the All-In initiative and its liquidated damages provision. Atlantic Trust has argued that Ishbia was personally involved in determining the nature, amount and structure of the liquidated damages provision and that his testimony is relevant to whether that provision is enforceable.
Berg agreed that the reasoning behind the liquidated damages provision, how the amount was computed, what the amount was based on and whether it had any nexus to alleged actual damages suffered by UWM are relevant and discoverable.
UWM argued that Atlantic Trust could instead depose other UWM executives, including Chief Legal Officer Adam Wolfe and Chief Marketing Officer Sarah DeCiantis, who were also present at the meeting where the All-In initiative and liquidated damages provision were adopted. However, the court rejected that position, finding Wolfe was not an adequate substitute and noting that DeCiantis had been unable to explain the purpose or calculation of the liquidated damages provision in prior testimony.
The judge also pushed back sharply on UWM’s handling of the dispute.
“While the Court is not making any finding that UWM’s counsel acted with malice—it is at a minimum magical thinking for counsel to imagine no disciplinary consequences will arise when a party ignores a Court’s oral order for three months, then expresses a decision not to comply with it, and then treats the Court’s subsequent written order requiring compliance with the earlier order as if it is a brief by the opposing party that can be litigated by filing a response,” Berg wrote.
The court said UWM had multiple opportunities to explain why Ishbia could not be produced for deposition but failed to do so. Berg also found that UWM’s later offer to produce Ishbia for a two-hour Zoom deposition on certain topics did not cure its failure to comply with the prior order.
The June 8 order also reset the case schedule. Discovery is now due by July 17, 2026. A telephonic end-of-discovery status conference is set for July 30, and dispositive motions are due Aug. 21.
The ruling does not decide the underlying breach-of-contract claim. But the order creates a notable role reversal: UWM sued Atlantic Trust over an alleged violation of its All-In policy, and now the lender is defending its own conduct in discovery after the court found it failed to comply with a deposition order.
A UWM spokesperson responded to the June 8 order stating, "While UWM disagrees with this finding, UWM respects the Court’s order and will comply with the order. UWM remains confident in its position and this should not detract from the substance of the matter."
Atlantic Trust’s attorney-fee motion is due June 22.
Bottom Line
For originators, the ruling does not change the underlying contract dispute over UWM’s All-In policy. But it does keep the policy’s liquidated damages provision under scrutiny, including how UWM developed it, why it chose the amount it did, and whether that amount is tied to any actual alleged harm.
