1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION

HENRY ESPEJO, individually and on ) 

behalf of all others similarly situated, ) 

) Case No. 1:11-cv-8987 

Plaintiff, ) Related to: Case No. 1:12-cv-4671 

) Case No. 1:12-cv-9431 

v. ) 

) Honorable Charles P. Kocoras 

SANTANDER CONSUMER USA, INC., ) 

an Illinois Corporation, )

) 

 Defendant. ) 

__________________________________________) 

DECLARATION OF BENJAMIN H. RICHMAN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S 

RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STAY 

 

I, Benjamin H. Richman, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, hereby declare as follows: 

1. I am an adult over the age of 18 and a resident of the State of Illinois. I am 

licensed to practice law in the State of Illinois and am a partner at the law firm Edelson PC, 

which represents Plaintiff Henry Espejo (“Espejo”) in this matter. I am fully competent to make 

this Declaration, have personal knowledge of all matters set forth herein unless otherwise 

indicated, and could and would testify truthfully to such matters if called as a witness in this 

action. 

The Relevant Procedural Background: the Parties’ Mediation and Discovery Efforts 

2. On January 3, 2013, three weeks after the Court appointed Jay Edelson, managing 

partner of Edelson PC, interim class counsel, Espejo and Defendant Santander Consumer USA, 

Inc. (“Santander”) participated in a private mediation before the Honorable Morton Denlow (ret.) 

of JAMS (Chicago). 

3. The Parties were unable to reach an agreement as to the resolution of the case at 
2 

that time, but they did agree to continue to work toward resolution, and to voluntarily exchange 

certain documents and information, in addition to the documents and information Espejo had 

previously sought in his first set of written discovery requests. 

4. Over the course of the following months, Santander refused to provide responsive 

documents responsive to Espejo’s formal and informal requests. 

5. Nonetheless, the Parties agreed to participate in a second mediation, which took 

place on May 6, 2013, with the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen (ret.) of JAMS (Chicago). 

6. At the second mediation, the Parties were unable to reach a resolution of the case. 

7. Following the second mediation, and the Court’s order that Santander respond to 

Espejo’s outstanding requests, Santander continued to refuse to respond. 

8. Nonetheless, the Parties continued their settlement discussions, and by July 11, 

2013, the Parties’ counsel had agreed to a settlement in principle, which Santander represented 

had been sent to its board of directors for approval. 

9. As more time passed without any response from Santander’s board, it appeared 

that a settlement was unlikely. Accordingly, Plaintiff moved the Court for an order compelling 

Santander to respond to his outstanding discovery requests. 

10. On September 10, 2013, immediately prior to the presentment hearing on the 

motion to compel, Santander’s counsel informed myself, Jay Edelson and Rafey Balabanian 

(also of Edelson PC) that they had negotiated a proposed class action settlement in an 

overlapping case pending in the Central District of California, Hibler v. Santander Consumer 

USA, Inc., No. 5:13-cv-1354 (C.D. Cal.). 

11. After reviewing the settlement papers in the Hibler matter, it became apparent 

that Santander’s counsel had negotiated that settlement during the time when Santander’s board 
3 

was supposedly reviewing the settlement proposal in the instant action. 

12. Further review of the Hibler settlement showed that the case had been settled a 

mere two weeks after it was first filed, after a single day’s mediation, and for substantially less 

relief than would have been afforded under the proposed settlement in this case. 

13. After Espejo challenged the propriety of the Hibler settlement in both this Court 

and the Central District of California, Hibler’s counsel ultimately walked away from that 

settlement and moved to voluntarily dismiss their case. 

14. After Hibler’s counsel informed my firm of their intent to no longer pursue that 

settlement, Espejo and Santander held their fourth full-day mediation (the third having occurred 

as an attempt to resolve the dispute surrounding the Hibler settlement). The fourth mediation 

took place before Judge Andersen, and the Parties appeared to make substantial progress, with 

Santander’s counsel once again representing that the proposed settlement would go to 

Santander’s board of directors for approval. 

15. Several weeks later, however, Santander’s counsel informed us that the board 

board had not approved the proposed terms. 

Documents Attached as Exhibits to this Declaration 

16. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and accurate copy of excerpts of a 

document produced by Santander in response to Plaintiff’s first set of requests for the production 

of documents, titled “Unified Director Use Guide,” and bates labeled by SCUSA/E 0120–0721. 

17. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and accurate copy of excerpts of a 

document produced by Santander in response to Plaintiff’s first set of requests for the production 

of documents, and bates labeled as SCUSA/E 0025–0119. 

* * * 
4 

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. 

Executed this 31st day of July 2014, at Chicago, Illinois. 

/s/ Benjamin H. Richman 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, J. Dominick Larry, an attorney, hereby certify that on July 31, 2014, I served the above 

and foregoing by causing a true and accurate copy of such paper to be filed and served on all 

counsel of record via the Court’s CM/ECF electronic filing system.

s/ J. Dominick Larry