EXHIBIT A

Case: 1:11-cv-08987 Document #: 53-1 Filed: 08/02/13 Page 1 of 67 PageID #:431
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 RAFEY S. BALABANIAN

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 1746, I hereby declare and state as follows:

1. I am over the age of eighteen and I am fully competent to make this declaration. 

This declaration is based upon my personal knowledge unless otherwise indicated. I make this 

declaration in support of Plaintiff Espejo’s Motion to Compel Defendant’s Responses to 

Outstanding Written Discovery Requests and Deposition Notices.

2. I am a partner at the law firm of Edelson LLC, which has been retained to 

represent the named-Plaintiff in this matter, Henry Espejo (“Plaintiff” or “Espejo”).

The Parties’ First Mediation and Agreement to Proceed with Informal Discovery.

3. On January 31, 2013, the Parties participated in an all-day private mediation 

session before the Honorable Morton Denlow (ret.) of JAMS (Chicago). Although they weren’t

in a position to resolve the litigation at that time, the Parties agreed that, in addition to the formal 

discovery that had already taken place in the case to date, an informal exchange of information 

would also be helpful to advance settlement discussions.

4. While Santander provided some of the requested information, a number of 

Case: 1:11-cv-08987 Document #: 53-1 Filed: 08/02/13 Page 2 of 67 PageID #:432
2

requests went unanswered. To try and explain away its lack of responsiveness, Santander feigned 

that it needed further clarity about the requested information, and while skeptical, we nonetheless 

were happy to oblige by outlining Plaintiff’s requests, in detail, in two separate letters—the first

on January 15th, and then again on March 12th.

5. On February 6th, the Parties appeared before the Court for status, informed it of 

their ongoing efforts to resolve the case—including that they had scheduled a second mediation 

to proceed on May 6th—and that they had agreed to an informal exchange of information (as 

described above). While the Court did not object to the Parties exchanging information 

informally, it nevertheless admonished them that they must make significant progress in 

discovery prior to the next status on May 14th.

Following the First Mediation, Santander Failed to Produce the Agreed Upon Information 

Informally and Thus, Plaintiff Served Additional Formal Discovery Requests, which Also 

Went Unanswered.

6. Despite having put Plaintiff’s requests for information in writing on two separate 

occasions, continued correspondence between counsel, and numerous telephone conferences 

(including several with Judge Denlow and then Judge Wayne Andersen (ret.), who took over as 

the mediator in this case), over the next several months Santander repeatedly feigned ignorance 

of what information Plaintiff was attempting to discover, or promised to produce that 

information only to later back out of those promises. So, as settlement discussions between the 

Parties dragged on and it appeared from our perspective that a resolution may not be reached, on 

March 29th, Plaintiff served additional sets of written interrogatories and requests for production 

on Santander—the responses to which were due no later than April 29th—so as to protect his 

positions in the litigation going forward. (See Plaintiff Espejo’s Second Set of Interrogatories and 

Third Set of Requests for Production, true and accurate copies of which are attached as Exhibits 

Case: 1:11-cv-08987 Document #: 53-1 Filed: 08/02/13 Page 3 of 67 PageID #:433
3

1 and 2.) Similarly, on March 25th and April 5th, Plaintiff noticed the depositions of several 

Santander executives and employees to proceed in late April and early May. (See Notices of 

Deposition, true and accurate copies of which are attached as Exhibits 3-8.)

7. Santander did not respond to Plaintiff’s written requests (nor even request an 

extension of the deadline to respond) and simply refused to produce the witnesses on the dates 

noticed.1 On this latter point, Santander’s only stated objection to producing witnesses (no 

formal objections were served) was that it would not agree (and was not required) to produce 

witnesses in Chicago, as noticed. Anticipating that response, however, my firm stated that they 

would work with Santander to select mutually agreeable dates and locations to proceed with the 

depositions. Nevertheless, Santander has yet to provide a proposal as to when or where it would 

prefer the depositions to go forward.

The Court Extends the Discovery Cutoff and Orders the Parties to Move Forward with 

Discovery, but Santander Remains Unresponsive

8. Even after the May 14th status hearing, Santander still did not respond to 

Plaintiff’s outstanding written requests, produce any documents, nor propose dates and locations 

for depositions. Accordingly, on May 28th, I sent a letter to counsel for Santander requesting that 

it respond to all outstanding discovery by the close of business May 31st. (See May 28, 2013 

Letter from Rafey S. Balabanian, a true and accurate copy of which is attached as Exhibit 9.) On 

May 31st, my colleague, Benjamin H. Richman of Edelson LLC, reminded Santander’s counsel

via e-mail that Plaintiff expected to receive responses to the outstanding discovery that day, as 

outlined in the letter served earlier in the week. Despite the letter, Santander never responded to 

the outstanding discovery. 

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1 I also made clear through correspondence and several telephone conversations that Plaintiff 

expected Santander to timely respond to the written discovery and notices of deposition, despite the fact 

that the Parties were set to proceed with a second mediation session.

Case: 1:11-cv-08987 Document #: 53-1 Filed: 08/02/13 Page 4 of 67 PageID #:434
4

9. Nevertheless, at that point the Parties’ settlement discussions began to advance 

significantly and by the time of the July 11th status it appeared that they were poised to sign a 

binding memorandum of understanding with respect to a proposed class action settlement of this 

matter. Since then, however, settlement discussions appear to have once again derailed and 

Santander has failed to respond to the outstanding discovery.

* * *

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

Executed this 2nd day of August 2013 at Chicago, Illinois.

/s/ Rafey S. Balabanian

Case: 1:11-cv-08987 Document #: 53-1 Filed: 08/02/13 Page 5 of 67 PageID #:435
EXHIBIT 1

Case: 1:11-cv-08987 Document #: 53-1 Filed: 08/02/13 Page 6 of 67 PageID #:436
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, 

Plaintiff,

v.

SANTANDER CONSUMER USA, INC., an 

Illinois corporation,

Defendant.

Case No.: 1:11-cv-08987

Related to: Case No. 1:12-cv-4671

Case No. 1:12-cv-9431

Honorable Charles P. Kocoras

PLAINTIFF ESPEJO’S SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES

 TO DEFENDANT SANTANDER CONSUMER USA, INC.

Plaintiff HENRY ESPEJO, pursuant to Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 

hereby requests that Defendant SANTANDER CONSUMER USA, INC. answer the following 

Interrogatories under oath within thirty (30) days of service hereof.

I. Definitions

1. “COMPLAINT” means Plaintiff Espejo’s First Amended Class Action 

Complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in this 

matter. 

2. “DATE” means the exact year, month and day, if known, or, if not known, 

YOUR best approximation thereof.

3. “DEBTOR” or “DEBTORS” includes individuals who, according to YOUR 

records, owe money for a debt held by SANTANDER. 

4. “DESCRIBE” when used in relation to any process, policy, act or event means to 

explain the process, policy, act or event in complete and reasonable detail, stating the time, 

Case: 1:11-cv-08987 Document #: 53-1 Filed: 08/02/13 Page 7 of 67 PageID #:437
2

DATE, and location, IDENTIFYING all PERSONS participating or present, and IDENTIFYING

all DOCUMENTS RELATING thereto.

5. “DOCUMENT” or “DOCUMENTS” includes writings, drawings, graphs, charts, 

photographs, sound recordings, images, and other data or data compilations, INCLUDING

ESI—stored in any medium from which information can be obtained. 

6. “ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION” or “ESI” as used herein, 

means and refers to COMPUTER generated information or data, of any kind, stored on 

COMPUTERS, file servers, disks, tapes or other devices or MEDIA, or otherwise evidenced by 

recording on some storage MEDIA, whether real, virtual, or cloud-based. 

7. “IDENTIFY” when used with respect to a natural PERSON, means to state the 

PERSON’S full name, present or last known business affiliation and position, past and present 

home address and past position and business affiliation, if any, with any of the parties herein.

8. “IDENTIFY” when used with respect to a company or other business entity, 

means to state the company’s legal name, the names under which it does business, its form (e.g., 

partnership, corporation, etc.), the address of its principal place of business, and to IDENTIFY

its principal proprietors, officers and/or directors.

9. “IDENTIFY” when used with respect to a DOCUMENT, means to state the 

DATE(S) prepared, drafted or generated, the author(s), intended and actual recipient(s), type of 

DOCUMENT (e.g., “letter,” “Terms of Service” or “email”), and to IDENTIFY its last known 

custodian or location.

10. “IDENTIFY” when used in reference to an event, transaction, or occurrence, 

means to DESCRIBE the act in complete and reasonable detail; state the time, DATE, and 

location; IDENTIFY all PERSONS participating or present; and, IDENTIFY all DOCUMENTS

Case: 1:11-cv-08987 Document #: 53-1 Filed: 08/02/13 Page 8 of 67 PageID #:438
3

RELATING thereto.

11. “IDENTIFY” when used with respect to a COMMUNICATION, means to state

the type of COMMUNICATION (e.g., telephone discussion, email, face-to-face, etc.), the name 

and present address of each PERSON present during the COMMUNICATION, or who otherwise 

observed or heard the COMMUNICATION and to state the subject matter of the 

COMMUNICATION and the DATE upon which it occurred. If the COMMUNICATION was in 

writing, IDENTIFY all DOCUMENTS RELATED TO the COMMUNICATION.

12. “INCLUDING” means “including, but not limited to;” “INCLUDES” means 

“includes, but not limited to.”

13. “MEDIA” means an object or device, real or virtual, INCLUDING a disc, tape, 

computer or other device, on which data is or was stored.

14. “NUMBER TRAPPING” means or refers to the practice of utilizing caller 

identification technology to IDENTIFY and/or collect a PERSON’S phone number when that 

PERSON places a call to YOU.

15. “PERSON” means or refers to any natural person, corporation, partnership, 

association, organization, joint ventures, or other entity of any type or nature.

16. “PHONE CALLS” means or refers to the debt collection telephone calls YOU

made or caused to be made to any telephone number.

17. “PLAINTIFF” means or refers to the named-plaintiff in this matter, Henry 

Espejo. 

18. “PUTATIVE CLASS” or “PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS” means those 

PERSONS who fall under the definition of the No Consent Class set forth in paragraph 19 of the 

COMPLAINT, including those members of the No Debt Subclass.

Case: 1:11-cv-08987 Document #: 53-1 Filed: 08/02/13 Page 9 of 67 PageID #:439
4

19. “REGARDING”, “RELATING TO”, and “RELATED TO” means discussing, 

mentioning, addressing, referring to, analyzing, comprising, underlying, memorializing, 

describing, or showing the subject indicated.

20. “RELEVANT TIME PERIOD” means or refers to the time period between 

December 19, 2007 and the present.

21. “SKIP TRACE”, “SKIP TRACING” or “SKIP” means or refers to the practice of

locating a PERSON’S contact information, including his or her phone number, through searching 

phone number databases, credit reports (e.g., information provided on a loan application, credit 

card application, and/or in other debt collector databases), job application information, criminal 

background checks, utility bills, social security records, disability records, public tax 

information, and other public and private contextual data sources to use available information 

(such as past or present name or address) to determine more current contact information. SKIP 

TRACING services INCLUDE but are not limited to Experian, Experian-Social Search, 

Accurint, LexisNexis, Inferenda, Interactive Data, CBCInnovis, MasterFiles, Merlin Information 

Services, and VeriFacts.

22. “TCPA” means the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (47 U.S.C. § 227, et 

seq.).

23. “YOU,” “YOUR,” “DEFENDANT,” or “SANTANDER” means or refers to 

Defendant Santander Consumer USA, Inc. and its divisions, subsidiaries, related companies, 

predecessors, and successors, all present and former officers, directors, agents, attorneys, 

employees, and all PERSONS acting or purporting to act on behalf of any of them.

II. Instructions

1. The PERSON responding to an Interrogatory should have knowledge to answer 

Case: 1:11-cv-08987 Document #: 53-1 Filed: 08/02/13 Page 10 of 67 PageID #:440
5

said Interrogatory. If another PERSON has superior knowledge of certain Interrogatories, that 

other PERSON should respond to those Interrogatories and be so designated. If such PERSON is 

unavailable, that PERSON should be fully IDENTIFIED and the nature and scope of their 

knowledge and the reasons that such PERSON’S knowledge is or is believed to be superior, 

explained fully.

2. In responding to these Interrogatories, furnish all information, however obtained, 

INCLUDING hearsay, that is available to YOU and any information known by YOU, or that is 

within YOUR possession, custody or control.

3. These are intended as continuing Interrogatories, having within them a duty to 

timely supplement YOUR responses until and during the course of trial. Information sought by 

these Interrogatories that YOU obtain after YOU serve YOUR responses hereto must be 

disclosed to PLAINTIFF by supplementary responses.

4. It is intended by this set of Interrogatories to elicit information not merely within 

YOUR knowledge, but obtainable by YOU or on YOUR behalf.

5. YOU may not claim lack of information or knowledge as grounds for failing to 

respond to any Interrogatory or as grounds for giving an incomplete or partial response to any 

Interrogatory without exercising due diligence to secure the full information needed to respond. 

Where YOU rely or respond based on information provided to YOU from any other person, fully

IDENTIFY that PERSON and how YOU obtained the information from them. Where YOU rely 

on information in any DOCUMENT, specifically IDENTIFY the DOCUMENT and IDENTIFY

the PERSON who has custody of that DOCUMENT.

6. If YOU cannot respond to an Interrogatory in full after exercising due diligence to 

secure the full information needed to do so, so state and respond to the extent possible, 

Case: 1:11-cv-08987 Document #: 53-1 Filed: 08/02/13 Page 11 of 67 PageID #:441
6

specifying YOUR inability to respond to the remainder, stating whatever information or 

knowledge YOU have concerning the unresponded portion and detailing what YOU did in 

attempting to secure the unknown information.

7. If any Interrogatory is objected to on the basis that the time period covered by the 

request is irrelevant, burdensome, or otherwise inappropriate, state what time period YOU

consider proper for that Interrogatory and answer the Interrogatory for that time period, 

preserving YOUR objection to the remainder of the time period.

8. If YOU object or otherwise refuse to respond to any portion of any Interrogatory, 

YOU shall (i) state the nature and basis of the objection or reason for such refusal in sufficient 

fashion to permit the Court to rule on the validity of the objection, and (ii) answer all portions of 

such Interrogatory that are not claimed to be objectionable.

9. If YOU object to answering all or any part of any Interrogatory on the grounds of 

privilege or work product protections, IDENTIFY the privileged DOCUMENT(S) or 

COMMUNICATION(S), and with respect to each such privileged responsive DOCUMENT or 

COMMUNICATION, IDENTIFY:

(a) the DATE appearing on such DOCUMENT, or if no DATE appears, the 

DATE on which such DOCUMENT or ESI was prepared;

(b) ESI METADATA creation, revision, transmission, receipt, and last access 

DATES; 

(c) the name of each PERSON to whom such DOCUMENT or ESI was 

addressed;

(d) the name of each PERSON, other than the addressee(s) IDENTIFIED in 

subparagraph (c) above, to whom such DOCUMENT or ESI, or copy 

Case: 1:11-cv-08987 Document #: 53-1 Filed: 08/02/13 Page 12 of 67 PageID #:442
7

thereof was sent, or with whom such DOCUMENT was discussed;

(e) the name of each PERSON who signed such DOCUMENT or ESI, if 

not signed, the name of each PERSON who prepared it;

(f) the name of each PERSON making any contribution to the authorship 

of such DOCUMENT or ESI;

(g) the job title or position of each PERSON IDENTIFIED in subparagraphs 

(c), (d), (e) and (f) above;

(h) the DATE such DOCUMENT or ESI was received or discussed by each 

PERSON IDENTIFIED in subparagraphs (c), (d), (e) and (f) above;

(i) the general nature or description of such DOCUMENT or ESI, and, 

where applicable, its number of pages;

(j) the name of each PERSON who currently has custody of such 

DOCUMENT or ESI; and

(k) the specific ground(s) upon which the privilege, work product, or other 

protection rests.

10. The singular form of a word shall be interpreted as plural, and the plural form of a 

word shall be interpreted as singular, whichever makes the Interrogatory most broad.

11. As used herein, the present tense shall also include the past tense.

12. For any term used herein, which is not otherwise specifically defined, the 

common and usual meaning of such term is intended. Any ambiguity in these Interrogatories 

shall be resolved so as to construe these Interrogatories as broadly as possible.

13. When these Interrogatories refer to a specific location, they contemplate a level of 

detail that would allow counsel to independently locate an item without significant assistance. 

Case: 1:11-cv-08987 Document #: 53-1 Filed: 08/02/13 Page 13 of 67 PageID #:443
8

Thus, for example, when these Interrogatories request the specific location of digital MEDIA, an 

acceptable answer might be “in Bill Johnson’s office, at 123 Main Street, Suite 100, New York, 

NY 10000.”

14. If YOU are producing any DOCUMENT in lieu of answering any of the 

Interrogatories stated herein, all DOCUMENTS are to be produced in the form, order, and 

manner in which they are maintained in YOUR files. You must IDENTIFY by Bates numbers 

the DOCUMENT responsive to any particular Interrogatory. DOCUMENTS are to be produced 

in the folders, cartons, or containers in which they have been maintained, stored, clipped, stapled, 

or otherwise arranged in the same form and manner in which they were found and in such a 

manner that the office and location from which they were produced is readily identifiable. 

Whenever a DOCUMENT or group of DOCUMENTS is taken out of a file folder, file drawer, 

file box, notebook, or other container, before the same is produced, attach thereto a copy of the 

label on the file folder, file box, or notebook from which the DOCUMENT or group of 

DOCUMENTS was removed. All ESI should be produced in NATIVE DATA FORMAT, 

reasonably usable, and verifiably responsive to the pertinent Interrogatories and be able to be 

processed using readily available tools.

15. Unless otherwise stated, all Interrogatories pertain to the RELEVANT TIME 

PERIOD.

III. Interrogatories

INTERROGATORY NO. 14

IDENTIFY the total number of DEBTORS for whom YOU hold accounts. 

INTERROGATORY NO. 15

DESCRIBE with particularity the process(es) and/or method(s) by which YOU 

Case: 1:11-cv-08987 Document #: 53-1 Filed: 08/02/13 Page 14 of 67 PageID #:444
9

determined that there are approximately 2.4 million PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS.

INTERROGATORY NO. 16

IDENTIFY the total number of PHONE CALLS made by YOU to DEBTORS that YOU 

internally IDENTIFY as being (i) completely automated (i.e., without any involvement of a live 

operator), or (ii) initially automated, but connected to a live operator when answered, 

INCLUDING PHONE CALLS made by a predictive dialer.

INTERROGATORY NO. 17

IDENTIFY the total number of PHONE CALLS IDENTIFIED in YOUR response to 

Interrogatory No. 16 that were made to phone numbers YOU internally IDENTIFY as cellular 

telephone numbers. 

INTERROGATORY NO. 18

IDENTIFY the total number of DEBTOR accounts that have only one associated 

telephone number. 

INTERROGATORY NO. 19

DESCRIBE with particularity the process(es) and/or methods by which YOU determine 

and/or IDENTIFY the source of the telephone numbers associated with YOUR DEBTORS’ 

accounts (e.g., whether they were contained in an original financing agreement executed by the 

DEBTOR or were obtained at a later date over the phone, through subsequent paperwork, SKIP 

TRACING, NUMBER TRAPPING, etc.). 

INTERROGATORY NO. 20

DESCRIBE with particularity the types of contact information, other than telephone 

numbers, that YOU have associated with YOUR DEBTORS’ accounts, INCLUDING mailing 

addresses, e-mail addresses, and messaging capabilities through YOUR online payment 

Case: 1:11-cv-08987 Document #: 53-1 Filed: 08/02/13 Page 15 of 67 PageID #:445
10

system(s).

INTERROGATORY NO. 21

IDENTIFY all claims and/or causes of action asserted against YOU for alleged violations 

of the TCPA. For all claims so IDENTFIED, IDENTIFY all judgments entered in those matters, 

the amounts of such judgments, and the terms of any non-confidential settlement agreements 

entered into by the parties in any and all related matters. 

INTERROGATORY NO. 22

IDENTIFY all telephone numbers YOU have obtained through SKIP TRACING and/or 

NUMBER TRAPPING.

* * *

HENRY ESPEJO, individually and on behalf of all 

others similarly situated,

Date: March 29, 2013 By: /s/ Benjamin H. Richman

One of Plaintiff’s Attorneys

Jay Edelson

Rafey S. Balabanian

Benjamin H. Richman

Christopher L. Dore

EDELSON LLC

350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Telephone: (312) 589-6380

jedelson@edelson.com

rbalabanian@edelson.com

brichman@edelson.com

cdore@edelson.com

Scott D. Owens (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)

LAW OFFICES OF SCOTT D. OWENS, ESQ.

664 E. Hallandale Beach Blvd.

Hallandale, Florida 33009

Telephone: (954) 306-8104

scott@scottdowens.com

Case: 1:11-cv-08987 Document #: 53-1 Filed: 08/02/13 Page 16 of 67 PageID #:446
11

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Benjamin H. Richman, an attorney, hereby certify that on March 29, 2013, I served the 

above and foregoing Plaintiff Espejo’s Second Set of Interrogatories to Defendant Santander 

Consumer USA, Inc., by causing a true and accurate copy of such paper to be transmitted to the 

persons shown below via electronic mail, on this the 29th day of March 2013.

Gary S. Caplan

Michael D. Richman

REED SMITH LLP

gcaplan@reedsmith.com

mdrichman@reedsmith.com

/s/ Benjamin H. Richman

Case: 1:11-cv-08987 Document #: 53-1 Filed: 08/02/13 Page 17 of 67 PageID #:447
EXHIBIT 2

Case: 1:11-cv-08987 Document #: 53-1 Filed: 08/02/13 Page 18 of 67 PageID #:448
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, 

Plaintiff,

v.

SANTANDER CONSUMER USA, INC., an 

Illinois corporation,

Defendant.

Case No.: 1:11-cv-08987

Related to: Case No. 1:12-cv-4671

Case No. 1:12-cv-9431

Honorable Charles P. Kocoras

PLAINTIFF ESPEJO’S THIRD SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION 

TO DEFENDANT SANTANDER CONSUMER USA, INC.

Plaintiff HENRY ESPEJO, pursuant to Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,

hereby requests that Defendant SANTANDER CONSUMER USA, INC. produce the following 

documents and things for inspection and copying at the offices of Edelson LLC, 350 North 

LaSalle Street, Suite 1300, Chicago, Illinois 60654, within thirty (30) days of service of hereof.

I. Definitions

1. “AND” as well as “OR” shall be construed either disjunctively or conjunctively as 

necessary to bring within the scope of these Requests any information which might otherwise be 

construed to be outside their scope.

2. “ANY” and “ALL” shall be construed to include “each” and “each and every” 

and vice versa so as to acquire the broadest meaning possible. 

3. “ATTACHMENTS” means files or data that are physically or logically associated 

with or embedded into email or other DOCUMENTS or COMMUNICATIONS, and should be 

identified by mapping to their parent by the DOCUMENT or production number. If attachments 

Case: 1:11-cv-08987 Document #: 53-1 Filed: 08/02/13 Page 19 of 67 PageID #:449
2

and embedded files are combined with their parent DOCUMENTS, then “BeginAttach” and 

“EndAttach” fields listing the unique beginning and end number for each attachment or 

embedded DOCUMENT must be INCLUDED.

4. BATES NUMBERING. Each page of a produced DOCUMENT, or MEDIA upon 

which ESI in NATIVE FORMAT is produced, shall have a legible, unique page identifier (i.e., 

“Bates number”) electronically “burned” onto or associated with the MEDIA, or image in such a 

manner that information from the source DOCUMENT is not obliterated, concealed, or 

interfered with. There shall be no other legend or stamp placed on the DOCUMENT image 

unless a DOCUMENT qualifies for confidential treatment pursuant to the terms of a Protective 

Order in this litigation, or has been redacted in accordance with applicable law or Court order. 

In the case of confidential materials as defined in any Protective Order, a designation may be

“burned” onto or otherwise associated with the DOCUMENT’S image at a location that does not 

obliterate or obscure any information from the source DOCUMENT. For redacted material, the 

word “Redacted” should be burned onto the DOCUMENT image over the protected information, 

except as otherwise inconsistent with any Protective Order entered in this matter. To the extent 

native files are produced, the producing party shall name the native file with the Bates number.

5. “CELLULAR PHONE CALLS” means or refers to the debt collection telephone 

calls YOU made or caused to be made to any telephone number you have internally identified as 

a cellular phone number. 

6. COLOR. If an original DOCUMENT contains color, YOU may produce black 

and white image(s) for each such DOCUMENT. However, PLAINTIFF reserves the right to 

request that color copies of DOCUMENTS be produced on an as-needed basis.

7. “COMMUNICATION” means or refers to the transmittal of information, facts or 

Case: 1:11-cv-08987 Document #: 53-1 Filed: 08/02/13 Page 20 of 67 PageID #:450
3

ideas INCLUDING COMMUNICATIONS in the form of any discussion, conversation, inquiry, 

negotiation, agreement, understanding, meeting, telephone conversation, letter, 

CORRESPONDENCE, note, memorandum, e-mail message, telegram, advertisement or other 

form of exchange of words, whether oral or written.

8. “COMPLAINT” means Plaintiff Espejo’s First Amended Class Action Complaint 

filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in this matter. 

9. “COMPUTER” or “COMPUTER EQUIPMENT” means all data processing 

equipment, INCLUDING central processing units (CPUs), whether contained in a server or free 

standing computer or laptop or PDA or similar device that may contain data storage capabilities, 

irrespective of whether such computing platform, infrastructure or storage is virtualized, whether 

that data be structured or unstructured, and also INCLUDING any equipment where computer 

files (INCLUDING without limitation, records, DOCUMENTS, logs, and any other contiguous 

or non-contiguous bit strings), hidden system files or METADATA presently reside such as hard 

disk drives, optical disk drives, removable MEDIA, such as floppy disk drives, CD-ROM and 

DVD drives, Zip drives, Jaz drives, Maxtor drives or snap drives, data processing cards, 

computer magnetic tapes, backup tapes, drum and disk storage devices or any other similar 

electronic storage MEDIA or system of whatever name or description. “COMPUTER” or

“COMPUTER EQUIPMENT” also means all digital image evidence that may be stored on any 

type of hardware used to store or manipulate electronic images, INCLUDING microfilm, 

microfiche and their repositories and readers, or design or engineering computer systems and 

regardless of any digital image’s format, INCLUDING .jpg, .bmp, or some other advanced or 

proprietary form of digital image format, such as CAD layered drawings. “COMPUTER” or

“COMPUTER EQUIPMENT” also refers to sources of digital evidence that may not presently 

Case: 1:11-cv-08987 Document #: 53-1 Filed: 08/02/13 Page 21 of 67 PageID #:451
4

be in use by YOU or may have been deleted from YOUR active systems, whether the source is a 

backup tape or disk, some other data retention system or some form of disaster recovery system. 

“COMPUTER” or “COMPUTER EQUIPMENT” also refers to places where digital evidence 

may reside that may have been deleted from YOUR active files and which may not be readily 

recoverable from a backup medium, such as METADATA. 

10. “COMPUTER SYSTEM” refers to free standing servers, COMPUTERS and 

laptops, and also refers to YOUR network infrastructure and computer support systems subject to 

YOUR possession, custody or control, such as YOUR subsidiaries, predecessors, successors, 

assigns, joint venturers, partners, parents, agents or affiliates (in this country or throughout the 

world), INCLUDING the following:

(a) YOUR LAN, WAN or other network systems, regardless of methods of 

connectivity (e.g., by T1, T3 or optical lines), domains, INCLUDING

PDCs, network OS (such as Novell, Microsoft, UNIX, Citrix or some 

other similar type) or protocols, backup and disaster recovery hardware 

and MEDIA, regardless of the physical location of those electronic storage 

systems.

(b) YOUR email servers and any repository of email (INCLUDING within 

the inbox, sent box, deleted box or some similar file of the COMPUTERS

of employees or management), or in any backup form whatsoever, 

regardless of whether YOU use Microsoft Exchange, Outlook, Outlook 

Express, Lotus Notes or some combination of email management software 

or some alternative commercial or proprietary email management 

software.

Case: 1:11-cv-08987 Document #: 53-1 Filed: 08/02/13 Page 22 of 67 PageID #:452
5

(c) YOUR IS administrative offices, INCLUDING backup and disaster 

recovery restoration plans and repositories, data retention plans and 

repositories, purge plans and repositories, training plans and repositories, 

and libraries of hardcopy materials of any description (regardless of where 

located) and online training and operation manuals that have been scanned 

to disk.

(d) YOUR offsite technical and service bureau support systems, INCLUDING

ASP (application service provider) support, scanning or data conversion 

support, offsite data storage or archive support.

(e) YOUR web hosting and administration services, INCLUDING intranet 

and extranet sites, regardless of whether they are now publicly posted or 

exist in English, or some other language. 

11. “CORRESPONDENCE” means and refers to all written and unwritten but 

recorded COMMUNICATIONS, including non-duplicate drafts, versions not sent, and copies 

that differ only in margin notes or annotations, INCLUDING memos, letters analog or digital 

recordings, voicemail, email, COMPUTER files, COMPUTER disks, or other things sent or 

received by YOU to or from any entity, INCLUDING files maintained or exchanged internally 

within YOUR business or with YOUR employees.

12. “DATE” means the exact year, month and day, if known, or, if not known, YOUR

best approximation thereof.

13. “DEBTOR” or “DEBTORS” includes individuals who, according to YOUR 

records, owe money for a debt held by SANTANDER. 

14. “DESCRIBE” when used in relation to any process, policy, act or event means to 

Case: 1:11-cv-08987 Document #: 53-1 Filed: 08/02/13 Page 23 of 67 PageID #:453
6

explain the process, policy, act or event in complete and reasonable detail, stating the time, 

DATE, and location, IDENTIFYING all PERSONS participating or present, and IDENTIFYING

all DOCUMENTS RELATING thereto.

15. “DOCUMENT” or “DOCUMENTS” includes writings, drawings, graphs, charts, 

photographs, sound recordings, images, and other data or data compilations, INCLUDING

ESI—stored in any medium from which information can be obtained. 

16. “DUPLICATES” means exact duplicate ESI DOCUMENTS (based on MD5 or 

SHA-1 hash values) within YOUR possession, custody or control. Only DOCUMENTS where 

the main DOCUMENT and the attachments are exactly the same will be considered exact 

duplicates. ESI with differing file names but identical hash values shall not be considered 

duplicates. Exact duplicate shall mean bit-for-bit identicality with both DOCUMENT content 

and any associated METADATA. Where any such DOCUMENTS have attachments, hash 

values must be identical for both the DOCUMENT and attachment (INCLUDING associated 

METADATA), as well as for any ATTACHMENT (INCLUDING associated METADATA) 

standing alone. 

17. “ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION” or “ESI” as used herein, 

means and refers to COMPUTER generated information or data, of any kind, stored on 

COMPUTERS, file servers, disks, tape or other devices or MEDIA, or otherwise evidenced by 

recording on some storage MEDIA, whether real virtual, or cloud-based. 

18. FILE NAMING CONVENTIONS. Where production of .tiff images rather than 

native format ESI is requested or agreed to, each DOCUMENT image file produced shall be 

named with the unique Bates number of the first page of the DOCUMENT, followed by the 

extension “.tif” or “.tiff.” To the extent separate text files are produced, text files should be 

Case: 1:11-cv-08987 Document #: 53-1 Filed: 08/02/13 Page 24 of 67 PageID #:454
7

named the same as the first .tif or .tiff image of the DOCUMENT.

19. “HIM” or “HER” means both “his” and “her” and is not limited to the masculine 

or feminine, but INCLUDES both.

20. “IDENTIFY” when used with respect to a natural PERSON, means to state the 

PERSON’S full name, present or last known business affiliation and position, past and present 

home address and past position and business affiliation, if any, with any of the parties herein.

21. “IDENTIFY” when used with respect to a company or other business entity, 

means to state the company’s legal name, the names under which it does business, its form (e.g., 

partnership, corporation, etc.), the address of its principal place of business, and to IDENTIFY

its principal proprietors, officers and/or directors.

22. “IDENTIFY” when used with respect to a DOCUMENT, means to state the 

DATE(S) prepared, drafted or generated, the author(s), intended and actual recipient(s), type of 

DOCUMENT (e.g., “letter,” “Terms of Service” or “email”), and to IDENTIFY its last known 

custodian or location.

23. “IDENTIFY” when used in reference to an event, transaction, or occurrence, 

means to DESCRIBE the act in complete and reasonable detail; state the time, DATE, and 

location; IDENTIFY all PERSONS participating or present; and, IDENTIFY all DOCUMENTS

RELATING thereto.

24. “IDENTIFY” when used with respect to a COMMUNICATION, means to state

the type of COMMUNICATION (e.g., telephone discussion, email, face-to-face, etc.), the name 

and present address of each PERSON present during the COMMUNICATION, or who otherwise 

observed or heard the COMMUNICATION and to state the subject matter of the 

COMMUNICATION and the DATE upon which it occurred. If the COMMUNICATION was in 

Case: 1:11-cv-08987 Document #: 53-1 Filed: 08/02/13 Page 25 of 67 PageID #:455
8

writing, IDENTIFY all DOCUMENTS RELATED TO the COMMUNICATION.

25. “INCLUDING” means “including, but not limited to;” “INCLUDES” means 

“includes, but not limited to.”

26. “MEDIA” means an object or device, real or virtual, INCLUDING a disc, tape, 

COMPUTER or other device, on which data is or was stored.

27. “METADATA” means and refers to data about data, INCLUDING without 

limitation, information embedded in a native file or other data that is not ordinarily viewable or 

printable from the application that generated, edited, or modified such native file. METADATA 

describes the characteristics, origins, usage and validity of the electronic file as well as 

information generated automatically by the operation of a COMPUTER or other information 

technology system when a native file is created, modified, transmitted, deleted or otherwise 

manipulated by a user of such system, INCLUDING the following (to the extent available):

• DOCUMENT number or production number (INCLUDING the DOCUMENT 

start and DOCUMENT end numbers). This should use the standard Bates number 

in accordance with those used in previous productions.

• BeginAttach

• EndAttach

• Title/Subject 

• Sent/Date and Time (for emails only)

• Last Modified Date and Time Created Date and Time (for ESI) 

• Received Date and Time (for emails only)

• Author

• Recipients 

Case: 1:11-cv-08987 Document #: 53-1 Filed: 08/02/13 Page 26 of 67 PageID #:456
9

• cc:

• bcc: 

• Source (custodian) 

• Hash Value 

• File Path 

• MEDIA (type of media that the DOCUMENT was stored on when it was 

collected)

• Page Count

• Original File Name

• DOCUMENT extension

• Full Text

• Accessed DATE

• Last Print DATE

28. “NATIVE DATA FORMAT” means and refers to the format of ESI, whether 

structured or unstructured, in which it was generated and used by YOU in the usual course of 

YOUR business and in YOUR regularly conducted activities.

29. “NUMBER TRAPPING” means or refers to the practice of utilizing caller 

identification technology to IDENTIFY and/or collect a PERSON’S phone number when that 

PERSON places a call to YOU.

30. “PERSON” means or refers to any natural person, corporation, partnership, 

association, organization, joint ventures, or other entity of any type or nature.

31. “PHONE CALLS” means or refers to the debt collection telephone calls YOU

made or caused to be made to any telephone number.

Case: 1:11-cv-08987 Document #: 53-1 Filed: 08/02/13 Page 27 of 67 PageID #:457
10

32. “PLAINTIFF” means or refers to the named-plaintiff in this matter, Henry 

Espejo. 

33. “PRODUCTION OF PAPER DOCUMENTS” means the production of paperbased original DOCUMENTS (i.e., DOCUMENTS which were not first generated by a 

COMPUTER, such as hand written memoranda), which shall be made in hard copy.

34. “PUTATIVE CLASS” or “PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS” means those 

PERSONS who fall under the definition of the No Consent Class set forth in paragraph 19 of the 

COMPLAINT, including those members of the No Debt Subclass.

35. “REGARDING”, “RELATING TO”, and “RELATED TO” means discussing, 

mentioning, addressing, referring to, analyzing, comprising, underlying, memorializing, 

describing, or showing the subject indicated.

36. “RELEVANT TIME PERIOD” means or refers to the time period between 

December 19, 2007 and the present.

37. “SKIP TRACE”, “SKIP TRACING” or “SKIP” means or refers to the practice of 

locating a PERSON’S contact information, including his or her phone number, through searching 

phone number databases, credit reports (e.g., information provided on a loan application, credit 

card application, and/or in other debt collector databases), job application information, criminal 

background checks, utility bills, social security records, disability records, public tax 

information, and other public and private contextual data sources to use available information 

(such as past or present name or address) to determine more current contact information. SKIP 

TRACING services INCLUDE but are not limited to Experian, Experian-Social Search, 

Accurint, LexisNexis, Inferenda, Interactive Data, CBCInnovis, MasterFiles, Merlin Information 

Services, and VeriFacts.

Case: 1:11-cv-08987 Document #: 53-1 Filed: 08/02/13 Page 28 of 67 PageID #:458
11

38. “TCPA” means the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (47 U.S.C. § 227, et 

seq.).

39. “TELEPHONE” or “TELEPHONE DIALING EQUIPMENT” means and refers 

to the telecommunications equipment, INCLUDING auto-dialers, predictive dialers, and other 

telemarketing systems, that YOU use to make telephone calls.

40. “YOU,” “YOUR,” “DEFENDANT,” or “SANTANDER” means or refers to 

Defendant Santander Consumer USA, Inc. and its divisions, subsidiaries, related companies, 

predecessors, and successors, all present and former officers, directors, agents, attorneys, 

employees, and all PERSONS acting or purporting to act on behalf of any of them.

II. Instructions

1. If, in responding to these Requests, YOU encounter any ambiguity in construing 

either the Request or any instruction relevant to the Request, YOU should nonetheless respond to 

the Request, set forth the matter deemed ambiguous, and set forth the construction used in 

responding to the Request.

2. These are intended as continuing Requests having within them a duty to timely 

supplement YOUR responses until and during the course of trial. Information sought by these 

Requests that YOU obtain after YOU serve YOUR responses must be disclosed to PLAINTIFF

by supplementary responses.

3. If YOU object to answering all or any part of any Request on the grounds of 

privilege or work product protections, IDENTIFY the privileged DOCUMENT(S) or 

COMMUNICATION(S), and with respect to each such privileged responsive DOCUMENT or 

COMMUNICATION, IDENTIFY:

(a) the DATE appearing on such DOCUMENT, or if no DATE appears, the 

Case: 1:11-cv-08987 Document #: 53-1 Filed: 08/02/13 Page 29 of 67 PageID #:459
12

DATE on which such DOCUMENT or ESI was prepared;

(b) ESI METADATA creation, revision, transmission, receipt, and last access 

DATES; 

(c) the name of each PERSON to whom such DOCUMENT or ESI was 

addressed;

(d) the name of each PERSON, other than the addressee(s) IDENTIFIED in 

subparagraph (c) above, to whom such DOCUMENT or ESI, or copy 

thereof was sent, or with whom such DOCUMENT was discussed;

(e) the name of each PERSON who signed such DOCUMENT or ESI, if 

not signed, the name of each PERSON who prepared it;

(f) the name of each PERSON making any contribution to the authorship 

of such DOCUMENT or ESI;

(g) the job title or position of each PERSON IDENTIFIED in subparagraphs 

(c), (d), (e) and (f) above;

(h) the DATE such DOCUMENT or ESI was received or discussed by each 

PERSON IDENTIFIED in subparagraphs (c), (d), (e) and (f) above;

(i) the general nature or description of such DOCUMENT or ESI, and, 

where applicable, its number of pages;

(j) the name of each PERSON who currently has custody of such 

DOCUMENT or ESI; and

(k) the specific ground(s) upon which the privilege, work product or other

protection rests.

4. When producing the requested DOCUMENTS, YOU are to designate for which 

Case: 1:11-cv-08987 Document #: 53-1 Filed: 08/02/13 Page 30 of 67 PageID #:460
13

specific request or requests the DOCUMENT is responsive or produce the DOCUMENTS as 

they are kept in the ordinary course of YOUR business. All DOCUMENTS are to be produced in 

the form, order, and manner in which they are generated and maintained by YOU in the usual 

course of YOUR everyday routine business activities. Where structured data (e.g., data from a 

database) is requested, appropriate queries will be used to extract relevant data from any such 

database, which data shall match specified criteria, and returning specified fields, in a form and 

format that is verifiable and readable by the use of commonly available tools. DOCUMENTS are 

to be produced in folders, cartons, or containers, in which they have been maintained, stored, 

clipped, stapled, or otherwise arranged in the same form and manner in which they were found 

and in such manner that the office and location from which they were produced is readily 

identifiable. Whenever a DOCUMENT or a group of DOCUMENTS is taken out of a file folder, 

file drawer, file box, notebook or other container, before the same is produced, attach thereto a 

copy of the label on the file folder, file box, or notebook from which the DOCUMENT or group 

of DOCUMENTS was removed. All ESI should be produced in native format, reasonably usable, 

and verifiably responsive to the pertinent request(s) and be able to be processed using readily 

available tools.

5. If any DOCUMENT requested has been lost or destroyed since its creation, 

IDENTIFY the nature of the DOCUMENT (e.g., letter, email, etc.), the DATE of the 

DOCUMENT, the PERSONS who sent and received the original and copies of the 

DOCUMENT, a summary of the content of the DOCUMENT and DESCRIBE when, where, 

how, and by whom said DOCUMENT was lost or destroyed, and state the name of the 

PERSON(S) who last had custody thereof.

6. The singular form of a word shall be interpreted as plural, and the plural form of a 

Case: 1:11-cv-08987 Document #: 53-1 Filed: 08/02/13 Page 31 of 67 PageID #:461
14

word shall be interpreted as singular, whichever makes the Interrogatory most broad.

7. For any term used herein, which is not otherwise specifically defined, the 

common and usual meaning of such term is intended. Any ambiguity in these Interrogatories 

shall be resolved so as to construe these Interrogatories as broadly as possible.

8. Unless otherwise stated, all Requests pertain to the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD.

III. Requests for Production

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16

All DOCUMENTS referenced in, RELATING TO, or relied upon, in drafting YOUR 

answers to Plaintiff Espejo’s Second Set of Interrogatories to Defendant Santander Consumer 

USA, Inc.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17

All DOCUMENTS and ESI sufficient to IDENTIFY the total number of DEBTORS for 

whom YOU hold accounts. 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 18

All DOCUMENTS and ESI RELATED TO the process(es) and/or method(s) YOU used 

to determine that there are approximately 2.4 million PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 19

All COMMUNICATIONS RELATED TO the process(es) and/or method(s) YOU used 

to determine that there are approximately 2.4 million PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 20

All DOCUMENTS and ESI sufficient to IDENTIFY the total number of PHONE CALLS 

made by YOU to DEBTORS that YOU internally IDENTIFY as being completely automated 

(i.e., without any involvement of a live operator), INCLUDING PHONE CALLS made by a 

Case: 1:11-cv-08987 Document #: 53-1 Filed: 08/02/13 Page 32 of 67 PageID #:462
15

predictive dialer. 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 21

All COMMUNICATIONS sufficient to IDENTIFY the total number of PHONE CALLS 

made by YOU to DEBTORS that YOU internally IDENTIFY as being completely automated 

(i.e., without any involvement of a live operator), INCLUDING PHONE CALLS made by a 

predictive dialer.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 22

All DOCUMENTS and ESI sufficient to IDENTIFY the total number of PHONE CALLS 

made by YOU to DEBTORS that YOU internally IDENTIFY as being initially automated, but 

connected to a live operator when answered, INCLUDING PHONE CALLS made by a 

predictive dialer. 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 23

All COMMUNICATIONS sufficient to IDENTIFY the total number of PHONE CALLS 

made by YOU to DEBTORS that YOU internally IDENTIFY as being initially automated, but 

connected to a live operator when answered, INCLUDING PHONE CALLS made by a 

predictive dialer. 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 24

All DOCUMENTS and ESI sufficient to IDENTIFY the total number of CELLULAR 

PHONE CALLS made by YOU to DEBTORS that YOU internally IDENTIFY as being 

completely automated (i.e., without any involvement of a live operator), INCLUDING 

CELLULAR PHONE CALLS made by a predictive dialer.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 25

All COMMUNICATIONS sufficient to IDENTIFY the total number of CELLULAR 

Case: 1:11-cv-08987 Document #: 53-1 Filed: 08/02/13 Page 33 of 67 PageID #:463
16

PHONE CALLS made by YOU to DEBTORS that YOU internally IDENTIFY as being 

completely automated (i.e., without any involvement of a live operator), INCLUDING 

CELLULAR PHONE CALLS made by a predictive dialer.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 26

All DOCUMENTS and ESI sufficient to IDENTIFY the total number of CELLULAR 

PHONE CALLS made by YOU to DEBTORS that YOU internally IDENTIFY as being initially 

automated, but connected to a live operator when answered, INCLUDING CELLULAR PHONE 

CALLS made by a predictive dialer.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 27

All COMMUNICATIONS sufficient to IDENTIFY the total number of CELLULAR 

PHONE CALLS made by YOU to DEBTORS that YOU internally IDENTIFY as being initially 

automated, but connected to a live operator when answered, INCLUDING CELLULAR PHONE 

CALLS made by a predictive dialer.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 28

All DOCUMENTS and ESI sufficient to IDENTIFY the total number of DEBTOR 

accounts that have only one associated telephone number. 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 29

All COMMUNICATIONS sufficient to IDENTIFY the total number of DEBTOR 

accounts that have only one associated telephone number. 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 30

All DOCUMENTS and ESI RELATED TO the process(es) and/or method(s) by which 

YOU determine and/or IDENTIFY the source of the telephone numbers associated with YOUR 

DEBTORS’ accounts (e.g., whether they were contained in an original financing agreement 

Case: 1:11-cv-08987 Document #: 53-1 Filed: 08/02/13 Page 34 of 67 PageID #:464
17

executed by the DEBTOR or were obtained at a later DATE over the phone, through subsequent 

paperwork, SKIP TRACKING, NUMBER TRAPPING, etc.).

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 31

All COMMUNICATIONS RELATED TO the process(es) and/or method(s) by which 

YOU determine and/or IDENTIFY the source of the telephone numbers associated with YOUR 

DEBTORS’ accounts (e.g., whether they were contained in an original financing agreement 

executed by the DEBTOR or were obtained at a later DATE over the phone, through subsequent 

paperwork, SKIP TRACKING, NUMBER TRAPPING, etc.).

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 32

All DOCUMENTS and ESI sufficient to IDENTIFY the types of contact information, 

other than telephone numbers, that YOU have associated with YOUR DEBTORS’ accounts, 

INCLUDING mailing addresses, e-mail addresses, and messaging capabilities through YOUR 

online payment system(s). 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 33

All COMMUNICATIONS sufficient to IDENTIFY the types of contact information, 

other than telephone numbers, that YOU have associated with YOUR DEBTORS’ accounts, 

INCLUDING mailing addresses, e-mail addresses, and messaging capabilities through YOUR 

online payment system(s). 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 34

All DOCUMENTS and ESI that RELATE TO claims and/or causes of action asserted 

against YOU for alleged violations of the TCPA, INCLUDING all judgments entered in those 

matters, the amounts of such judgments, and copies of any non-confidential settlement 

agreements entered into by the parties to any and all related matters.

Case: 1:11-cv-08987 Document #: 53-1 Filed: 08/02/13 Page 35 of 67 PageID #:465
18

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 35

All COMMUNICATIONS that RELATE TO claims and/or causes of action asserted 

against YOU for alleged violations of the TCPA, INCLUDING all judgments entered in those 

matters, the amounts of such judgments, and copies of any non-confidential settlement 

agreements entered into by the parties to any and all related matters.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 36

All DOCUMENTS and ESI sufficient to IDENTIFY all telephone numbers YOU have 

obtained through SKIP TRACING. 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 37

All DOCUMENTS and ESI sufficient to IDENTIFY all telephone numbers YOU have 

obtained through NUMBER TRAPPING. 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 38

All COMMUNICATIONS sufficient to IDENTIFY all telephone numbers YOU have 

obtained through SKIP TRACING. 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 39

All COMMUNICATIONS sufficient to IDENTIFY all telephone numbers YOU have 

obtained through NUMBER TRAPPING. 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 40

A random sample of 1,000 DEBTOR files, INCLUDING all financing agreements, call 

logs, audio recordings of telephone conversations, COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and the 

DEBTOR (INCLUDING any offers of settlement or related COMMUNICATIONS), and all 

other information YOU maintain in the ordinary course of YOUR business for each DEBTOR. 

* * *

Case: 1:11-cv-08987 Document #: 53-1 Filed: 08/02/13 Page 36 of 67 PageID #:466
19

HENRY ESPEJO, individually and on 

behalf of all others similarly situated,

Date: March 29, 2013 By: /s/ Benjamin H. Richman

One of Plaintiff’s Attorneys

Jay Edelson

Rafey S. Balabanian

Benjamin H. Richman

Christopher L. Dore

EDELSON LLC

350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Telephone: (312) 589-6380

jedelson@edelson.com

rbalabanian@edelson.com

brichman@edelson.com

cdore@edelson.com

Scott D. Owens (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)

LAW OFFICES OF SCOTT D. OWENS, ESQ.

664 E. Hallandale Beach Blvd.

Hallandale, Florida 33009

Telephone: (954) 306-8104

scott@scottdowens.com

Case: 1:11-cv-08987 Document #: 53-1 Filed: 08/02/13 Page 37 of 67 PageID #:467
20

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Benjamin H. Richman, an attorney, hereby certify that on March 29, 2013, I served the 

above and foregoing Plaintiff Espejo’s Third Set of Requests for Production to Defendant 

Santander Consumer USA, Inc., by causing a true and accurate copy of such paper to be 

transmitted to the persons shown below via electronic mail, on this the 29th day of March 2013.

Gary S. Caplan

Michael D. Richman

REED SMITH LLP

gcaplan@reedsmith.com

mdrichman@reedsmith.com

/s/ Benjamin H. Richman

Case: 1:11-cv-08987 Document #: 53-1 Filed: 08/02/13 Page 38 of 67 PageID #:468
EXHIBIT 3

Case: 1:11-cv-08987 Document #: 53-1 Filed: 08/02/13 Page 39 of 67 PageID #:469
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, 

Plaintiff,

v.

SANTANDER CONSUMER USA, INC., an 

Illinois corporation,

Defendant.

Case No.: 1:11-cv-08987

Related to: Case No. 1:12-cv-4671

Case No. 1:12-cv-9431

Honorable Charles P. Kocoras

PLAINTIFF ESPEJO’S SECOND NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF 

SANTANDER CONSUMER USA, INC. PURSUANT TO RULE 30(b)(6) 

TO: See attached certificate of service.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to Rule 30(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, Plaintiff will take the deposition upon oral examination of SANTANDER 

CONSUMER USA, INC. The deposition will take place on May 15, 2013, beginning at 9:30 

a.m. CT. The deponent will appear at the offices of Edelson LLC, 350 North LaSalle Street, 

Suite 1300, Chicago, Illinois 60654. The deposition will be recorded by stenographic means. 

Defendant SANTANDER CONSUMER USA, INC. must designate one or more officers, 

directors, or managing agents, or other persons who consent to testify on its behalf. Plaintiff

requests examination of the person(s) most knowledgeable at SANTANDER CONSUMER 

USA, INC. on the following matters:

1. Santander Consumer USA, Inc.’s (“Santander”) outbound telephone call 

operations utilized for the purpose of collecting debts and/or past due account 

balances;

2. Santander’s methods of obtaining debtor’s telephone numbers, including but not 

limited to the use the methods known as “number trapping” and “skip tracing”;

3. Santander’s use of demographic contact cards, including but not limited to the 

method(s) and/or process(es) by which the information contained in contact cards 

is verified (if at all);

4. The hardware and software utilized by Santander to place phone calls to 

consumers for the purpose of collecting debts and/or past due account balances, 

including the Aspect Unified IP system;

5. Santander’s Command Center operations, including Command Center locations, 

equipment, directors, managers and other employees, practices, policies and 

Case: 1:11-cv-08987 Document #: 53-1 Filed: 08/02/13 Page 40 of 67 PageID #:470
2

procedures;

6. Santander’s Data Warehouse operations, including Data Warehouse locations, 

equipment, directors, managers and other employees, practices, policies and 

procedures;

7. Santander’s Data Center operations, including Data Center locations, equipment, 

directors, managers and other employees, practices, policies and procedures;

8. Santander’s Compliance Department operations, including Compliance 

Department locations, equipment, directors, managers and other employees, 

practices, policies and procedures;

9. Santander’s policies and procedures for complying with the Telephone Consumer 

Protection Act, 47 USC § 227, et seq., including but not limited to obtaining 

individual’s consent to be called;

10. Santander’s training of its directors, managers and other employees with respect 

to compliance with the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 USC § 227, et 

seq., including but not limited to training manuals, modules, decks, presentations, 

seminars, and meetings;

11. Phone calls placed and received by or on behalf of Santander to the phone number 

(305) 987-1411; and,

12. All communications by or on behalf of Santander with Plaintiff Henry Espejo and 

Maria Espejo.

The deponent is requested to bring to the deposition all documents identified or produced 

by Defendant SANTANDER CONSUMER USA, INC. in response to all written discovery 

requests served by Plaintiff Espejo in this matter.

* * *

HENRY ESPEJO, individually and on behalf of all 

others similarly situated,

Dated: April 5, 2013 By: /s/ Benjamin H. Richman

One of Plaintiff’s Attorneys

Jay Edelson (jedelson@edelson.com)

Rafey S. Balabanian (rbalabanian@edelson.com)

Benjamin H. Richman (brichman@edelson.com)

Christopher L. Dore (cdore@edelson.com)

EDELSON LLC

350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Telephone: (312) 589-6370

Facsimile: (312) 589-6378

Case: 1:11-cv-08987 Document #: 53-1 Filed: 08/02/13 Page 41 of 67 PageID #:471
3

Scott D. Owens (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)

LAW OFFICES OF SCOTT D. OWENS, ESQ.

664 East Hallandale Beach Boulevard

Hallandale, Florida 33009

Telephone: (954) 306-8104

scott@scottdowens.com

Case: 1:11-cv-08987 Document #: 53-1 Filed: 08/02/13 Page 42 of 67 PageID #:472
4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Benjamin H. Richman, an attorney, hereby certify that on April 5, 2013, I served the 

above and foregoing Plaintiff Espejo’s Second Notice of Deposition of Santander Consumer 

USA, Inc. Pursuant to Rule 30(b)(6), by causing true and accurate copies of such paper to be 

transmitted to the persons shown below via electronic mail, on this the 5th day of April, 2013.

Gary S. Caplan

Michael D. Richman

REED SMITH LLP

gcaplan@reedsmith.com

mdrichman@reedsmith.com

/s/ Benjamin H. Richman

Benjamin H. Richman

Case: 1:11-cv-08987 Document #: 53-1 Filed: 08/02/13 Page 43 of 67 PageID #:473
EXHIBIT 4

Case: 1:11-cv-08987 Document #: 53-1 Filed: 08/02/13 Page 44 of 67 PageID #:474
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, 

Plaintiff,

v.

SANTANDER CONSUMER USA, INC., an 

Illinois corporation,

Defendant.

Case No.: 1:11-cv-08987

Honorable Charles P. Kocoras

NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF MARK MOONEY

TO: See attached certificate of service.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to Rule 30(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, Plaintiff Henry Espejo will take the deposition upon oral examination of MARK 

MOONEY. The deposition will take place on April 24, 2013, beginning at 9:30 a.m. CT. The 

deponent will appear at the offices of Edelson LLC, 350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300, 

Chicago, Illinois 60654. The deposition will be recorded by stenographic means.

The deponent is requested to bring to the deposition all documents identified or produced 

by Defendant SANTANDER CONSUMER USA, INC. in response to all written discovery 

requests served by Plaintiff in this matter.

* * *

HENRY ESPEJO, individually and on behalf of all 

others similarly situated,

Dated: March 25, 2013 By: /s/ Benjamin H. Richman

One of Plaintiff’s Attorneys

Case: 1:11-cv-08987 Document #: 53-1 Filed: 08/02/13 Page 45 of 67 PageID #:475
2

Jay Edelson

Rafey S. Balabanian

Benjamin H. Richman

Christopher L. Dore

EDELSON LLC

350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Telephone: (312) 589-6370

Facsimile: (312) 589-6378

rbalabanian@edelson.com

brichman@edelson.com

cdore@edelson.com

Scott D. Owens (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)

LAW OFFICES OF SCOTT D. OWENS, ESQ.

664 East Hallandale Beach Boulevard

Hallandale, Florida 33009

Telephone: (954) 306-8104

scott@scottdowens.com

Case: 1:11-cv-08987 Document #: 53-1 Filed: 08/02/13 Page 46 of 67 PageID #:476
3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Benjamin H. Richman, an attorney, hereby certify that on March 25, 2013, I served the 

above and foregoing Notice of Deposition of Mark Mooney, by causing true and accurate copies 

of such paper to be transmitted to the persons shown below via electronic mail, and further by 

placing such papers in postage prepaid envelopes addressed to the persons shown below and 

depositing such envelopes in the U.S. Mailbox located at 350 North LaSalle Street, Chicago, 

Illinois 60654, on this the 25th day of March, 2013.

Gary S. Caplan

Michael D. Richman

REED SMITH LLP

10 South Wacker Drive, 40th Floor

Chicago, Illinois 60606

gcaplan@reedsmith.com

mdrichman@reedsmith.com

Abraham J. Colman

REED SMITH LLP

355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2900

Los Angeles, California 90071

acolman@reedsmith.com

Chad R. Fuller

GOODWIN PROCTER LLP

4365 Executive Drive, 3rd Floor

San Diego, California 92121

cfuller@goodwinprocter.com

/s/ Benjamin H. Richman

Benjamin H. Richman

Case: 1:11-cv-08987 Document #: 53-1 Filed: 08/02/13 Page 47 of 67 PageID #:477
EXHIBIT 5

Case: 1:11-cv-08987 Document #: 53-1 Filed: 08/02/13 Page 48 of 67 PageID #:478
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, 

Plaintiff,

v.

SANTANDER CONSUMER USA, INC., an 

Illinois corporation,

Defendant.

Case No.: 1:11-cv-08987

Honorable Charles P. Kocoras

NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF WAYNE NIGHTENGALE

TO: See attached certificate of service.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to Rule 30(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, Plaintiff Henry Espejo will take the deposition upon oral examination of WAYNE 

NIGHTENGALE. The deposition will take place on April 23, 2013, beginning at 9:30 a.m. CT. 

The deponent will appear at the offices of Edelson LLC, 350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300, 

Chicago, Illinois 60654. The deposition will be recorded by stenographic means.

The deponent is requested to bring to the deposition all documents identified or produced 

by Defendant SANTANDER CONSUMER USA, INC. in response to all written discovery 

requests served by Plaintiff in this matter.

* * *

HENRY ESPEJO, individually and on behalf of all 

others similarly situated,

Dated: March 25, 2013 By: /s/ Benjamin H. Richman

One of Plaintiff’s Attorneys

Case: 1:11-cv-08987 Document #: 53-1 Filed: 08/02/13 Page 49 of 67 PageID #:479
2

Jay Edelson

Rafey S. Balabanian

Benjamin H. Richman

Christopher L. Dore

EDELSON LLC

350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Telephone: (312) 589-6370

Facsimile: (312) 589-6378

rbalabanian@edelson.com

brichman@edelson.com

cdore@edelson.com

Scott D. Owens (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)

LAW OFFICES OF SCOTT D. OWENS, ESQ.

664 East Hallandale Beach Boulevard

Hallandale, Florida 33009

Telephone: (954) 306-8104

scott@scottdowens.com

Case: 1:11-cv-08987 Document #: 53-1 Filed: 08/02/13 Page 50 of 67 PageID #:480
3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Benjamin H. Richman, an attorney, hereby certify that on March 25, 2013, I served the 

above and foregoing Notice of Deposition of Wayne Nightengale, by causing true and accurate 

copies of such paper to be transmitted to the persons shown below via electronic mail, and 

further by placing such papers in postage prepaid envelopes addressed to the persons shown 

below and depositing such envelopes in the U.S. Mailbox located at 350 North LaSalle Street, 

Chicago, Illinois 60654, on this the 25th day of March, 2013.

Gary S. Caplan

Michael D. Richman

REED SMITH LLP

10 South Wacker Drive, 40th Floor

Chicago, Illinois 60606

gcaplan@reedsmith.com

mdrichman@reedsmith.com

Abraham J. Colman

REED SMITH LLP

355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2900

Los Angeles, California 90071

acolman@reedsmith.com

Chad R. Fuller

GOODWIN PROCTER LLP

4365 Executive Drive, 3rd Floor

San Diego, California 92121

cfuller@goodwinprocter.com

/s/ Benjamin H. Richman

Benjamin H. Richman

Case: 1:11-cv-08987 Document #: 53-1 Filed: 08/02/13 Page 51 of 67 PageID #:481
EXHIBIT 6

Case: 1:11-cv-08987 Document #: 53-1 Filed: 08/02/13 Page 52 of 67 PageID #:482
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, 

Plaintiff,

v.

SANTANDER CONSUMER USA, INC., an 

Illinois corporation,

Defendant.

Case No.: 1:11-cv-08987

Related to: Case No. 1:12-cv-4671

Case No. 1:12-cv-9431

Honorable Charles P. Kocoras

PLAINTIFF ESPEJO’S NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF JOSEPH BURDA

TO: See attached certificate of service.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to Rule 30(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, Plaintiff Henry Espejo will take the deposition upon oral examination of JOSEPH 

BURDA. The deposition will take place on May 21, 2013, beginning at 9:30 a.m. CT. The 

deponent will appear at the offices of Edelson LLC, 350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300, 

Chicago, Illinois 60654. The deposition will be recorded by stenographic means.

The deponent is requested to bring to the deposition all documents identified or produced 

by Defendant SANTANDER CONSUMER USA, INC. in response to all written discovery 

requests served by Plaintiff in this matter.

* * *

HENRY ESPEJO, individually and on behalf of all 

others similarly situated,

Dated: April 5, 2013 By: /s/ Benjamin H. Richman

One of Plaintiff’s Attorneys

Case: 1:11-cv-08987 Document #: 53-1 Filed: 08/02/13 Page 53 of 67 PageID #:483
2

Jay Edelson

Rafey S. Balabanian

Benjamin H. Richman

Christopher L. Dore

EDELSON LLC

350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Telephone: (312) 589-6370

Facsimile: (312) 589-6378

jedelson@edelson.com

rbalabanian@edelson.com

brichman@edelson.com

cdore@edelson.com

Scott D. Owens (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)

LAW OFFICES OF SCOTT D. OWENS, ESQ.

664 East Hallandale Beach Boulevard

Hallandale, Florida 33009

Telephone: (954) 306-8104

scott@scottdowens.com

Case: 1:11-cv-08987 Document #: 53-1 Filed: 08/02/13 Page 54 of 67 PageID #:484
3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Benjamin H. Richman, an attorney, hereby certify that on April 5, 2013, I served the 

above and foregoing Plaintiff Espejo’s Notice of Deposition of Joseph Burda, by causing true 

and accurate copies of such paper to be transmitted to the persons shown below via electronic 

mail, on this the 5th day of April, 2013.

Gary S. Caplan

Michael D. Richman

REED SMITH LLP

gcaplan@reedsmith.com

mdrichman@reedsmith.com

/s/ Benjamin H. Richman

Benjamin H. Richman

Case: 1:11-cv-08987 Document #: 53-1 Filed: 08/02/13 Page 55 of 67 PageID #:485
EXHIBIT 7

Case: 1:11-cv-08987 Document #: 53-1 Filed: 08/02/13 Page 56 of 67 PageID #:486
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, 

Plaintiff,

v.

SANTANDER CONSUMER USA, INC., an 

Illinois corporation,

Defendant.

Case No.: 1:11-cv-08987

Related to: Case No. 1:12-cv-4671

Case No. 1:12-cv-9431

Honorable Charles P. Kocoras

PLAINTIFF ESPEJO’S NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF MICHELE RODGERS

TO: See attached certificate of service.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to Rule 30(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, Plaintiff Henry Espejo will take the deposition upon oral examination of MICHELE 

RODGERS. The deposition will take place on May 22, 2013, beginning at 9:30 a.m. CT. The 

deponent will appear at the offices of Edelson LLC, 350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300, 

Chicago, Illinois 60654. The deposition will be recorded by stenographic means.

The deponent is requested to bring to the deposition all documents identified or produced 

by Defendant SANTANDER CONSUMER USA, INC. in response to all written discovery 

requests served by Plaintiff in this matter.

* * *

HENRY ESPEJO, individually and on behalf of all 

others similarly situated,

Dated: April 5, 2013 By: /s/ Benjamin H. Richman

One of Plaintiff’s Attorneys

Case: 1:11-cv-08987 Document #: 53-1 Filed: 08/02/13 Page 57 of 67 PageID #:487
2

Jay Edelson

Rafey S. Balabanian

Benjamin H. Richman

Christopher L. Dore

EDELSON LLC

350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Telephone: (312) 589-6370

Facsimile: (312) 589-6378

jedelson@edelson.com

rbalabanian@edelson.com

brichman@edelson.com

cdore@edelson.com

Scott D. Owens (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)

LAW OFFICES OF SCOTT D. OWENS, ESQ.

664 East Hallandale Beach Boulevard

Hallandale, Florida 33009

Telephone: (954) 306-8104

scott@scottdowens.com

Case: 1:11-cv-08987 Document #: 53-1 Filed: 08/02/13 Page 58 of 67 PageID #:488
3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Benjamin H. Richman, an attorney, hereby certify that on April 5, 2013, I served the 

above and foregoing Plaintiff Espejo’s Notice of Deposition of Michele Rodgers, by causing 

true and accurate copies of such paper to be transmitted to the persons shown below via 

electronic mail, on this the 5th day of April, 2013.

Gary S. Caplan

Michael D. Richman

REED SMITH LLP

gcaplan@reedsmith.com

mdrichman@reedsmith.com

/s/ Benjamin H. Richman

Benjamin H. Richman

Case: 1:11-cv-08987 Document #: 53-1 Filed: 08/02/13 Page 59 of 67 PageID #:489
EXHIBIT 8

Case: 1:11-cv-08987 Document #: 53-1 Filed: 08/02/13 Page 60 of 67 PageID #:490
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, 

Plaintiff,

v.

SANTANDER CONSUMER USA, INC., an 

Illinois corporation,

Defendant.

Case No.: 1:11-cv-08987

Related to: Case No. 1:12-cv-4671

Case No. 1:12-cv-9431

Honorable Charles P. Kocoras

PLAINTIFF ESPEJO’S NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF JOHN THOMAS

TO: See attached certificate of service.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to Rule 30(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, Plaintiff Henry Espejo will take the deposition upon oral examination of JOHN 

THOMAS. The deposition will take place on May 23, 2013, beginning at 9:30 a.m. CT. The 

deponent will appear at the offices of Edelson LLC, 350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300, 

Chicago, Illinois 60654. The deposition will be recorded by stenographic means.

The deponent is requested to bring to the deposition all documents identified or produced 

by Defendant SANTANDER CONSUMER USA, INC. in response to all written discovery 

requests served by Plaintiff in this matter.

* * *

HENRY ESPEJO, individually and on behalf of all 

others similarly situated,

Dated: April 5, 2013 By: /s/ Benjamin H. Richman

One of Plaintiff’s Attorneys

Case: 1:11-cv-08987 Document #: 53-1 Filed: 08/02/13 Page 61 of 67 PageID #:491
2

Jay Edelson

Rafey S. Balabanian

Benjamin H. Richman

Christopher L. Dore

EDELSON LLC

350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Telephone: (312) 589-6370

Facsimile: (312) 589-6378

jedelson@edelson.com

rbalabanian@edelson.com

brichman@edelson.com

cdore@edelson.com

Scott D. Owens (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)

LAW OFFICES OF SCOTT D. OWENS, ESQ.

664 East Hallandale Beach Boulevard

Hallandale, Florida 33009

Telephone: (954) 306-8104

scott@scottdowens.com

Case: 1:11-cv-08987 Document #: 53-1 Filed: 08/02/13 Page 62 of 67 PageID #:492
3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Benjamin H. Richman, an attorney, hereby certify that on April 5, 2013, I served the 

above and foregoing Plaintiff Espejo’s Notice of Deposition of John Thomas, by causing true 

and accurate copies of such paper to be transmitted to the persons shown below via electronic 

mail, on this the 5th day of April, 2013.

Gary S. Caplan

Michael D. Richman

REED SMITH LLP

gcaplan@reedsmith.com

mdrichman@reedsmith.com

/s/ Benjamin H. Richman

Benjamin H. Richman

Case: 1:11-cv-08987 Document #: 53-1 Filed: 08/02/13 Page 63 of 67 PageID #:493
EXHIBIT 9

Case: 1:11-cv-08987 Document #: 53-1 Filed: 08/02/13 Page 64 of 67 PageID #:494
Edelson(LLC

350$North$LaSalle,$Suite$1300,$Chicago,$IL$60654

t$312.589.6370$$f$312.589.6378

www.edelson.com

May 28, 2013

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL

Abraham J. Colman

REED SMITH LLP

355 South Gran Avenue, Suite 2900

Los Angeles, California 90071

acolman@reedsmith.com

Gary C. Caplan

Michael D. Richman

REED SMITH LLP

10 South Wacker Drive, Suite 4000

Chicago, Illinois 60606

gcaplan@reedsmith.com

mdrichman@reedsmith.com

Chad Fuller

GOODWIN PROCTER LLP

4365 Executive Drive, 3rd Floor

San Diego, California 92121

cfuller@goodwinprocter.com

Re: Espejo, et al. v. Santander Consumer USA, Inc., No. 11-cv-8987 (N.D. Ill.)

Dear Counsel:

We write to address Santander’s failure to participate in discovery in any meaningful 

way since the Parties’ first mediation on January 31st. At this point, given the preceding five 

months of broken promises to produce information on an informal basis, Santander’s complete

failure to respond to Plaintiffs’ outstanding formal requests and its refusal to produce witnesses 

for deposition, it’s clear Santander is taking the approach of ignoring its discovery obligations, 

perhaps in hopes that the issue will simply go away. If that is, in fact, the approach Santander is 

taking, perhaps this letter will cause it to reevaluate. Because Plaintiff’s second set of discovery 

requests to this day remain outstanding, as we indicated to the Court at the May 14th status, if 

we don’t receive written responses to the outstanding requests, all relevant and responsive 

documents and information, and proposed dates to proceed with the previously noticed 

depositions by the close of business Friday, May 31st, we will proceed to seek an order from 

the Court compelling such responses, production and testimony, and awarding the fees and 

Case: 1:11-cv-08987 Document #: 53-1 Filed: 08/02/13 Page 65 of 67 PageID #:495
Edelson(LLC Espejo, et al. v. Santander

May 28, 2013

Page 2 of 3

costs incurred in seeking such an order.1

To be clear, the idea that Santander’s failure to respond to the outstanding discovery is 

due (even in part) to the Parties’ ongoing settlement discussions and them proceeding with a 

second mediation, is a non-starter and completely contrary to the record here. As you know, at 

the first mediation with Judge Denlow on January 31st, the Parties agreed that although they 

weren’t in a position to resolve the litigation, an informal exchange of information would be 

helpful in supplementing the discovery produced to date, and in evaluating any potential 

settlement prior to and during the upcoming second mediation. Thus, Plaintiffs requested and

thought that Santander had agreed that it would provide information related to, inter alia, (i) the 

total number of debtors for whom it holds accounts, (ii) the total number of phone calls made to 

those debtors, (iii) the total number of phone calls made to what Santander internally identifies 

as cell phone numbers, and (iv) a description of the forms of contact information Santander 

maintains for its debtors. For the sake of clarity, we also outlined those requests, in detail, in 

two separate letters—first, prior to the first mediation on January 15th and then again, on 

March 12th.

2

Despite Plaintiffs’ having put their requests in writing on two separate occasions, 

continued correspondence between counsel, and numerous telephone conferences (including 

several with Judge Denlow), you repeatedly feigned ignorance of what information Plaintiffs 

were attempting to discover, or promised to produce that information only to later back out of 

those promises. By way of example, you most recently agreed to provide Plaintiffs an 

explanation of how you determined the total number of putative Class members at issue here 

(as you stated at the first mediation) no later than April 22nd, followed by an informal 

telephone interview of one of Santander’s call center executives, Mr. Wayne Nightengale. But, 

the 22nd came and went without any word, not even so much as an excuse as to why no

information had been produced.

Unable to rely on your promises that information would be forthcoming, on March 

29th, Plaintiffs served additional sets of written interrogatories and requests for production on 

Santander—the responses to which were due no later than April 29th. Similarly, on March 25th 

and April 5th, Plaintiffs noticed the depositions of several Santander executives and employees 

 1 So that there’s no confusion, given its failure to timely respond to the outstanding discovery 

requests, Santander has waived all objections to those requests (regardless of whether any responses or 

objections are actually forthcoming) and we intend to seek an order to that effect as well. See Martinez 

v. Cook Cnty., No. 11-cv-1794, 2012 WL 6186601 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 12, 2012) (“A party's failure to timely 

object to discovery requests without demonstrating good cause for the delay may result in a waiver of 

all objections that could otherwise have been asserted.”); see also Hobley v. Burge, No. 03-cv-3678, 

2004 WL 1687005 (N.D. Ill. July 26, 2004) (applying waiver rule to discovery objection based on 

privilege); Ritacca v. Abbott Laboratories, 203 F.R.D. 332, 335 (N.D. Ill. 2001) (same).

2 We also informed the Court of that agreement. And, while Judge Kocoras did not object to the 

Parties exchanging information informally, he nevertheless admonished them that they must make 

significant progress in discovery prior to the next case status on May 14th. In the face of that order, 

Santander’s failure to provide any information to Plaintiffs whatsoever is quite troubling.

Case: 1:11-cv-08987 Document #: 53-1 Filed: 08/02/13 Page 66 of 67 PageID #:496
Edelson(LLC Espejo, et al. v. Santander

May 28, 2013

Page 3 of 3

to proceed in late April and early May.3 To date, we’ve received no response to that discovery 

(nor even a request for an extension of the deadline to respond) and Santander has simply

refused to produce the witnesses on the dates noticed.4 On this latter point, Abe’s stated 

objection to producing witnesses (no formal objections were served) was that Santander would 

not agree (and was not required) to produce witnesses in Chicago, as noticed. Anticipating that 

response, however, we’ve on several occasions stated that we’d work with Santander to select a 

mutually agreeable date and location to proceed with the depositions.5 Nevertheless, we’ve yet 

to receive any proposal from Santander as to when or where it would prefer the depositions to 

go forward.

Given the foregoing, we’re not interested in any further delay—Plaintiffs are ready to 

move forward with the litigation. And, despite the Court allowing the Parties an additional sixty 

days for discovery, we have no intention of waiting on Santander until the end of that period 

only to come up empty again. So, again, we ask that Santander provide its written responses to 

all outstanding discovery requests, all relevant and responsive documents and information, and 

proposed dates and locations to proceed with the noticed depositions, no later than the close of 

business Friday, May 31st. If we don’t receive all of those things by then, we will proceed with 

filing Plaintiffs’ anticipated motion to compel.

We look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

EDELSON LLC

Rafey S. Balabanian

 3 Specifically, Plaintiffs requested that Santander produce an appropriate 30(b)(6) designee, Mr. 

Mark Mooney, Mr. Wayne Nightengale, Mr. Joseph Burda, Ms. Michele Rodgers, and Mr. John 

Thomas. Each of these witnesses has specific knowledge relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims (and Santander’s

defenses), including, inter alia, (i) information related to Santander’s primary call center operations, (ii) 

the technology utilized by Santander to make the telephone calls at issue, (iii) the methods by which 

Santander obtained the phone numbers to be called, (iv) Santander’s records of consent to call specific 

telephone numbers (if any exist), and (v) other debtor information, its location, and Santander’s ability 

to access it.

4 Of course, we made clear through correspondence and several telephone conversations that 

Plaintiffs expected Santander to timely respond to the written discovery and notices of deposition, 

despite the fact that the Parties were set to proceed with a second mediation session. 5 It also bears noting that Plaintiffs’ decision to notice the depositions to proceed in Chicago is 

consistent with the Parties’ previous discussions and agreements in this case. Indeed, when Plaintiff

Espejo originally noticed the deposition of an appropriate 30(b)(6) designee, Santander indicated that it 

would be producing Mr. Nightengale and agreed to do so in Chicago because that would be more 

efficient for the Parties and their counsel—for travel purposes, expenses, etc.—than proceeding with the 

deposition in Texas where Santander’s headquarters are located.

Case: 1:11-cv-08987 Document #: 53-1 Filed: 08/02/13 Page 67 of 67 PageID #:497