October 20, 2017 

Via ECF and Email (mmccrd@cand.uscourts.gov) 

The Honorable Maxine C. Chesney 

United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

San Francisco Courthouse 

Courtroom 7, 19th Floor 

450 Golden Gate Avenue 

San Francisco, CA 94102 

 Re: Perez, et al. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 17 Civ. 454 (MMC)

Dear Judge Chesney: 

We represent Plaintiffs in the above-captioned civil rights matter and proposed class 

action. We write per the parties’ October 17 telephone conference with Tracy Lucero, Your 

Honor’s Calendar Clerk & Courtroom Deputy, to respectfully request an assignment to a 

magistrate judge to resolve several discovery disputes that have arisen in this matter. The 

Court’s Standing Order ¶ 5, and this matter’s Joint Pretrial Preparation Order, ECF No. 84, 

provide that discovery matters will be referred to a magistrate judge, however a magistrate has 

not yet been specifically assigned. Plaintiffs accordingly request an assignment. A summary of 

the parties’ discovery disputes is set forth below. 

Plaintiffs’ counsel has either met and conferred or attempted to meet and confer with 

Wells Fargo’s counsel on several occasions by telephone and by email. To date, Plaintiffs have 

responded to Wells Fargo’s interrogatories and document requests and have produced 

approximately 662 pages of responsive documents, including emails, on behalf of five of the six 

individual named Plaintiffs. Wells Fargo, by contrast, nearly three months after Plaintiffs first 

served their document requests, has yet to produce a single responsive document in this matter. 

Plaintiffs request an assignment to a magistrate judge for the following discovery disputes, on 

which the parties have reached impasse: 

 

1. Whether Plaintiffs are entitled to class discovery consistent with their proposed class 

definition, which applies to all Wells Fargo credit lines rather than to only those 

sought by the named individual Plaintiffs. This overarching dispute applies to 

virtually all of Plaintiffs’ document requests; 

Case 3:17-cv-00454-MMC Document 85 Filed 10/20/17 Page 1 of 2
The Honorable Maxine C. Chesney 

October 20, 2017 

Page 2 of 2 

2. Whether Wells Fargo may refuse to produce organizational charts reflecting the 

corporate organizational structure of Wells Fargo and the job roles and/or titles of 

Wells Fargo employees involved in determining credit worthiness or risk (document 

request No. 8); and 

3. Whether Wells Fargo may refuse to comply with the requirements under Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 26(f) and the Northern District’s ESI Guidelines and ESI meet and 

confer checklist by refusing to disclose, reveal, or discuss any information regarding 

ESI because, as Wells Fargo contends, “this is not an ESI case.” Despite this 

assertion, Wells Fargo claims it in the process of producing certain ESI, but refuses to 

meet and confer on, e.g., emails or databases that clearly contain information and 

documents responsive to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests. In addition to their motions 

to compel, Plaintiffs reserve their right to move for sanctions against Wells Fargo for 

refusing to engage in a good-faith meet and confer process pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 

37(d) and Civil L.R. 37-4. 

Thank you for your consideration of this matter. 

 Respectfully submitted,

 

Patrick David Lopez 

cc: All counsel of record via ECF & Email 

 

Case 3:17-cv-00454-MMC Document 85 Filed 10/20/17 Page 2 of 2