EXHIBIT 5

Case: 1:20-cv-02402 Document #: 50-5 Filed: 11/01/21 Page 1 of 57 PageID #:484
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

ANDREW J. MAXWELL, not individually, 

but as Trustee for the estate of Eduardo Garcia 

and Julia Escamilla (nka Julia Garcia), et al.

Plaintiffs,

vs.

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., 

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 1:20-cv-02402

Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer

Judge Heather K. McShain

DEFENDANT WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO

PLAINTIFF’S FIRST REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION

Pursuant to Rules 26 and 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Fed. R. Civ. P.”), 

Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Defendant”) hereby submits the following Objections and 

Responses to Plaintiff Andrew Maxwell’s (“Plaintiff”) First Set of Requests for Production of 

Documents (“Requests”). Defendant reserves the right to supplement, modify, or amend these

responses up to and through the time of trial.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

The following responses (“Responses”) and objections (“Objections”) are made without

waiver of, or prejudice to, any objections Defendant may have.

In addition, these Responses and Objections are based on information known to Defendant 

at this time and should not be viewed as an exhaustive statement of the facts underlying its claims 

or defenses in this action. Defendant has made a reasonable and good faith effort to respond to 

these Requests in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 33 and 34. However, 

discovery is ongoing and Defendant has not fully completed its investigation relating to the facts 

Case: 1:20-cv-02402 Document #: 50-5 Filed: 11/01/21 Page 2 of 57 PageID #:485
2

in this action. The Responses contained herein are based only on such information and documents 

presently available and specifically known to Defendant. These Responses are provided without 

prejudice to Defendant’s right to produce or rely on subsequently discovered information, facts, 

or documents. Accordingly, Defendant reserves its right to produce subsequently discovered 

evidence and facts, and to add, modify, supplement, or otherwise change or amend these 

Responses as may be appropriate in light of further investigation, discovery, or court rulings. 

Nothing in these Responses shall limit or waive Defendant’s right to offer additional evidence at 

the time of any hearing or to provide information not yet obtained by or known to Defendant.

These Responses are also subject to correction for any inadvertent errors or omissions.

No incidental or implied admissions are intended in these Responses. The fact that

Defendant has responded to these Requests should not be taken as an admission that Defendant

accepts or admits the existence of any facts set forth or assumed by these Requests or that such 

response constitutes admissible evidence. Further, the fact that Defendant has responded to these 

Requests is not intended to and shall not be construed to be a waiver by Defendant of the objections 

to these Requests.

Defendant objects to these Requests to the extent they seek or would call for the production 

of information or documents that: (i) were prepared for or in anticipation of litigation and are work

product; (ii) constitute or reflect communications protected by the attorney-client, work product, 

or common interest privileges; or (iii) are protected by any other privilege under the Federal Rules 

of Civil Procedure or other applicable law. The production of a document by Defendant in 

response to these Requests is not intended to waive any privilege, right or objection on the part of 

Defendant with respect to any such document. In the event that a privileged document(s) is 

inadvertently produced, such production shall be deemed inadvertent, and shall not constitute a 

Case: 1:20-cv-02402 Document #: 50-5 Filed: 11/01/21 Page 3 of 57 PageID #:486
3

waiver of Defendant’s right to assert the applicability for any such document(s). Upon notification 

that such disclosure was inadvertent, the document(s) or any copies thereof shall be returned 

immediately.

Defendant intends to produce information electronically, in the manner specified in the 

Stipulation Regarding Discovery of Electronically Stored Information (“ESI”) agreed to by the 

parties and in accordance with mutually agreed upon custodians, search terms, and production 

schedule. Defendant objects to the timeframe for production specified, and intends to begin 

production after entry of an appropriate protective order regarding confidentiality.

RESPONSES & OBJECTIONS

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1

All documents including, but not limited to, the Garcias’ application, calculations, 

worksheets, spreadsheets (in .xls or a comparable format), title reports, appraisals, screenshots, 

notes, internal and external communications, credit pulls and underwriting notes, or any other 

document you may have relied on, related to Wells Fargo’s denial of the Garcias’ loan modification 

application on or around November 20, 2008. 

Defendant objects to the extent that the Request seeks information protected by the 

attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine. Defendant further objects on the ground 

that the Request is overbroad, unduly burdensome, and not proportional to the needs of this case. 

Defendant also objects to this Request on the ground that it seeks documents that are not relevant 

to the claims and defenses in this case. Defendant also objects to this Request to the extent it seeks 

confidential and proprietary information. 

Subject to and without waiving these objections, Defendant responds as follows: Defendant 

will produce, based on a search of reasonable scope that is proportional to the needs of the case 

Case: 1:20-cv-02402 Document #: 50-5 Filed: 11/01/21 Page 4 of 57 PageID #:487
4

and consistent with the parties’ ESI protocol, origination and loss-mitigation records (the “Loan 

File”) for the Garcias. Defendant intends to begin production after entry of an appropriate 

protective order regarding confidentiality.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2

All documents including, but not limited to, the Garcias’ application, calculations, 

worksheets, spreadsheets (in .xls or a comparable format), title reports, appraisals, screenshots, 

notes, internal and external communications, credit pulls and underwriting notes, or any other 

document you may have relied on, related to Wells Fargo’s denial of the Garcias’ loan modification 

application on or around August 24, 2010.

Defendant objects to the extent that the Request seeks information protected by the 

attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine. Defendant further objects on the ground 

that the Request is overbroad, unduly burdensome, and not proportional to the needs of this case. 

Defendant also objects to this Request on the ground that it seeks documents that are not relevant 

to the claims and defenses in this case. Defendant also objects to this Request to the extent it seeks 

confidential and proprietary information.

Subject to and without waiving these objections, Defendant responds as follows: Defendant 

will produce, based on a search of reasonable scope that is proportional to the needs of the case 

and consistent with the parties’ ESI protocol, the Loan File for the Garcias. Defendant intends to 

begin production after entry of an appropriate protective order regarding confidentiality.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3

All documents including, but not limited to, the Garcias’ application, calculations, 

worksheets, spreadsheets (in .xls or a comparable format), title reports, appraisals, screenshots, 

notes, internal and external communications, credit pulls and underwriting notes, or any other 

Case: 1:20-cv-02402 Document #: 50-5 Filed: 11/01/21 Page 5 of 57 PageID #:488
5

document you may have relied on, related to Wells Fargo’s denial of the Garcias’ loan modification 

application on or around November 12, 2010.

Defendant objects to the extent that the Request seeks information protected by the 

attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine. Defendant further objects to this Request 

on the ground that no denial of the Garcia’s loan modification application occurred on or around 

November 12, 2010. Defendant further objects on the ground that the Request is overbroad, unduly 

burdensome, and not proportional to the needs of this case. Defendant also objects to this Request 

on the ground that it seeks documents that are not relevant to the claims and defenses in this case. 

Defendant also objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential and proprietary 

information.

Subject to and without waiving these objections, Defendant responds as follows: Defendant 

will produce, based on a search of reasonable scope that is proportional to the needs of the case 

and consistent with the parties’ ESI protocol, the Loan File for the Garcias. Defendant intends to 

begin production after entry of an appropriate protective order regarding confidentiality.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4

All documents including, but not limited to, the Garcias’ application, calculations, 

worksheets, spreadsheets (in .xls or a comparable format), title reports, appraisals, screenshots, 

notes, internal and external communications, credit pulls and underwriting notes, or any other 

document you may have relied on, related to Wells Fargo’s denial of the Garcias’ loan modification 

application on or around December 1, 2010.

Defendant objects to the extent that the Request seeks information protected by the 

attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine. Defendant further objects on the ground 

Case: 1:20-cv-02402 Document #: 50-5 Filed: 11/01/21 Page 6 of 57 PageID #:489
6

that the Request is overbroad, unduly burdensome, and not proportional to the needs of this case. 

Defendant also objects to this Request on the ground that it seeks documents that are not relevant 

to the claims and defenses in this case. Defendant also objects to this Request to the extent it seeks 

confidential and proprietary information.

Subject to and without waiving these objections, Defendant responds as follows: Defendant 

will produce, based on a search of reasonable scope that is proportional to the needs of the case 

and consistent with the parties’ ESI protocol, the Loan File for the Garcias. Defendant intends to 

begin production after entry of an appropriate protective order regarding confidentiality.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5

All documents including, but not limited to, the Garcias’ application, calculations, 

worksheets, spreadsheets (in .xls or a comparable format), title reports, appraisals, screenshots, 

notes, internal and external communications, credit pulls and underwriting notes, or any other 

document you may have relied on, related to Wells Fargo’s denial of the Garcias’ loan modification 

application on or around February 7, 2011.

Defendant objects to the extent that the Request seeks information protected by the 

attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine. Defendant further objects on the ground 

that the Request is overbroad, unduly burdensome, and not proportional to the needs of this case. 

Defendant also objects to this Request on the ground that it seeks documents that are not relevant 

to the claims and defenses in this case. Defendant also objects to this Request to the extent it seeks 

confidential and proprietary information.

Subject to and without waiving these objections, Defendant responds as follows: Defendant 

will produce, based on a search of reasonable scope that is proportional to the needs of the case 

Case: 1:20-cv-02402 Document #: 50-5 Filed: 11/01/21 Page 7 of 57 PageID #:490
7

and consistent with the parties’ ESI protocol, the Loan File for the Garcias. Defendant intends to 

begin production after entry of an appropriate protective order regarding confidentiality.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6

All documents including, but not limited to, the Garcias’ application, calculations, 

worksheets, spreadsheets (in .xls or a comparable format), title reports, appraisals, screenshots, 

notes, internal and external communications, credit pulls and underwriting notes pertaining or in 

any way relating to the Garcias’ application for loss mitigation that is the subject of the “faulty 

calculation” referenced in the July 26, 2019 letter from Wells Fargo. For purposes of this request, 

“loss mitigation” shall mean all applications for loan modification, forbearance, deferment, short 

sale, or deed-in-lieu.

Defendant objects to the extent that the Request seeks information protected by the 

attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine. Defendant further objects on the ground 

that the Request is overbroad, unduly burdensome, and not proportional to the needs of this case. 

Defendant further objects to this Request on the ground that it seeks documents protected from 

disclosure by the bank examination privilege. See 12 C.F.R. § 4.36 et seq. Defendant also objects 

to this Request on the ground that it seeks documents that are not relevant to the claims and 

defenses in this case. Defendant also objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential and 

proprietary information.

Subject to and without waiving these objections, Defendant responds as follows: Defendant 

will produce, based on a search of reasonable scope that is proportional to the needs of the case 

and consistent with the parties’ ESI protocol, the Loan File for the Garcias. Defendant intends to 

begin production after entry of an appropriate protective order regarding confidentiality.

Case: 1:20-cv-02402 Document #: 50-5 Filed: 11/01/21 Page 8 of 57 PageID #:491
8

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7

All written correspondence and internal memorandum [sic] related to the discovery of the 

“faulty calculation” on the Garcias’ loan referenced in the July 26, 2019 letter.

Defendant objects to the extent that the Request seeks information protected by the 

attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine. Defendant further objects to this Request 

on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, and not proportional to the needs of this 

case. Defendant further objects to this Request on the ground that it seeks documents protected 

from disclosure by the bank examination privilege. See 12 C.F.R. § 4.36 et seq. Defendant also 

objects to this Request on the ground that it seeks documents that are not relevant to the claims 

and defenses in this case. Defendant also objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential 

and proprietary information. 

To the extent responsive, non-privileged documents exist, Defendant withholds them on 

the basis of the foregoing objections.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8

Any third-party vendor correspondence, including calculations worksheets, worksheets 

from the mortgage loan modification underwriting tool, memorandum and/or work product in the 

possession or control of Wells Fargo related to the error in the review of the completed application 

for loss mitigation that is the subject of the July 26, 2019 letter.

Defendant objects to the extent that the Request seeks information protected by the 

attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine. Defendant further objects to this Request 

on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, and not proportional to the needs of this 

case. Defendant further objects to this Request on the ground that it seeks documents protected

Case: 1:20-cv-02402 Document #: 50-5 Filed: 11/01/21 Page 9 of 57 PageID #:492
9

from disclosure by the bank examination privilege. See 12 C.F.R. § 4.36 et seq. Defendant also 

objects to this Request on the ground that it seeks documents that are not relevant to the claims 

and defenses in this case. Defendant also objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential 

and proprietary information.

To the extent responsive, non-privileged documents exist, Defendant withholds them on 

the basis of the foregoing objections.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9

All personnel files of Wells Fargo employees who were involved in the review and 

determination to deny [the] Garcias’ application for a loan modification which is the subject of the 

July 26, 2019 letter.

Defendant objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks documents protected by the 

attorney-client privilege and/or work product protection. Defendant further objects to this Request 

on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, oppressive, and not proportional to the 

needs of this case. Defendant further objects to this Request on the grounds that it is intended to 

harass and on the ground that it seeks documents that are not relevant to the claims and defenses 

in this case. Defendant also objects to the Request on the ground that it seeks documents for which 

the disclosure would invade the privacy of third parties. Defendant also objects to this Request to 

the extent it seeks confidential and proprietary information.

To the extent responsive, non-privileged documents exist, Defendant withholds them on 

the basis of the foregoing objections.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10

With reference to the July 26, 2019 letter, produce in detail the corrected calculations 

showing that the Garcias “would have been approved for a trial modification.”

Case: 1:20-cv-02402 Document #: 50-5 Filed: 11/01/21 Page 10 of 57 PageID #:493
10

Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, 

oppressive, and not proportional to the needs of the case. Defendant further objects to this Request 

on the ground that it seeks documents that are not relevant to the claims and defenses in this case. 

Defendant also objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential and proprietary 

information. 

Subject to and without waiving these objections, Defendant states the following: Defendant 

will produce responsive documents, to the extent any exist, based on a search of reasonable scope 

that is proportional to the needs of the case and consistent with the parties’ ESI protocol. 

Defendant intends to begin production after entry of an appropriate protective order regarding 

confidentiality.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11

All written communications via mail, courier, email, fax, or through Wells Fargo’s portal 

that Wells Fargo sent to the Garcias from January 1, 2008 to April 18, 2020.

Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, 

and not proportional to the needs of this case as it calls for “all written communications ... sent to 

the Garcias from January 1, 2008 to April 18, 2020.” Defendant also objects to this Request on 

the ground that it seeks documents that are not relevant to the claims and defenses in this case. 

Subject to and without waiving these objections, Defendant responds as follows: Defendant 

will produce, based on a search of reasonable scope that is proportional to the needs of the case 

and consistent with the parties’ ESI protocol, the Loan File for the Garcias. Defendant intends to 

begin production after entry of an appropriate protective order regarding confidentiality.

Case: 1:20-cv-02402 Document #: 50-5 Filed: 11/01/21 Page 11 of 57 PageID #:494
11

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12

All written communications of any kind that the Garcias sent to You via mail, email, fax, 

or through Wells Fargo’s portal from January 1, 2008 to April 18, 2020.

Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, 

and not proportional to the needs of this case as it calls for “all written communications of any 

kind that the Garcias sent to You ... from January 1, 2008 to April 18, 2020.” Defendant also 

objects to this Request on the ground that it seeks documents that are not relevant to the claims 

and defenses in this case. 

Subject to and without waiving these objections, Defendant responds as follows: Defendant 

will produce, based on a search of reasonable scope that is proportional to the needs of the case 

and consistent with the parties’ ESI protocol, the Loan File for the Garcias. Defendant intends to 

begin production after entry of an appropriate protective order regarding confidentiality.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13

A complete call log itemizing all calls between Wells Fargo and the Garcias from January 

1, 2008 to April 18, 2020.

Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, 

oppressive, and not proportional to the needs of the case. Defendant further objects to this Request 

on the ground that it seeks documents that are not relevant to the claims and defenses in this case. 

Subject to and without waiving these objections, Defendant responds as follows: Defendant 

will produce, based on a search of reasonable scope that is proportional to the needs of the case 

and consistent with the parties’ ESI protocol, the Loan File for the Garcias. Defendant intends to 

begin production after entry of an appropriate protective order regarding confidentiality.

Case: 1:20-cv-02402 Document #: 50-5 Filed: 11/01/21 Page 12 of 57 PageID #:495
12

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14

Recordings of all telephone calls between Wells Fargo and the Garcias from January 1, 

2008 to April 18, 2020. 

Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, 

and not proportional to the needs of this case as it calls for “[r]ecordings of all telephone calls 

between Wells Fargo and the Garcias from January 1, 2009 to April 18, 2020.” Defendant also 

objects to this Request on the ground that it seeks documents that are not relevant to the claims 

and defenses in this case.

Subject to and without waiving these objections, Defendant responds as follows: To the 

extent responsive exist, Defendant withholds them on the basis of the foregoing objections.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 15

All mortgage statements sent to the Garcias from January 1, 2008 to May 26, 2011.

Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, 

and not proportional to the needs of this case as it calls for “[a]ll mortgage statements sent to the 

Garcias from January 1, 2009 to May 26, 2011.” Defendant also objects to this Request on the 

ground that it seeks documents that are not relevant to the claims and defenses in this case. 

Defendant further objects to this Request as vague and ambiguous as to the term “mortgage 

statements.” 

Subject to and without waiving these objections, Defendant responds as follows: Defendant 

will produce, based on a search of reasonable scope that is proportional to the needs of the case 

and consistent with the parties’ ESI protocol, the Loan File for the Garcias. Defendant intends to 

begin production after entry of an appropriate protective order regarding confidentiality.

Case: 1:20-cv-02402 Document #: 50-5 Filed: 11/01/21 Page 13 of 57 PageID #:496
13

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16

Complete copies of the servicing file maintained by Wells Fargo including, but not limited 

to: Wells Fargo’s notes logs, comment logs, and servicing notes maintained in Wells Fargo’s 

internal servicing software, system of record, or maintained by a third-party vendor or default 

service provider that pertain to the subject loan account from January 1, 2008 to April 18, 2020.

For purposes of this request, “notes logs, comment logs, and servicing notes” shall mean and 

include those “logs” maintained by Wells Fargo including, but not limited to, the loss mitigation 

department, foreclosure department, bankruptcy, call center, and customer services.

Defendant objects to the extent that this Request seeks information protected by the 

attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine. Defendant further objects to this Request 

on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, and not proportional to the needs of this 

case as it calls for “[c]omplete copies of the servicing file ... that pertain to the subject loan account 

from January 1, 2009 to April 18, 2020.” Defendant also objects to this Request on the ground 

that it seeks documents that are not relevant to the claims and defenses in this case. Defendant 

also objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential and proprietary information. 

Defendant further objects to this Request as vague and ambiguous as to the terms “servicing file” 

and “Wells Fargo’s internal servicing software, system of record, or maintained by a third-party 

vendor or default service provider that pertain to the subject loan account.” 

Subject to and without waiving these objections, Defendant responds as follows: Defendant 

will produce, based on a search of reasonable scope that is proportional to the needs of the case 

and consistent with the parties’ ESI protocol, the Loan File for the Garcias. Defendant intends to 

begin production after entry of an appropriate protective order regarding confidentiality.

Case: 1:20-cv-02402 Document #: 50-5 Filed: 11/01/21 Page 14 of 57 PageID #:497
14

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17

An itemized calculation of how Wells Fargo determined the bid of $144,500 for which the 

Garcias’ home was sold to Wells Fargo at a foreclosure sale on February 18, 2011.

Defendant objects to the extent that this Request seeks information protected by the 

attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine. Defendant further objects to this Request 

on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, and not proportional to the needs of this 

case as it calls for an “itemized calculation of how Wells Fargo determined the bid of $144,500 

for which the Garcias’ home was sold to Wells Fargo at a foreclosure sale on February 18, 2011.” 

Defendant also objects to this Request on the ground that it seeks documents that are not relevant 

to the claims and defenses in this case. Defendant also objects to this Request to the extent it seeks 

confidential and proprietary information.

Subject to and without waiving these objections, Defendant responds as follows: Defendant 

will produce, based on a search of reasonable scope that is proportional to the needs of the case 

and consistent with the parties’ ESI protocol, documents responsive to this Request. Defendant 

intends to begin production after entry of an appropriate protective order regarding confidentiality.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 18

A copy of the terms of the trial loan modification offer that the Garcias would have been 

approved for, had Wells Fargo not made the calculation error(s) described in WFC’s 10-Q for 

quarterly period ending on September 30, 2018, and referenced in the July 26, 2019 letter. For 

purposes of this request, the “terms” should describe with particularity the effective date, modified 

principal balance, modified interest rate - whether fixed or variable, modified deferred principal 

balance (if any), modified principal and interest payment, beginning monthly escrow included in 

Case: 1:20-cv-02402 Document #: 50-5 Filed: 11/01/21 Page 15 of 57 PageID #:498
15

monthly payment, escrow shortage included in monthly payment, modified term of the loan 

including the beginning date of payments and the maturity date of the modified loan.

Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, 

oppressive, and not proportional to the needs of this case. Defendant further objects to this Request 

on the ground that it seeks documents that are not relevant to the claims and defenses in this case. 

Subject to and without waiving these objections, Defendant states the following: 

Defendant will produce documents sufficient to show the terms of the trial loan modification offer, 

to the extent any exist, based on a search of reasonable scope that is proportional to the needs of 

the case and consistent with the parties’ ESI protocol. Defendant intends to begin production after 

entry of an appropriate protective order regarding confidentiality. 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 19

Schedules for auditing the loan modification software that contained the calculation 

error(s) described in WFC’s 10-Q for the quarterly period ending on September 30, 2018.

Defendant objects to the Request as vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible as to the terms 

“[s]chedules for auditing the loan modification software that contained the calculation error(s) 

described in WFC’s 10-Q for the quarterly period ending on September 30, 2018.” Defendant 

further objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, oppressive,

and not proportional to the needs of the case. Defendant further objects to this Request to the 

extent that it seeks documents protected from disclosure by the bank examination privilege. See

12 C.F.R. § 4.36 et seq. Defendant also objects to this Request on the ground that it seeks 

documents that are not relevant to the claims and defenses in this case. 

Case: 1:20-cv-02402 Document #: 50-5 Filed: 11/01/21 Page 16 of 57 PageID #:499
16

To the extent responsive, non-privileged documents exist, Defendant withholds them on 

the basis of the foregoing objections.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 20

The mathematical formula and calculations used in making the determination of the dollar 

amount to send the Garcias on July 26, 2019.

Defendant objects to the extent that this Request seeks information protected by the 

attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine. Defendant further objects to this Request 

on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, unduly burdensome, and not proportional 

to the needs of this case as it calls for the “mathematical formula and calculations used in making 

the determination of the dollar amount to send the Garcias on July 26, 2019.” Defendant also 

objects to this Request on the ground that it seeks documents that are not relevant to the claims 

and defenses in this case. Defendant also objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential 

and proprietary information. Defendant further objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks 

documents protected from disclosure by the bank examination privilege. See 12 C.F.R. § 4.36 et 

seq. 

To the extent responsive, non-privileged documents exist, Defendant withholds them on 

the basis of the foregoing objections.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 21

The mathematical formula and calculations used in making the determination of the dollar 

amount to send the Garcias on November 18, 2019.

Defendant objects to the extent that this Request seeks information protected by the 

attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine. Defendant further objects to this Request 

Case: 1:20-cv-02402 Document #: 50-5 Filed: 11/01/21 Page 17 of 57 PageID #:500
17

on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, unduly burdensome, and not proportional 

to the needs of this case as it calls for the “mathematical formula and calculations used in making 

the determination of the dollar amount to send the Garcias on November 18, 2019.” Defendant 

also objects to this Request on the ground that it seeks documents that are not relevant to the claims 

and defenses in this case. Defendant also objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential 

and proprietary information. Defendant further objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks 

documents protected from disclosure by the bank examination privilege. See 12 C.F.R. § 4.36 et 

seq. 

To the extent responsive, non-privileged documents exist, Defendant withholds them on 

the basis of the foregoing objections.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 22

The Garcias’ default and delinquent status history on the subject mortgage loan.

Defendant objects to the extent that the Request seeks information protected by the 

attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine. Defendant further objects on the ground 

that the Request is vague and ambiguous. 

Subject to and without waiving these objections, Defendant responds as follows: Defendant 

will produce, based on a search of reasonable scope that is proportional to the needs of the case 

and consistent with the parties’ ESI protocol, the Loan File for the Garcias. Defendant intends to 

begin production after entry of an appropriate protective order regarding confidentiality.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 23

The Garcias’ late and missed payments on the subject mortgage loan.

Case: 1:20-cv-02402 Document #: 50-5 Filed: 11/01/21 Page 18 of 57 PageID #:501
18

Defendant objects to the extent that the Request seeks information protected by the 

attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine. Defendant further objects on the ground 

that the Request is vague, ambiguous, unintelligible, and overbroad. 

Subject to and without waiving these objections, Defendant responds as follows: Defendant 

will produce, based on a search of reasonable scope that is proportional to the needs of the case 

and consistent with the parties’ ESI protocol, the Loan File for the Garcias. Defendant intends to 

begin production after entry of an appropriate protective order regarding confidentiality.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 24

All documents relating to the foreclosure of the subject mortgage loan.

Defendant objects to the extent that the Request seeks information protected by the 

attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine. Defendant further objects on the ground 

that the Request is vague and ambiguous as to the terms “relating to the foreclosure of the subject 

mortgage loan.” Defendant also objects that the Request is duplicative. Defendant objects to this 

Request on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, and disproportionate to the claims 

and defenses in this as it calls for “[a]ll documents relating to the foreclosure of the subject 

mortgage loan.” Defendant further objects on the ground that the Request seeks documents that 

are not relevant to the claims and defenses in this case. Defendant also objects to this Request to 

the extent it seeks confidential and proprietary information.

Subject to and without waiving these objections, Defendant responds as follows: Defendant 

will produce, based on a search of reasonable scope that is proportional to the needs of the case 

and consistent with the parties’ ESI protocol, the Loan File for the Garcias. Defendant intends to 

begin production after entry of an appropriate protective order regarding confidentiality.

Case: 1:20-cv-02402 Document #: 50-5 Filed: 11/01/21 Page 19 of 57 PageID #:502
19

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 25

All communications and correspondence relating to the Garcias’ mortgage loan.

Defendant objects to the extent that the Request seeks information protected by the 

attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine. Defendant objects to this Request on the 

grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, and disproportionate to the claims and defenses 

in this case. Defendant also objects to this Request on the ground that it seeks documents that are 

not relevant to the claims and defenses in this case. Defendant also objects to this Request to the 

extent it seeks confidential and proprietary information. Defendant further objects that the Request 

is duplicative.

Subject to and without waiving these objections, Defendant responds as follows: Defendant 

will produce, based on a search of reasonable scope that is proportional to the needs of the case 

and consistent with the parties’ ESI protocol, the Loan File for the Garcias. Defendant intends to 

begin production after entry of an appropriate protective order regarding confidentiality.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 26

Personnel files for all witnesses disclosed in Your Rule 26 initial disclosures stating for 

each witness, the witness’ positions or job titles with Wells Fargo, duties, date of hire, date of 

termination (if applicable), experience and qualifications relative to the witness’ position with 

Wells Fargo.

Defendant objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks documents protected by the 

attorney-client privilege and/or work product protection. Defendant further objects to this Request 

on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, oppressive, and not proportional to the 

needs of the case. Defendant further objects to this Request on the grounds that it is intended to 

Case: 1:20-cv-02402 Document #: 50-5 Filed: 11/01/21 Page 20 of 57 PageID #:503
20

harass and on the ground that it seeks documents that are not relevant to the claims and defenses 

in this case. Defendant further objects to the Request on the ground that it seeks documents for 

which the disclosure would invade the privacy of third parties. Defendant also objects to this 

Request to the extent it seeks confidential and proprietary information.

To the extent responsive, non-privileged documents exist, Defendant withholds them on 

the basis of the foregoing objections.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 27

All documents provided to and/or received from the Office of the Comptroller of the 

Currency (“OCC”) as part of its investigation that led to the 2011 Consent Order.

Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, 

oppressive, and not proportional to the needs of the case. Defendant further objects to this Request 

on the ground that it seeks documents protected from disclosure by the bank examination privilege. 

See 12 C.F.R. § 4.36 et seq. Defendant further objects to this Request on the ground that it seeks 

documents that are not relevant to the claims and defenses in this case. 

To the extent responsive, non-privileged documents exist, Defendant withholds them on 

the basis of the foregoing objections.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 28

The fully executed 2011 Stipulation and Consent to the Issuance of a Consent Order and 

the Consent Order.

Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, 

unduly burdensome, oppressive, and not proportional to the needs of the case. Defendant further 

objects to this Request on the ground that it seeks documents that are not relevant to the claims 

Case: 1:20-cv-02402 Document #: 50-5 Filed: 11/01/21 Page 21 of 57 PageID #:504
21

and defenses in this case. Defendant further objects on the ground that the Request seeks 

documents that are in the public record and equally available to Plaintiff. 

To the extent responsive, non-privileged documents exist, Defendant withholds them on 

the basis of the foregoing objections.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 29

All written progress reports submitted by the Wells Fargo Compliance Committee to Wells 

Fargo’s Board of Directors and to the Deputy Comptroller for Large Bank Supervision and 

Examiner-in-Charge, as required by the 2011 Consent Order.

Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, 

oppressive, and not proportional to the needs of the case. Defendant further objects to this Request 

on the ground that it seeks documents protected by the bank examination privilege. See 12 C.F.R. 

§ 4.36 et seq. Defendant also objects that Plaintiff is seeking information without regard as to 

whether it is relevant to Plaintiff’s claims or Defendant’s defenses at issue in this lawsuit, and thus 

exceeds the scope of discovery permitted in Rule 26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

To the extent responsive, non-privileged documents exist, Defendant withholds them on 

the basis of the foregoing objections.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 30

The Comprehensive Action Plan submitted to and accepted by the Deputy Comptroller, as 

required by the 2011 Consent Order, and revisions thereto from April 2011 to present.

Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, 

oppressive, and not proportional to the needs of the case. Defendant further objects to this Request 

on the ground that it seeks documents protected from disclosure by the bank examination privilege. 

Case: 1:20-cv-02402 Document #: 50-5 Filed: 11/01/21 Page 22 of 57 PageID #:505
22

See 12 C.F.R. § 4.36 et seq. Defendant further objects to this Request on the ground that it seeks 

documents that are not relevant to the claims and defenses in this case. 

To the extent responsive, non-privileged documents exist, Defendant withholds them on 

the basis of the foregoing objections.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 31

Reports submitted by Wells Fargo to its Board of Directors, as required by the 2011 

Consent Order, pertaining to Wells Fargo’s mortgage servicing, foreclosure, and loss mitigation 

activities, as well as associated risk management, compliance, quality control, audit, training, 

staffing, and related functions, from April 2011 to present.

Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, 

oppressive, and not proportional to the needs of the case. Defendant further objects to this Request 

to the extent that it seeks documents protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work product 

protection. Defendant further objects to this Request on the ground that it seeks documents 

protected by the bank examination privilege. See 12 C.F.R. § 4.36 et seq. Defendant also objects 

to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential and proprietary information. Defendant also

objects that Plaintiff is seeking information without regard as to whether it is relevant to Plaintiff’s 

claims or Defendant’s defenses at issue in this lawsuit, and thus exceeds the scope of discovery 

permitted in Rule 26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

To the extent responsive, non-privileged documents exist, Defendant withholds them on 

the basis of the foregoing objections.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 32

All documents and reports created by the Wells Fargo Compliance Committee and 

provided to the OCC.

Case: 1:20-cv-02402 Document #: 50-5 Filed: 11/01/21 Page 23 of 57 PageID #:506
23

Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, 

oppressive, and not proportional to the needs of the case. Defendant further objects to this Request 

on the ground that it seeks documents protected by the bank examination privilege. See 12 C.F.R. 

§ 4.36 et seq. Defendant also objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential and 

proprietary information. Defendant also objects that Plaintiff is seeking information without 

regard as to whether it is relevant to Plaintiff’s claims or Defendant’s defenses at issue in this 

lawsuit, and thus exceeds the scope of discovery permitted in Rule 26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules 

of Civil Procedure. 

To the extent responsive, non-privileged documents exist, Defendant withholds them on 

the basis of the foregoing objections.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 33

All documents created for or provided by Wells Fargo’s Chief Operational Risk Officer to 

the Compliance Committee and the Audit & Examination Committee with reference to Wells 

Fargo’s mortgage modification and foreclosure practices, and compliance with HAMP and other 

government requirements.

Defendant objects to the extent that the request seeks information protected by the attorneyclient privilege and/or work product doctrine. Defendant further objects to this Request on the 

grounds that it is vague, overbroad, unduly burdensome, oppressive, and not proportional to the 

needs of the case. Defendant further objects to this Request on the ground that it seeks documents 

protected by the bank examination privilege. See 12 C.F.R. § 4.36 et seq. Defendant also objects 

to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential and proprietary information. Defendant also 

objects that Plaintiff is seeking information without regard as to whether it is relevant to Plaintiff’s 

Case: 1:20-cv-02402 Document #: 50-5 Filed: 11/01/21 Page 24 of 57 PageID #:507
24

claims or Defendant’s defenses at issue in this lawsuit, and thus exceeds the scope of discovery 

permitted in Rule 26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

To the extent responsive, non-privileged documents exist, Defendant withholds them on 

the basis of the foregoing objections.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 34

All documents created for or supplied to the Wells Fargo Audit & Examination Committee 

that contain any reference to HAMP or Wells Fargo’s loan modification policies, procedures, or 

practices.

Defendant objects to the extent that the request seeks information protected by the attorneyclient privilege and/or work product doctrine. Defendant further objects to this Request on the 

grounds that it is vague, overbroad, unduly burdensome, oppressive and not proportional to the 

needs of the case. Defendant further objects to this Request on the ground that it seeks documents 

protected by the bank examination privilege. See 12 C.F.R. § 4.36 et seq. Defendant also objects 

to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential and proprietary information. Defendant also 

objects that Plaintiff is seeking information without regard as to whether it is relevant to Plaintiff’s 

claims or Defendant’s defenses at issue in this lawsuit, and thus exceeds the scope of discovery 

permitted in Rule 26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

To the extent responsive, non-privileged documents exist, Defendant withholds them on 

the basis of the foregoing objections.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 35

The Compliance Program implemented by Wells Fargo, as required by the 2011 Consent 

Order, and revisions thereto from April 2011 to present.

Case: 1:20-cv-02402 Document #: 50-5 Filed: 11/01/21 Page 25 of 57 PageID #:508
25

Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, 

oppressive, and not proportional to the needs of the case. Defendant objects to the extent that the 

Request seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine. 

Defendant further objects to this Request on the ground that it seeks documents protected from 

disclosure by the bank examination privilege. See 12 C.F.R. § 4.36 et seq. Defendant further 

objects to this Request on the ground that it seeks documents that are not relevant to the claims 

and defenses in this case. Defendant also objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential 

and proprietary information. 

To the extent responsive, non-privileged documents exist, Defendant withholds them on 

the basis of the foregoing objections.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 36

The fully executed 2013 Amendment to [the] April 13, 2011 Consent Order.

Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, 

oppressive, and not proportional to the needs of the case. Defendant further objects to this Request 

on the ground that it seeks documents that are not relevant to the claims and defenses in this case. 

Defendant further objects on the ground that the Request seeks documents that are in the public 

record and equally available to Plaintiff. 

To the extent responsive, non-privileged documents exist, Defendant withholds them on 

the basis of the foregoing objections.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 37

The fully executed 2015 Consent Order Amending the 2011 Consent Order and 2013 

Amendment to the 2011 Consent Order (the “2015 OCC Consent Order”).

Case: 1:20-cv-02402 Document #: 50-5 Filed: 11/01/21 Page 26 of 57 PageID #:509
26

Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, 

oppressive, and not proportional to the needs of the case. Defendant further objects to this Request 

on the ground that it seeks documents that are not relevant to the claims and defenses in this case. 

Defendant further objects on the ground that the Request seeks documents that are in the public 

record and equally available to Plaintiff. 

To the extent responsive, non-privileged documents exist, Defendant withholds them on 

the basis of the foregoing objections.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 38

The fully executed 2016 Consent Order for a Civil Money Penalty.

Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, 

oppressive, and not proportional to the needs of this case. Defendant further objects to this Request 

on the ground that it seeks documents that are not relevant to the claims and defenses in this case. 

Defendant further objects on the ground that the Request seeks documents that are in the public 

record and equally available to Plaintiff. 

To the extent responsive, non-privileged documents exist, Defendant withholds them on 

the basis of the foregoing objections.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 39

All mortgagee letters from HUD regarding HAMP from January 1, 2008 to the present.

Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, 

and not proportional to the needs of this case. Defendant also objects to this Request on the ground 

Case: 1:20-cv-02402 Document #: 50-5 Filed: 11/01/21 Page 27 of 57 PageID #:510
27

that it seeks documents that are not relevant to the claims and defenses in this case. Defendant 

further objects on the ground that the Request seeks information beyond the relevant time period. 

Defendant further objects on the ground that the Request seeks documents that are in the public 

record and equally available to Plaintiff.

To the extent responsive, non-privileged documents exist, Defendant withholds them on 

the basis of the foregoing objections.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 40

All complete Servicer Participation Agreements for the Home Affordable Modification 

Program (“HAMP”), including financial instrument, annual certifications, and assignment and 

assumption agreements from February 2008 to current.

Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, 

and not proportional to the needs of the case. Defendant also objects to this Request on the ground 

that it seeks documents that are not relevant to the claims and defenses in this case. Defendant 

further objects on the ground that the Request seeks information beyond the relevant time period. 

To the extent responsive, non-privileged documents exist, Defendant withholds them on 

the basis of the foregoing objections.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 41

Wells Fargo’s policies and procedures relative to Your internal foreclosure or related 

functions, including loss mitigation and loan modification processes, from September 1, 2008 to 

April 18, 2020.

Defendant objects to the extent that the request seeks information protected by the attorneyclient privilege and/or work product doctrine. Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds 

Case: 1:20-cv-02402 Document #: 50-5 Filed: 11/01/21 Page 28 of 57 PageID #:511
28

that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, and not proportional to the needs of the case. Defendant 

also objects to this Request on the ground that it seeks documents that are not relevant to the claims 

and defenses in this case. Defendant further objects on the ground that the Request seeks 

information beyond the relevant time period. Defendant also objects to this Request to the extent 

it seeks confidential and proprietary information. 

To the extent responsive, non-privileged documents exist, Defendant withholds them on 

the basis of the foregoing objections.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 42

Wells Fargo’s policies and procedures relative to the qualifications and expertise required 

of Your employees who worked on and/or provided any service related to Wells Fargo’s loss 

mitigation and loan modification process, foreclosures and bankruptcies, from September 1, 2008 

to April 18, 2020.

Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, 

and not proportional to the needs of the case. Defendant also objects to this Request on the ground 

that it seeks documents that are not relevant to the claims and defenses in this case. Defendant 

further objects on the ground that the Request seeks information beyond the relevant time period. 

Defendant also objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential and proprietary 

information. 

To the extent responsive, non-privileged documents exist, Defendant withholds them on 

the basis of the foregoing objections.

Case: 1:20-cv-02402 Document #: 50-5 Filed: 11/01/21 Page 29 of 57 PageID #:512
29

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 43

Wells Fargo’s training manuals regarding Your employees who worked on and/or provided 

any service related to Wells Fargo’s loss mitigation and loan modification process, foreclosures 

and bankruptcies, from September 1, 2008 to April 18, 2020.

Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, 

and not proportional to the needs of the case. Defendant also objects to this Request on the ground 

that it seeks documents that are not relevant to the claims and defenses in this case. Defendant 

further objects on the ground that the Request seeks information beyond the relevant time period. 

Defendant also objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential and proprietary 

information. 

To the extent responsive, non-privileged documents exist, Defendant withholds them on 

the basis of the foregoing objections.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 44

Wells Fargo’s policies and procedures to ensure adequacy of the staffing levels, training, 

work quality, and workload balance for Your departments and employees who worked on and/or 

provided any service related to Wells Fargo’s loss mitigation and loan modification process, 

foreclosures and bankruptcies, from September 1, 2008 to April 18, 2020.

Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, 

and not proportional to the needs of the case. Defendant also objects to this Request on the ground 

that it seeks documents that are not relevant to the claims and defenses in this case. Defendant 

also objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential and proprietary information. 

Case: 1:20-cv-02402 Document #: 50-5 Filed: 11/01/21 Page 30 of 57 PageID #:513
30

Defendant further objects on the ground that the Request seeks information beyond the relevant 

time period. 

To the extent responsive, non-privileged documents exist, Defendant withholds them on 

the basis of the foregoing objections.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 45

Wells Fargo’s policies and procedures to ensure the accuracy of work performed by Your 

departments and employees who worked on and/or provided any service related to Wells Fargo’s 

loss mitigation and loan modification process, foreclosures and bankruptcies, from September 1, 

2008 to April 18, 2020.

Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that it is vague, overbroad, unduly 

burdensome, and not proportional to the needs of the case. Defendant also objects to this Request 

on the ground that it seeks documents that are not relevant to the claims and defenses in this case. 

Defendant further objects on the ground that the Request seeks information beyond the relevant 

time period. Defendant also objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential and 

proprietary information. 

To the extent responsive, non-privileged documents exist, Defendant withholds them on 

the basis of the foregoing objections.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 46

Wells Fargo’s policies and procedures for outsourcing foreclosure or related functions, 

including loss mitigation and loan modification, and property management functions for 

residential real estate acquired through or in lieu of foreclosure, to any agent, independent 

contractor, consulting firm, law firm (including local counsel in foreclosure or bankruptcy 

proceedings retained to represent the interests of the owners of mortgages), property management 

Case: 1:20-cv-02402 Document #: 50-5 Filed: 11/01/21 Page 31 of 57 PageID #:514
31

firm, or other third-party (including any affiliate of the Bank), from September 1, 2008 to April 

18, 2020.

Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome,

and not proportional to the needs of the case. Defendant further objects to this Request on the 

grounds that it is vague and ambiguous as to the terms “outsourcing foreclosure or related 

functions.” Defendant also objects to this Request on the ground that it seeks documents that are 

not relevant to the claims and defenses in this case. Defendant further objects on the ground that 

the Request seeks information beyond the relevant time period. Defendant also objects to this 

Request to the extent it seeks confidential and proprietary information. 

To the extent responsive, non-privileged documents exist, Defendant withholds them on 

the basis of the foregoing objections.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 47

All contracts between Wells Fargo and each third-party provider who worked on and/or 

provided any service related to the Garcias’ loan modification application that is the subject of the 

July 26, 2019 letter (Exhibit B to Plaintiffs’ Complaint).

Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome,

and not proportional to the needs of the case . Defendant also objects to this Request on the ground 

that it seeks documents that are not relevant to the claims and defenses in this case. Defendant 

further objects to the Request as vague and ambiguous as to the terms “each third-party provider 

who worked on and/or provided any service related to the Garcias’ loan modification application 

that is the subject of the July 26, 2019 letter.”

Case: 1:20-cv-02402 Document #: 50-5 Filed: 11/01/21 Page 32 of 57 PageID #:515
32

To the extent responsive, non-privileged documents exist, Defendant withholds them on 

the basis of the foregoing objections.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 48

Wells Fargo’s policies and procedures to perform appropriate due diligence on potential 

and current third-party provider qualifications, expertise, capacity, reputation, complaints, 

information security, document custody practices, business continuity, and financial viability. For 

purposes of this request, “third-party provider” refers to any third-party who worked on and/or 

provided any service related to Wells Fargo’s loss mitigation and loan modification process, 

foreclosures and bankruptcies, from July 1, 2010 to April 18, 2020.

Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, 

and not proportional to the needs of the case. Defendant also objects to this Request on the ground 

that it seeks documents that are not relevant to the claims and defenses in this case, and thus 

exceeds the scope of discovery permitted in Rule 26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

Defendant also objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential and proprietary 

information. 

To the extent responsive, non-privileged documents exist, Defendant withholds them on 

the basis of the foregoing objections.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 49

Wells Fargo’s policies and procedures to ensure adequacy of third-party provider staffing 

levels, training, work quality, and workload balance. For purposes of this request, “third-party 

provider” refers to any third-party who worked on and/or provided any service related to Wells 

Fargo’s loss mitigation and loan modification process, foreclosures and bankruptcies, from July 1, 

2010 to April 18, 2020.

Case: 1:20-cv-02402 Document #: 50-5 Filed: 11/01/21 Page 33 of 57 PageID #:516
33

Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, 

and not proportional to the needs of the case. Defendant also objects to this Request on the ground 

that it seeks documents that are not relevant to the claims and defenses in this case. Defendant 

further objects to the Request as vague and ambiguous as to the terms “adequacy of third-party 

provider staffing levels, training, work quality, and workload balance.” Defendant also objects to 

this Request to the extent it seeks confidential and proprietary information. 

To the extent responsive, non-privileged documents exist, Defendant withholds them on 

the basis of the foregoing objections.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 50

Wells Fargo’s policies and procedures to ensure the accuracy of work performed by thirdparty providers. For purposes of this request, “third-party provider” refers to any third-party who 

worked on and/or provided any service related to Wells Fargo’s loss mitigation and loan 

modification process, foreclosures and bankruptcies, from July 1, 2010 to April 18, 2020.

Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, 

and not proportional to the needs of the case. Defendant also objects to this Request on the ground 

that it seeks documents that are not relevant to the claims and defenses in this case. Defendant 

further objects to the Request as vague and ambiguous as to the terms “accuracy of work performed 

by third-party providers.” Defendant also objects to this Request to the extent it seeks confidential 

and proprietary information. 

To the extent responsive, non-privileged documents exist, Defendant withholds them on 

the basis of the foregoing objections.

Case: 1:20-cv-02402 Document #: 50-5 Filed: 11/01/21 Page 34 of 57 PageID #:517
34

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 51

All documents containing findings and/or conclusions from Wells Fargo’s review of the 

automated mortgage loan modification software used by Wells Fargo between February 1, 2008 

and April 20, 2018.

Defendant objects to the extent that the Request seeks information protected by the 

attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine. Defendant further objects to this Request 

on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, oppressive, and not proportional to the 

needs of the case. Defendant further objects to this Request on the ground that it seeks documents 

protected from disclosure by the bank examination privilege. See 12 C.F.R. § 4.36 et seq. 

Defendant also objects to this Request on the ground that it seeks documents that are not relevant 

to the claims and defenses in this case. Defendant also objects to this Request to the extend that it 

seeks confidential and proprietary information. 

To the extent responsive, non-privileged documents exist, Defendant withholds them on 

the basis of the foregoing objections.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 52

All documents containing findings and/or conclusions from Wells Fargo’s discovery of the 

error in its mortgage modification software that led to Wells Fargo wrongly denying mortgage 

modifications between February 1, 2008 and April 20, 2018.

Defendant objects to the extent that the Request seeks information protected by the 

attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine. Defendant further objects to this Request 

on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, oppressive, and not proportional to the 

needs of the case. Defendant further objects to this Request on the ground that it seeks documents 

Case: 1:20-cv-02402 Document #: 50-5 Filed: 11/01/21 Page 35 of 57 PageID #:518
35

protected from disclosure by the bank examination privilege. See 12 C.F.R. § 4.36 et seq. 

Defendant also objects to this Request on the ground that it seeks documents that are not relevant 

to the claims and defenses in this case. Defendant also objects to this Request to the extent it seeks 

confidential and proprietary information. 

To the extent responsive, non-privileged documents exist, Defendant withholds them on 

the basis of the foregoing objections.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 53

All documents produced by Wells Fargo in response to discovery regarding liability that 

are not borrower specific in the case of Hernandez, et al. v. Wells Fargo & Company, et al.

Defendant also objects to this Interrogatory on the ground that documents produced by 

Defendant in the Hernandez, et al. v. Wells Fargo & Company, et al. action are prohibited from 

disclosure by a protective order. Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that it is 

overbroad, unduly burdensome, and not proportional to the needs of this case. Defendant also 

objects to this Request on the ground that it seeks documents that are not relevant to the claims 

and defenses in this case. Defendant further objects to this Request on the grounds that it is vague 

and ambiguous as to the term “liability.” Defendant further objects to this Request on the grounds 

that it assumes facts not in evidence. 

To the extent responsive, non-privileged documents exist, Defendant withholds them on 

the basis of the foregoing objections.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 54

All documents regarding any claim submitted by Wells Fargo against a private mortgage 

insurance (“PMI”) policy on the Garcia mortgage loan.

Case: 1:20-cv-02402 Document #: 50-5 Filed: 11/01/21 Page 36 of 57 PageID #:519
36

Defendant objects to the extent that the Request seeks information protected by the 

attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine. Defendant further objects to this Request 

on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, oppressive, and not proportional to the 

needs of the case. Defendant also objects to this Request on the ground that it seeks documents 

that are not relevant to the claims and defenses in this case. 

To the extent responsive, non-privileged documents exist, Defendant withholds them on 

the basis of the foregoing objections.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 55

All documents regarding the payment of any claim submitted by Wells Fargo against a 

private mortgage insurance (“PMI”) policy on the Garcia mortgage loan.

Defendant objects to the extent that the Request seeks information protected by the 

attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine. Defendant further objects to this Request 

on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, oppressive, and not proportional to the 

needs of the case. Defendant also objects to this Request on the ground that it seeks documents 

that are not relevant to the claims and defenses in this case. 

To the extent responsive, non-privileged documents exist, Defendant withholds them on 

the basis of the foregoing objections.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 56

All documents regarding any invoice or claim submitted for payment by Wells Fargo to 

Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac or the Federal Housing Administration relative to the Garcia mortgage 

loan.

Case: 1:20-cv-02402 Document #: 50-5 Filed: 11/01/21 Page 37 of 57 PageID #:520
37

Defendant objects to the extent that the Request seeks information protected by the 

attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine. Defendant further objects to this Request 

on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, oppressive, and not proportional to the 

needs of the case. Defendant also objects to this Request on the ground that it seeks documents 

that are not relevant to the claims and defenses in this case. 

To the extent responsive, non-privileged documents exist, Defendant withholds them on 

the basis of the foregoing objections.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 57

All documents regarding any payment Wells Fargo received from Fannie Mae, Freddie 

Mac or the Federal Housing Administration relative to the Garcia mortgage loan.

Defendant objects to the extent that the Request seeks information protected by the 

attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine. Defendant further objects to this Request 

on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, oppressive, and not proportional to the 

needs of the case. Defendant also objects to this Request on the ground that it seeks documents 

that are not relevant to the claims and defenses in this case. 

To the extent responsive, non-privileged documents exist, Defendant withholds them on 

the basis of the foregoing objections.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 58

All documents supporting Your denial of paragraph 31 of Plaintiff’s Complaint. 

Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, 

oppressive, and not proportional to the needs of the case. Defendant further objects on the ground 

Case: 1:20-cv-02402 Document #: 50-5 Filed: 11/01/21 Page 38 of 57 PageID #:521
38

that the Request is premature at this stage in the litigation, given that discovery is ongoing and 

Defendant’s investigation continues. Defendant also objects to this Request on the ground that it 

seeks documents that are not relevant to the claims and defenses in this case. Defendant further 

objects to this Request to the extent it seeks documentsthat have not been specified with reasonable 

particularity. 

To the extent responsive, non-privileged documents exist, Defendant withholds them on 

the basis of the foregoing objections.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 59

All documents supporting Your denial of paragraph 32 of Plaintiff’s Complaint. 

Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, 

oppressive, and not proportional to the needs of the case. Defendant further objects on the ground 

that the Request is premature at this stage in the litigation, given that discovery is ongoing and 

Defendant’s investigation continues. Defendant also objects to this Request on the ground that it 

seeks documents that are not relevant to the claims and defenses in this case. Defendant further 

objects to this Request to the extent it seeks documentsthat have not been specified with reasonable 

particularity. 

To the extent responsive, non-privileged documents exist, Defendant withholds them on 

the basis of the foregoing objections.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 60

All documents supporting Your denial of paragraph 33 of Plaintiff’s Complaint. 

Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, 

oppressive, and not proportional to the needs of the case. Defendant further objects on the ground 

Case: 1:20-cv-02402 Document #: 50-5 Filed: 11/01/21 Page 39 of 57 PageID #:522
39

that the Request is premature at this stage in the litigation, given that discovery is ongoing and 

Defendant’s investigation continues. Defendant also objects to this Request on the ground that it 

seeks documents that are not relevant to the claims and defenses in this case. Defendant further 

objects to this Request to the extent it seeks documentsthat have not been specified with reasonable 

particularity. 

To the extent responsive, non-privileged documents exist, Defendant withholds them on 

the basis of the foregoing objections.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 61

All documents supporting Your denial of paragraph 34 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.

Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, 

oppressive, and not proportional to the needs of the case. Defendant further objects on the ground 

that the Request is premature at this stage in the litigation, given that discovery is ongoing and 

Defendant’s investigation continues. Defendant further objects to this Request to the extent it 

seeks documents that have not been specified with reasonable particularity. 

To the extent responsive, non-privileged documents exist, Defendant will produce, based

on a search of reasonable scope that is proportional to the needs of the case and consistent with the 

parties’ ESI protocol, documents supporting this defense. Defendant intends to begin production 

after entry of an appropriate protective order regarding confidentiality.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 62

All documents supporting Your denial of paragraph 35 of Plaintiff’s Complaint. 

Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, 

oppressive, and not proportional to the needs of the case. Defendant further objects on the ground 

Case: 1:20-cv-02402 Document #: 50-5 Filed: 11/01/21 Page 40 of 57 PageID #:523
40

that the Request is premature at this stage in the litigation, given that discovery is ongoing and 

Defendant’s investigation continues. Defendant further objects to this Request to the extent it 

seeks documents that have not been specified with reasonable particularity. 

To the extent responsive, non-privileged documents exist, Defendant will produce, based 

on a search of reasonable scope that is proportional to the needs of the case and consistent with the 

parties’ ESI protocol, documents supporting this defense. Defendant intends to begin production 

after entry of an appropriate protective order regarding confidentiality.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 63

All documents supporting Your denial of paragraph 36 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.

Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, 

oppressive, and not proportional to the needs of the case. Defendant further objects on the ground 

that the Request is premature at this stage in the litigation, given that discovery is ongoing and 

Defendant’s investigation continues. Defendant further objects to this Request to the extent it 

seeks documents that have not been specified with reasonable particularity. 

To the extent responsive, non-privileged documents exist, Defendant withholds them on 

the basis of the foregoing objections.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 64

All documents supporting Your denial of paragraph 37 of Plaintiff’s Complaint. 

Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, 

oppressive, and not proportional to the needs of the case. Defendant further objects on the ground 

that the Request is premature at this stage in the litigation, given that discovery is ongoing and 

Defendant’s investigation continues. Defendant also objects to this Request on the ground that it 

Case: 1:20-cv-02402 Document #: 50-5 Filed: 11/01/21 Page 41 of 57 PageID #:524
41

seeks documents protected from disclosure by the bank examination privilege. See 12 C.F.R. 

§ 4.36 et seq. Defendant further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks documents that have 

not been specified with reasonable particularity. Defendant also objects to this Request on the 

ground that it seeks documents that are not relevant to the claims and defenses in this case. 

To the extent responsive, non-privileged documents exist, Defendant withholds them on 

the basis of the foregoing objections.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 65

All documents supporting Your denial of paragraph 47 of Plaintiff’s Complaint. 

Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, 

oppressive, and not proportional to the needs of the case. Defendant further objects on the ground 

that the Request is premature at this stage in the litigation, given that discovery is ongoing and 

Defendant’s investigation continues. Defendant also objects to this Request on the ground that it 

seeks documents protected from disclosure by the bank examination privilege. See 12 C.F.R. 

§ 4.36 et seq. Defendant further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks documents that have 

not been specified with reasonable particularity. Defendant also objects to this Request on the 

ground that it seeks documents that are not relevant to the claims and defenses in this case. 

To the extent responsive, non-privileged documents exist, Defendant withholds them on 

the basis of the foregoing objections.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 66

All documents supporting Your denial of paragraph 48 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.

Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, 

oppressive, and not proportional to the needs of the case. Defendant further objects on the ground 

Case: 1:20-cv-02402 Document #: 50-5 Filed: 11/01/21 Page 42 of 57 PageID #:525
42

that the Request is premature at this stage in the litigation, given that discovery is ongoing and 

Defendant’s investigation continues. Defendant also objects to this Request on the ground that it 

seeks documents protected from disclosure by the bank examination privilege. See 12 C.F.R. 

§ 4.36 et seq. Defendant further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks documents that have 

not been specified with reasonable particularity. Defendant also objects to this Request on the 

ground that it seeks documents that are not relevant to the claims and defenses in this case. 

To the extent responsive, non-privileged documents exist, Defendant withholds them on 

the basis of the foregoing objections. 

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 67

All documents supporting Your denial of paragraph 49 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.

Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, 

oppressive, and not proportional to the needs of the case. Defendant further objects on the ground 

that the Request is premature at this stage in the litigation, given that discovery is ongoing and 

Defendant’s investigation continues. Defendant further objects to this Request to the extent it 

seeks documents that have not been specified with reasonable particularity. Defendant also 

objects to this Request on the ground that it seeks documents that are not relevant to the claims 

and defenses in this case. 

To the extent responsive, non-privileged documents exist, Defendant withholds them on 

the basis of the foregoing objections.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 68

All documents supporting Your denial of paragraph 50 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.

Case: 1:20-cv-02402 Document #: 50-5 Filed: 11/01/21 Page 43 of 57 PageID #:526
43

Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, 

oppressive, and not proportional to the needs of the case. Defendant further objects on the ground 

that the Request is premature at this stage in the litigation, given that discovery is ongoing and 

Defendant’s investigation continues. Defendant also objects to this Request on the ground that it 

seeks documents protected from disclosure by the bank examination privilege. See 12 C.F.R. 

§ 4.36 et seq. Defendant also objects to this Request on the ground that it seeks documents that 

are not relevant to the claims and defenses in this case. Defendant further objects to this Request 

to the extent it seeks documents that have not been specified with reasonable particularity. 

To the extent responsive, non-privileged documents exist, Defendant withholds them on 

the basis of the foregoing objections.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 69

All documents supporting Your denial of paragraph 51 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.

Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, 

oppressive, and not proportional to the needs of the case. Defendant further objects on the ground 

that the Request is premature at this stage in the litigation, given that discovery is ongoing and 

Defendant’s investigation continues. Defendant also objects to this Request on the ground that it 

seeks documents that are not relevant to the claims and defenses in this case. Defendant further 

objects to this Request to the extent it seeks documentsthat have not been specified with reasonable 

particularity. 

To the extent responsive, non-privileged documents exist, Defendant withholds them on 

the basis of the foregoing objections.

Case: 1:20-cv-02402 Document #: 50-5 Filed: 11/01/21 Page 44 of 57 PageID #:527
44

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 70

All documents supporting Your denial of paragraph 52 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.

Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, 

oppressive, and not proportional to the needs of the case. Defendant further objects on the ground 

that the Request is premature at this stage in the litigation, given that discovery is ongoing and 

Defendant’s investigation continues. Defendant also objects to this Request on the ground that it 

seeks documents that are not relevant to the claims and defenses in this case. Defendant further 

objects to this Request to the extent it seeks documentsthat have not been specified with reasonable 

particularity. 

To the extent responsive, non-privileged documents exist, Defendant withholds them on 

the basis of the foregoing objections.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 71

All documents supporting Your denial of paragraph 53 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.

Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, 

oppressive, and not proportional to the needs of the case. Defendant further objects on the ground 

that the Request is premature at this stage in the litigation, given that discovery is ongoing and 

Defendant’s investigation continues. Defendant also objects to this Request on the ground that it 

seeks documents protected from disclosure by the bank examination privilege. See 12 C.F.R. 

§ 4.36 et seq. Defendant also objects to this Request on the ground that it seeks documents that 

are not relevant to the claims and defenses in this case. Defendant further objects to this Request 

to the extent it seeks documents that have not been specified with reasonable particularity. 

Case: 1:20-cv-02402 Document #: 50-5 Filed: 11/01/21 Page 45 of 57 PageID #:528
45

To the extent responsive, non-privileged documents exist, Defendant withholds them on 

the basis of the foregoing objections.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 72

All documents supporting Your denial of paragraph 54 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.

Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, 

oppressive, and not proportional to the needs of the case. Defendant further objects on the ground 

that the Request is premature at this stage in the litigation, given that discovery is ongoing and 

Defendant’s investigation continues. Defendant also objects to this Request on the ground that it 

seeks documents protected from disclosure by the bank examination privilege. See 12 C.F.R. 

§ 4.36 et seq. Defendant also objects to this Request on the ground that it seeks documents that 

are not relevant to the claims and defenses in this case. Defendant further objects to this Request 

to the extent it seeks documents that have not been specified with reasonable particularity. 

To the extent responsive, non-privileged documents exist, Defendant withholds them on 

the basis of the foregoing objections.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 73

All documents supporting Your denial of paragraph 75 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.

Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, 

oppressive, and not proportional to the needs of the case. Defendant further objects on the ground 

that the Request is premature at this stage in the litigation, given that discovery is ongoing and 

Defendant’s investigation continues. Defendant further objects to this Request to the extent it 

seeks documents that have not been specified with reasonable particularity.

Case: 1:20-cv-02402 Document #: 50-5 Filed: 11/01/21 Page 46 of 57 PageID #:529
46

To the extent responsive, non-privileged documents exist, Defendant will produce, based 

on a search of reasonable scope that is proportional to the needs of the case and consistent with the 

parties’ ESI protocol, documents supporting this defense. Defendant intends to begin production 

after entry of an appropriate protective order regarding confidentiality.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 74

All documents supporting Your denial of paragraph 82 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.

Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, 

oppressive, and not proportional to the needs of the case. Defendant further objects on the ground 

that the Request is premature at this stage in the litigation, given that discovery is ongoing and 

Defendant’s investigation continues. Defendant also objects to this Request on the ground that it 

seeks documents that are not relevant to the claims and defenses in this case. Defendant further 

objects to this Request to the extent it seeks documentsthat have not been specified with reasonable 

particularity. 

To the extent responsive, non-privileged documents exist, Defendant withholds them on 

the basis of the foregoing objections.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 75

All documents supporting Your denial of paragraph 84 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.

Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, 

oppressive, and not proportional to the needs of the case. Defendant further objects on the ground 

that the Request is premature at this stage in the litigation, given that discovery is ongoing and 

Defendant’s investigation continues. Defendant also objects to this Request on the ground that it 

seeks documents that are not relevant to the claims and defenses in this case. Defendant further 

Case: 1:20-cv-02402 Document #: 50-5 Filed: 11/01/21 Page 47 of 57 PageID #:530
47

objects to this Request to the extent it seeks documentsthat have not been specified with reasonable 

particularity. 

Subject to and without waiving these objections, Defendant responds as follows: Defendant 

will produce, based on a search of reasonable scope that is proportional to the needs of the case 

and consistent with the parties’ ESI protocol, the Loan File for the Garcias. Defendant intends to 

begin production after entry of an appropriate protective order regarding confidentiality.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 76

All documents supporting Your denial of paragraph 91 that Wells Fargo “forced [the 

Garcias] to move out of the Family Home.”

Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, 

oppressive, and not proportional to the needs of the case. Defendant further objects on the ground 

that the Request is premature at this stage in the litigation, given that discovery is ongoing and 

Defendant’s investigation continues. Defendant further objects to this Request to the extent it 

seeks documents that have not been specified with reasonable particularity. Defendant further 

objects to this Request on the basis that it seeks documents not in Defendant’s possession, custody, 

or control. 

To the extent responsive, non-privileged documents exist, Defendant withholds them on 

the basis of the foregoing objections.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 77

All documents supporting Your denial of paragraph 113 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.

Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, 

oppressive, and not proportional to the needs of the case. Defendant further objects on the ground 

Case: 1:20-cv-02402 Document #: 50-5 Filed: 11/01/21 Page 48 of 57 PageID #:531
48

that the Request is premature at this stage in the litigation, given that discovery is ongoing and 

Defendant’s investigation continues. Defendant further objects to this Request to the extent it 

seeks documents that have not been specified with reasonable particularity. Defendant further 

objects to this Request on the ground that it implies a legal conclusion.

To the extent responsive, non-privileged documents exist, Defendant withholds them on 

the basis of the foregoing objections.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 78

All documents supporting Your denial of paragraph 114 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.

Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, 

oppressive, and not proportional to the needs of the case. Defendant further objects on the ground 

that the Request is premature at this stage in the litigation, given that discovery is ongoing and 

Defendant’s investigation continues. Defendant further objects to this Request to the extent it 

seeks documents that have not been specified with reasonable particularity. 

To the extent responsive, non-privileged documents exist, Defendant will produce, based 

on a search of reasonable scope that is proportional to the needs of the case and consistent with the 

parties’ ESI protocol, documents supporting this defense. Defendant intends to begin production 

after entry of an appropriate protective order regarding confidentiality.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 79

All documents supporting Your denial of paragraph 125 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.

Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, 

oppressive, and not proportional to the needs of the case. Defendant further objects on the ground 

that the Request is premature at this stage in the litigation, given that discovery is ongoing and 

Case: 1:20-cv-02402 Document #: 50-5 Filed: 11/01/21 Page 49 of 57 PageID #:532
49

Defendant’s investigation continues. Defendant further objects to this Request to the extent it 

seeks documents that have not been specified with reasonable particularity. Defendant further 

objects to this Request on the ground that it implies a legal conclusion.

To the extent responsive, non-privileged documents exist, Defendant will produce, based 

on a search of reasonable scope that is proportional to the needs of the case and consistent with the 

parties’ ESI protocol, documents supporting this defense. Defendant intends to begin production 

after entry of an appropriate protective order regarding confidentiality.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 80

All documents supporting Your denial of paragraph 126 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.

Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, 

oppressive, and not proportional to the needs of the case. Defendant further objects to this Request 

on the ground that it implies a legal conclusion. Defendant further objects on the ground that the 

Request is premature at this stage in the litigation, given that discovery is ongoing and Defendant’s 

investigation continues. Defendant further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks documents

that have not been specified with reasonable particularity. 

To the extent responsive, non-privileged documents exist, Defendant withholds them on 

the basis of the foregoing objections.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 81

All documents supporting Your denial of paragraph 127 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.

Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, 

oppressive, and not proportional to the needs of the case. Defendant further objects on the ground 

that the Request is premature at this stage in the litigation, given that discovery is ongoing and 

Case: 1:20-cv-02402 Document #: 50-5 Filed: 11/01/21 Page 50 of 57 PageID #:533
50

Defendant’s investigation continues. Defendant further objects to this Request to the extent it 

seeks documents that have not been specified with reasonable particularity. Defendant further 

objects to this Request on the ground that it implies a legal conclusion.

To the extent responsive, non-privileged documents exist, Defendant withholds them on 

the basis of the foregoing objections.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 82

All documents supporting Your denial of paragraph 129 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.

Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, 

oppressive, and not proportional to the needs of the case. Defendant further objects on the ground 

that the Request is premature at this stage in the litigation, given that discovery is ongoing and 

Defendant’s investigation continues. Defendant further objects to this Request to the extent it 

seeks documents that have not been specified with reasonable particularity. Defendant further 

objects to this Request on the ground that it implies a legal conclusion.

To the extent responsive, non-privileged documents exist, Defendant will produce, based 

on a search of reasonable scope that is proportional to the needs of the case and consistent with the 

parties’ ESI protocol, documents supporting this defense. Defendant intends to begin production 

after entry of an appropriate protective order regarding confidentiality.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 83

All documents supporting Your Second Defense, No Actual or Proximate Injury.

Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, 

oppressive, and not proportional to the needs of the case. Defendant further objects on the ground 

that the Request is premature at this stage in the litigation, given that discovery is ongoing and 

Case: 1:20-cv-02402 Document #: 50-5 Filed: 11/01/21 Page 51 of 57 PageID #:534
51

Defendant’s investigation continues. Defendant further objects to this Request to the extent it 

seeks documents that have not been specified with reasonable particularity. 

Subject to and without waiving these objections, Defendant responds as follows: the 

defenses it intends to raise regarding “No Actual or Proximate Injury” are still under investigation 

and will be disclosed at the appropriate stage of this litigation as discovery proceeds. Defendant 

reserves the right to supplement this response as appropriate in the future. To the extent 

responsive, non-privileged documents exist, Defendant will produce, based on a search of 

reasonable scope that is proportional to the needs of the case and consistent with the parties’ ESI 

protocol, documents supporting this defense. Defendant intends to begin production after entry of 

an appropriate protective order regarding confidentiality.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 84

All documents supporting Your Fifth Defense, Lack of Deception or Misrepresentation.

Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, 

oppressive, and not proportional to the needs of the case. Defendant further objects on the ground 

that the Request is premature at this stage in the litigation, given that discovery is ongoing and 

Defendant’s investigation continues. Defendant further objects to this Request to the extent it 

seeks documents that have not been specified with reasonable particularity. 

Subject to and without waiving these objections, Defendant responds as follows: the 

defenses it intends to raise regarding “Lack of Deception or Misrepresentation” are still under 

investigation and will be disclosed at the appropriate stage of this litigation as discovery proceeds. 

Defendant reserves the right to supplement this response as appropriate in the future. To the extent 

responsive, non-privileged documents exist, Defendant will produce, based on a search of 

reasonable scope that is proportional to the needs of the case and consistent with the parties’ ESI 

Case: 1:20-cv-02402 Document #: 50-5 Filed: 11/01/21 Page 52 of 57 PageID #:535
52

protocol, documents supporting this defense. Defendant intends to begin production after entry of 

an appropriate protective order regarding confidentiality.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 85

All documents supporting Your Sixth Defense, that Wells Fargo “at all times acted in good 

faith and honesty in fact.”

Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, 

oppressive, and not proportional to the needs of the case. Defendant further objects on the ground 

that the Request is premature at this stage in the litigation, given that discovery is ongoing and 

Defendant’s investigation continues. Defendant further objects to this Request to the extent it 

seeks documents that have not been specified with reasonable particularity. 

Subject to and without waiving these objections, Defendant responds as follows: the 

defenses it intends to raise regarding it “at all times acted in good faith and honesty in fact” are 

still under investigation and will be disclosed at the appropriate stage of this litigation as discovery 

proceeds. Defendant reserves the right to supplement this response as appropriate in the future. 

To the extent responsive, non-privileged documents exist, Defendant will produce, based on a 

search of reasonable scope that is proportional to the needs of the case and consistent with the 

parties’ ESI protocol, documents supporting this defense. Defendant intends to begin production 

after entry of an appropriate protective order regarding confidentiality.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 86

All documents supporting Your Sixth Defense, that Wells Fargo “always observed 

reasonable commercial standards of fair dealing in the trade, when dealing with the Garcias.”

Case: 1:20-cv-02402 Document #: 50-5 Filed: 11/01/21 Page 53 of 57 PageID #:536
53

Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, 

oppressive, and not proportional to the needs of the case. Defendant further objects to this Request 

on the grounds that it implies a legal conclusion. Defendant further objects on the ground that the 

Request is premature at this stage in the litigation, given that discovery is ongoing and Defendant’s 

investigation continues. Defendant further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks documents

that have not been specified with reasonable particularity. 

Subject to and without waiving these objections, Defendant responds as follows: the 

defenses it intends to raise regarding it “always observed reasonable commercial standard of fair 

dealing in the trade, when dealing with the Garcias” are still under investigation and will be 

disclosed at the appropriate stage of this litigation as discovery proceeds. Defendant reserves the 

right to supplement this response as appropriate in the future. To the extent responsive, nonprivileged documents exist, Defendant will produce, based on a search of reasonable scope that is 

proportional to the needs of the case and consistent with the parties’ ESI protocol, documents 

supporting this defense. Defendant intends to begin production after entry of an appropriate 

protective order regarding confidentiality.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 87

Please produce a copy of each and every document and record relied upon in responding 

to any of the Interrogatories, Requests for Production of Documents and Requests for Admission.

Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, 

oppressive, and not proportional to the needs of the case. Defendant objects to the extent that the 

Request seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine. 

Defendant further objects on the ground that the Request is premature at this stage in the litigation,

Case: 1:20-cv-02402 Document #: 50-5 Filed: 11/01/21 Page 54 of 57 PageID #:537
54

given that discovery is ongoing and Defendant’s investigation continues. Defendant further 

objects to this Request to the extent it seeks documentsthat have not been specified with reasonable 

particularity. 

To the extent responsive, non-privileged documents exist, Defendant will produce, based 

on a search of reasonable scope that is proportional to the needs of the case and consistent with the 

parties’ ESI protocol, documents and records relied upon in responding to any of the 

Interrogatories, Requests for Production of Documents, and Requests for Admission. Defendant

intends to begin production after entry of an appropriate protective order regarding confidentiality.

Case: 1:20-cv-02402 Document #: 50-5 Filed: 11/01/21 Page 55 of 57 PageID #:538
55

Dated: August 6, 2021 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Angela A. Smedley

Angela A. Smedley (pro hac vice) 

Winston & Strawn LLP

200 Park Avenue

New York, NY 10166

Phone: 212-294-6700

Fax: 212-294-4700

asmedley@winston.com

Shawn R. Obi (pro hac vice)

Winston & Strawn LLP

333 South Grand Avenue

Los Angeles, CA 90071

Phone: 213-615-1700

Fax: 213-615-1750

sobi@winston.com

Counsel for Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

Case: 1:20-cv-02402 Document #: 50-5 Filed: 11/01/21 Page 56 of 57 PageID #:539
56

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that on the 6th day of August 2021, the foregoing was 

served upon the following:

Rusty A. Payton

Payton Legal Group

20 North Clark Street, Suite 3300

Chicago, Illinois 60602

(773) 682-5210

info@payton.legal

Salvador J. Lopez

Robson & Lopez, LLC

180 W. Washington Street, Suite 700

Chicago, Illinois 60602

(312) 525-2166

lopez@robsonlopez.com

Nicholas H. Wooten

Nick Wooten, LLC

5125 Burnt Pine Drive

Conway, Arkansas 72034

(833) 937-6389

nick@nickwooten.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff

 /s/ Angela A. Smedley

Case: 1:20-cv-02402 Document #: 50-5 Filed: 11/01/21 Page 57 of 57 PageID #:540