EXHIBIT 2

Case: 1:20-cv-02402 Document #: 50-2 Filed: 11/01/21 Page 1 of 28 PageID #:451
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 SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND 

RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS

Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 and 33, Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, 

N.A. (“Defendant”) hereby supplements its objections and responses to Plaintiff Andrew 

Maxwell’s (“Plaintiff”) First Set of Requests for Admission. 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”) to Plaintiff’s 

Requests are based upon Defendant’s knowledge, information, and belief at this time. Defendant 

has made a reasonable and good faith effort to respond. However, Defendant has not fully 

completed its investigation relating to the facts in this action, has not fully completed discovery in 

this action, and has not completed preparation for trial. The responses contained herein are based 

only on such information and documents which are presently available and specifically known to 

Defendant and disclose only those contentions which presently occur to Defendant. It is 

Case: 1:20-cv-02402 Document #: 50-2 Filed: 11/01/21 Page 2 of 28 PageID #:452
anticipated that further discovery, independent investigation, legal research, and analysis will 

supply additional facts and meaning to the known facts, as well as establish entirely new factual 

conclusions and legal conclusions, all of which may lead to substantial additions to, and variations 

in, the contentions set forth herein. Defendant specifically reserves the right to amend these 

responses should additional information become available and to use such information.

No incidental or implied admissions are intended in this response. The fact that Defendant 

has responded to the Requests should not be taken as an admission that Defendant accepts or 

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

constitutes admissible evidence. The fact that Defendant has responded to the Requests is not 

intended to and shall not be construed to be a waiver by Defendant of all or any part of any 

objection to the Requests.

These introductory paragraphs shall apply to the responses given herein and shall be 

incorporated by this reference as though fully set forth in each of the following responses.

Defendant makes this response to the Requests solely for the purpose of this action. The response 

is subject to all objections as to competence, relevance, materiality, propriety, admissibility, 

privilege, privacy and the like, and any and all other objections on ground that it would require the 

exclusion of the response herein if such were offered in court, all of which objections and ground

are reserved and may be interposed at the time of trial.

RESPONSES & OBJECTIONS

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1

Admit that Wells Fargo denied the Garcias for a trial mortgage loan modification on or 

about November 20, 2008.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 1

Admitted.

Case: 1:20-cv-02402 Document #: 50-2 Filed: 11/01/21 Page 3 of 28 PageID #:453
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 2

Admit that Wells Fargo wrongly denied the Garcias for a trial mortgage loan modification 

on or about August 24, 2010.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 2

Defendant objects to this Request to the extent that the term “wrongly” is vague, ambiguous 

and implies a legal conclusion. 

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, Defendant 

responds as follows: Admitted that Defendant denied the Garcias for a trial mortgage loan 

modification on or about August 24, 2010 as a result of a calculation error in its decisioning 

software.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3

Admit that Wells Fargo wrongly denied the Garcias for a trial mortgage loan modification 

on or about November 12, 2010.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 3

Defendant objects to this Request to the extent the term “wrongly denied” is vague, 

ambiguous and implies a legal conclusion. 

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, Defendant 

responds as follows: Admitted that Defendant denied the Garcias for a trial mortgage loan 

modification on or about August 24, 2010 as a result of a calculation error in its decisioning 

software and notified the Garcias by letter dated November 12, 2010.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 4

Admit that in November 2010, Wells Fargo used the same mortgage loan modification 

underwriting tool as it used on August 24, 2010.

Case: 1:20-cv-02402 Document #: 50-2 Filed: 11/01/21 Page 4 of 28 PageID #:454
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 4

Defendant objects to this Request on the ground that it seeks information that is not relevant 

to the claims and defenses in this case. Defendant further objects to this Request on the grounds 

that it is vague, ambiguous and overbroad.

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, Defendant 

responds as follows: Admitted that Wells Fargo’s HPA Tool was used during those time periods.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 5

Admit that Wells Fargo wrongly denied the Garcias for a trial mortgage loan modification 

on or about December 1, 2010.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 5

Defendant objects to this Request to the extent the term “wrongly denied” is vague, 

ambiguous and implies a legal conclusion. 

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, Defendant 

responds as follows: Denied. 

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 6

Admit that in December 2010, Wells Fargo used the same mortgage loan modification 

underwriting tool as it used on August 24, 2010.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 6

Defendant objects to this Request on the ground that it seeks information that is not relevant 

to the claims and defenses in this case. Defendant further objects to this Request on the grounds 

that it is vague, ambiguous, and overbroad. 

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, Defendant 

responds as follows: Admitted that Wells Fargo’s HPA Tool was used during those time periods.

Case: 1:20-cv-02402 Document #: 50-2 Filed: 11/01/21 Page 5 of 28 PageID #:455
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 7

Admit that Wells Fargo wrongly denied the Garcias for a trial mortgage loan modification

on February 7, 2011.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 7

Defendant objects to this Request to the extent the term “wrongly denied” is vague, 

ambiguous and implies a legal conclusion. 

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, Defendant 

responds as follows: Denied.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 8

Admit that in February 2011, Wells Fargo used the same mortgage loan modification 

underwriting tool as it used on August 24, 2010.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 8

Defendant objects to this Request on the ground that it seeks information that is not relevant

to the claims and defenses in this case. Defendant further objects to this Request on the grounds 

that it is vague, ambiguous, and overbroad.

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, Defendant 

responds as follows: Admitted that Wells Fargo’s HPA Tool was used during those time periods.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 9

Admit that Wells Fargo sold the Garcias’ Family Home at a judicial foreclosure sale on 

February 18, 2011.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 9

Defendant objects to this Request on the ground that it seeks information in the possession 

of, known to, or otherwise equally available to Plaintiff. 

Case: 1:20-cv-02402 Document #: 50-2 Filed: 11/01/21 Page 6 of 28 PageID #:456
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, Defendant 

responds as follows: Admitted.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 10

Admit that Wells Fargo’s calculation error in its mortgage loan modification underwriting 

tool caused the Garcias to be denied for a trial mortgage loan modification.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 10

Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that is vague, ambiguous, and compound. 

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, Defendant 

responds as follows: Admitted as to the decision in August 2010. 

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 11

Admit that on August 24, 2010, the foreclosure on the Garcias’ mortgage loan and Family 

Home proceeded because Wells Fargo denied the Garcias’ application for a trial mortgage loan 

modification.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 11

Denied.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 12

Admit that if the Garcias had been approved for the trial loan mortgage modification on 

August 24, 2010, the Garcias would have had the opportunity to enter the trial payment plan.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 12

Admitted.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 13

Admit that the trial payment plan would have required the Garcias to make three monthly 

payments prior to February 1, 2011.

Case: 1:20-cv-02402 Document #: 50-2 Filed: 11/01/21 Page 7 of 28 PageID #:457
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 13

Admitted that the trial payment plan would have required the Garcias to make at least three

monthly payments prior to February 1, 2011.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 14

Admit that if the Garcias had been approved for the trial loan mortgage modification on 

August 24, 2010, and after timely making all three trial plan payments, the Garcias would have 

entered into a permanent loan modification.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 14

Defendant objects to this Request on the ground that it is speculative. Subject to and 

without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, Defendant responds that it lacks 

knowledge and information sufficient to form a basis as to the truth or falsity of this Request in 

light of the multiple factors required to determine whether a permanent loan modification is 

granted and, on that basis, denies this Request. 

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 15

Admit that a permanent loan modification would have caused the foreclosure proceeding 

to be dismissed.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 15

Defendant objects to this Request on the ground that it is vague, ambiguous, and 

unintelligible. Defendant further objects to this Request on the ground that it is speculative and 

seeks information based on an unfounded presupposition that the Garcias would have completed 

the trial period payments and qualified for a permanent modification.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 16

Admit that the calculation error in Wells Fargo’s mortgage loan modification underwriting 

tool caused the Garcias to lose their Family Home through the judicial foreclosure sale. 

Case: 1:20-cv-02402 Document #: 50-2 Filed: 11/01/21 Page 8 of 28 PageID #:458
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 16

Denied.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 17

Admit that Wells Fargo purchased the Garcias’ Family Home at the February 18, 2011 

judicial foreclosure sale for a bid of $144,500.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 17

Defendant objects to this Request on the ground that it seeks information in the possession 

of, known to, or otherwise equally available to Plaintiff. 

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, Defendant 

responds as follows: Admitted.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 18

Admit that a deficiency judgment was entered against the Garcias personally after the 

judicial foreclosure sale. 

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 18

Defendant objects to this Request on the ground that it seeks information in the possession 

of, known to, or otherwise equally available to Plaintiff.

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, Defendant 

responds as follows: The Bank admits that a deficiency judgment was obtained by Deutsche Bank 

as Trustee for a Morgan Stanley Trust.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 19

Admit that the Order of possession on the Garcias’ Family Home was entered on March 

29, 2011.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 19

Defendant objects to this Request on the ground that it seeks information in the possession 

Case: 1:20-cv-02402 Document #: 50-2 Filed: 11/01/21 Page 9 of 28 PageID #:459
of, known to, or otherwise equally available to Plaintiff. 

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, Defendant 

responds as follows: Admitted.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 20

Admit that on August 24, 2010, Wells Fargo calculated the Garcias’ mortgage loan account 

as having a delinquency in the total amount of $76,179. 

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 20

Defendant objects to this Request on the ground that it seeks information that is not relevant 

to the claims and defenses in this case. 

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, Defendant 

responds as follows: Admitted that on August 24, 2010, the Garcias’ mortgage loan account was 

delinquent in an amount totaling $76,178.52. 

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 21

Admit that the July 26, 2019 letter refers to Wells Fargo’s August 24, 2010 wrongful denial 

of the Garcias for a HAMP Tier 1-Standard trial loan modification.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 21

Defendant objects to this Request on the ground that it seeks information in the possession 

of, known to, or otherwise equally available to Plaintiff. Defendant objects to this Request to the 

extent the term “wrongful denial” implies a legal conclusion. 

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, Defendant 

responds as follows: Admitted that the July 26, 2019 letter refers to Wells Fargo’s August 24, 2010 

denial of the Garcias for a HAMP Tier 1-Standard loan modification. Except as expressly 

admitted, Defendant otherwise denies this Request. 

Case: 1:20-cv-02402 Document #: 50-2 Filed: 11/01/21 Page 10 of 28 PageID #:460
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 22

Admit that Wells Fargo’s faulty calculation was the sole reason for the August 24, 2010 

denial of the Garcias for a HAMP trial loan modification.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 22

Defendant objects to this Request to the extent the terms “faulty calculation” and “sole 

reason” imply a legal conclusion. 

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, Defendant 

responds as follows: Admitted.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 23

Admit that Wells Fargo outsourced foreclosure or related functions, including loss 

mitigation and loan modification, to Third Party Providers from September 1, 2008 to March 29, 

2011. 

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 23

Defendant objects to this Request on the ground that the terms “outsourced” and “Third 

Party Providers” are vague and ambiguous. Defendant further objects to this Request on the 

ground that it seeks information that is not relevant to the claims and defenses in this case. 

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

oppressive, and disproportionate to the claims and defenses in this case. 

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, Defendant 

responds as follows with respect to the Garcias’ loan at issue here: Denied.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 24

Admit that between 2010 and 2018, Wells Fargo failed to detect systematic errors in its 

automated mortgage loan modification underwriting tool.

Case: 1:20-cv-02402 Document #: 50-2 Filed: 11/01/21 Page 11 of 28 PageID #:461
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 24

Defendant objects to this Request on the ground that is overly broad, unduly burdensome, 

and seeks information not relevant to the claims and defenses in this case. Defendant further 

objects to this Request on the ground that the term “systematic errors” is vague and ambiguous. 

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, Defendant 

responds as follows: Denied.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 25

Admit that the automated mortgage loan modification underwriting tool was used to 

determine Wells Fargo customers’ eligibility for a government-mandated mortgage modification 

between January 8, 2009 and February 7, 2011.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 25

Defendant objects to this Request on the ground that the term “automated mortgage loan 

modification underwriting tool” is vague and ambiguous. Defendant further objects to this 

Request on the ground that it seeks information that is not relevant to the claims and defenses in 

this case. Defendant also objects to this Request on the ground that it is overbroad. 

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, Defendant

responds as follows: Denied.

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 25.

Defendant objects to this Request on the ground that the term “automated mortgage loan 

modification underwriting tool” is vague and ambiguous. Defendant further objects to this 

Request on the ground that it seeks information that is not relevant to the claims and defenses in 

this case. Defendant also objects to this Request on the ground that it is overbroad. 

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, Defendant 

responds as follows: Admitted that Defendant used an automated mortgage loan modification 

Case: 1:20-cv-02402 Document #: 50-2 Filed: 11/01/21 Page 12 of 28 PageID #:462
underwriting tool to determine Wells Fargo customers’ eligibility for mortgage modifications for 

government-sponsored loans between April 2010 and continuing through the decision with respect 

to the Garcias’ loan on August 24, 2010. As to the remaining time frame in the Request, denied. 

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 26

Admit that between September 1, 2008 and March 29, 2011, Wells Fargo failed to verify 

that its software for mortgage modification eligibility was correctly calculating whether its 

customers met threshold requirements for a mortgage modification.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 26

Defendant objects to this Request to the extent the term “failed to verify” implies a legal 

conclusion. Defendant further objects to this Request on the ground that it is harassing.

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, Defendant 

responds as follows: Denied.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 27

Admit that between September 1, 2008 and March 29, 2011, Wells Fargo failed to regularly 

and properly audit its mortgage modification software for compliance with government 

requirements. 

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 27

Defendant objects to this Request to the extent it implies a legal conclusion. Defendant 

further objects to this Request on the ground that the terms “regularly” and “properly” are vague 

and ambiguous. Defendant objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information protected by 

the bank examiner privilege. See 12 C.F.R. § 4.36 et seq. 

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, Defendant 

responds as follows: Denied.

Case: 1:20-cv-02402 Document #: 50-2 Filed: 11/01/21 Page 13 of 28 PageID #:463
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 28

Admit that from September 1, 2008 to March 29, 2011, Wells Fargo had no training 

manuals regarding its employees who worked on and/or provided any service related to Wells 

Fargo’s loss mitigation and loan modification process, foreclosures and bankruptcies.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 28

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

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, Defendant 

answers as follows: Denied.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 29

Admit that from September 1, 2008 to March 29, 2011, Wells Fargo had no policies and 

procedures in place pertaining to its loss mitigation and modification processes.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 29

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

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, Defendant 

answers as follows: Denied.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 30

Admit that from September 1, 2008 to March 29, 2011, Wells Fargo had no policies and 

procedures in place pertaining to mortgage loan accounts in foreclosure and Wells Fargo 

customers’ pending mortgage loss mitigation and loan modification applications.

Case: 1:20-cv-02402 Document #: 50-2 Filed: 11/01/21 Page 14 of 28 PageID #:464
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 30

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

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, Defendant 

answers as follows: Denied.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 31

Admit that from September 1, 2008 to March 29, 2011, Wells Fargo had no policies and 

procedures in place regarding the outsourcing of 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 firm, or other third-party.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 31

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

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 32

Admit that from September 1, 2008 to March 29, 2011, Wells Fargo had no policies and 

procedures in place to ensure the 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.

Case: 1:20-cv-02402 Document #: 50-2 Filed: 11/01/21 Page 15 of 28 PageID #:465
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 32

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

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 33

Admit that from September 1, 2008 to March 29, 2011, Wells Fargo had no policies and 

procedures in place to ensure the accuracy of work performed by third-party 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.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 33

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

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 34

Admit that from September 1, 2008 to March 29, 2011, Wells Fargo had no policies and 

procedures in place pertaining to the review of consumers’ applications for HAMP loan 

modifications. 

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 34

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

Defendant further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information protected by the bank 

examiner privilege. See 12 C.F.R. § 4.36 et seq. 

Case: 1:20-cv-02402 Document #: 50-2 Filed: 11/01/21 Page 16 of 28 PageID #:466
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, Defendant 

answers as follows: Denied.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 35

Admit that from September 1, 2008 to March 29, 2011, Wells Fargo had no policies and 

procedures in place for the internal review and audit for accuracy of Wells Fargo’s denial of its 

customers’ applications for HAMP loan modifications.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 35

Defendant objects to this Request on the ground 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 information that is not relevant to the claims and defenses in this case

and is compound. Defendant further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information 

protected by the bank examiner privilege. See 12 C.F.R. § 4.36 et seq. 

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, Defendant 

answers as follows: Denied.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 36

Admit that from September 1, 2008 to March 29, 2011, Wells Fargo had no policies and 

procedures in place pertaining to auditing and compliance in its mortgage modification and 

foreclosure procedures.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 36

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

Defendant further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information protected by the bank 

examiner privilege. See 12 C.F.R. § 4.36 et seq. 

Case: 1:20-cv-02402 Document #: 50-2 Filed: 11/01/21 Page 17 of 28 PageID #:467
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, Defendant 

answers as follows: Denied.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 37

Admit that Wells Fargo was ordered to pay a civil money penalty in the amount of seventy 

million dollars ($70,000,000) in 2016. 

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 37

Defendant objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information protected by the bank 

examiner privilege. See 12 C.F.R. § 4.36 et seq. Defendant further objects to this Request on the 

ground that it seeks information that is not relevant to the claims and defenses in this case and 

seeks information equally available to Plaintiff through public sources. 

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 38

Admit that the 2016 civil money penalty was based on Well Fargo’s practices and 

violations of the 2011 Consent Order from October 1, 2014 through August 31, 2015, by failing 

to achieve compliance in a timely manner with the 2011 Consent Order as detailed in the June 16, 

2015 Amended Consent Order. 

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 38

Defendant objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information protected by the bank 

examiner privilege. See 12 C.F.R. § 4.36 et seq. Defendant further objects to this Request on the 

ground that it seeks information that is not relevant to the claims and defenses in this case. 

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

oppressive, and disproportionate to the claims and defenses in this case. Defendant also objects to 

this Request to the extent that it seeks information equally available to Plaintiff through public 

sources.

Case: 1:20-cv-02402 Document #: 50-2 Filed: 11/01/21 Page 18 of 28 PageID #:468
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 39

Admit that between March 2013 through October 2014, Wells Fargo made escrow 

calculation errors in 76,720 accounts due to an error in a “proprietary loan decisioning software 

tool.”

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 39

Defendant objects to this Request to the extent it implies a legal conclusion. Defendant 

further objects to this Request to the extent the term “escrow calculation errors” is irrelevant,

vague, and ambiguous. Defendant also objects to this Request on the ground that it is overbroad, 

unduly burdensome, oppressive, and disproportionate to the claims and defenses in this case. 

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 40

Admit that the escrow calculation errors led to approximately 184 incorrect loan 

modification denials. 

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 40

Defendant objects to this Request to the extent it implies a legal conclusion. Defendant 

further objects to this Request to the extent the term “escrow calculation errors” is irrelevant, 

vague, and ambiguous. Defendant also objects to this Request on the ground that it is overbroad, 

unduly burdensome, oppressive, and disproportionate to the claims and defenses in this case. 

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 41

Admit that in October 2015, Wells Fargo discovered another error in its mortgage 

modification software which caused it to wrongly deny mortgage modifications to 625 customers.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 41

Defendant objects to this Request on the ground that the phrase “another error” is 

irrelevant, vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible. Defendant further objects to this Request to the 

extent the term “wrongly deny” is vague and implies a legal conclusion. Defendant also objects 

Case: 1:20-cv-02402 Document #: 50-2 Filed: 11/01/21 Page 19 of 28 PageID #:469
to this Request on the ground that it is compound, overbroad, unduly burdensome, oppressive, and 

disproportionate to the claims and defenses in this case. 

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 42

Admit that Wells Fargo did not disclose to the OCC the error in its modification software 

discovered in October 2015.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 42

Defendant objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information protected by the bank 

examiner privilege. See 12 C.F.R. § 4.36 et seq. Defendant objects to this Request to the extent 

that it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work-product protection. 

Defendant further objects to this Request on the ground that it seeks information that is not relevant 

to the claims and defenses in this case. 

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 43

Admit that the “proprietary loan decisioning software tool” was used by Wells Fargo in 

2010 and 2011.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 43

Defendant objects to this Request on the ground that it seeks information that is not relevant 

to the claims and defenses in this case. Defendant further objects on the ground that the term 

“proprietary loan decisioning software tool” is vague and ambiguous. 

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, Defendant 

responds as follows: Admitted based on Defendant’s interpretation of “proprietary loan 

decisioning software tool.”

Case: 1:20-cv-02402 Document #: 50-2 Filed: 11/01/21 Page 20 of 28 PageID #:470
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 43

Defendant objects to this Request on the ground that it seeks information that is not relevant 

to the claims and defenses in this case. Defendant further objects on the ground that the term 

“proprietary loan decisioning software tool” is vague and ambiguous. 

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, Defendant 

responds as follows: Admitted based on Defendant’s interpretation of “proprietary loan 

decisioning software tool”, which is the Home Preservation Application tool or “HPA” tool. 

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 44

Admit that the “proprietary loan decisioning software tool” was used by Wells Fargo in 

wrongly denying the Garcias for a trial modification. 

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 44

Defendant objects to this Request to the extent the term “wrongly denying” implies a legal 

conclusion. Defendant further objects on the ground that the term “proprietary loan decisioning 

software tool” is vague and ambiguous. 

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, Defendant 

responds as follows: Admitted that the August 24, 2010 decision in this case was made using said 

software, based on Defendant’s interpretation of “proprietary loan decisioning software tool.” 

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 45

Admit that Wells Fargo force-placed insurance on the Garcias’ property. 

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 45

Defendant objects to this Request on the ground that the terms “property” and “forceplaced” are vague and ambiguous. Defendant further objects on the ground that the Request is 

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

Case: 1:20-cv-02402 Document #: 50-2 Filed: 11/01/21 Page 21 of 28 PageID #:471
objects to this Request on the ground that it seeks documents that are not relevant to the claims 

and defenses in this case.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 46

Admit that the Garcias were actually and proximately injured by reason of Wells Fargo’s 

actions or omissions. 

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 46

Defendant further objects to this Request on the ground that the terms “actions” and

“omissions” are vague and ambiguous. Defendant objects to this Request to the extent it implies 

a legal conclusion. 

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, Defendant 

responds as follows: Denied.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 47

Admit that Wells Fargo failed to act in good faith when dealing with the Garcias. 

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 47

Defendant objects to this Request on the ground that it is vague and ambiguous. Defendant 

further objects to this Request to the extent it implies a legal conclusion. 

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, Defendant 

responds as follows: Denied.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 48

Admit that from August 24, 2010 to March 29, 2011, Wells Fargo failed to disclose its 

calculation error to the Garcias.

Case: 1:20-cv-02402 Document #: 50-2 Filed: 11/01/21 Page 22 of 28 PageID #:472
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 48

Defendant objects to this Request to the extent it implies a legal conclusion. Defendant 

further objects to this Request on the grounds that it assumes facts not in evidence and is 

compound.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 49

Admit that Wells Fargo deceptively told the Garcias that they did not qualify for a HAMP 

trial modification. 

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 49

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, Defendant 

responds as follows: Denied.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 50

Admit that Wells Fargo cannot cause needless harm to consumers in the course of its 

mortgage servicing operations. 

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 50

Defendant objects to this Request to the extent it implies a legal conclusion. Defendant 

further objects to this Request on the ground that it is vague, ambiguous, compound, and 

unintelligible. Defendant additionally objects to this Request on the ground that it is harassing.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 51

Admit that wrongfully denying a family a mortgage modification will cause the family 

needless harm. 

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 51

Defendant objects to this Request to the extent the term “wrongfully denying” implies a 

legal conclusion. Defendant further objects to this Request on the ground that it is vague, 

Case: 1:20-cv-02402 Document #: 50-2 Filed: 11/01/21 Page 23 of 28 PageID #:473
ambiguous, unintelligible, and harassing. Defendant additionally objects to this Request on the 

ground that it is overbroad. 

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 52

Admit that Wells Fargo is required to follow the law while conducting its mortgage 

servicing operations. 

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 52

Defendant objects to this Request on the ground that it implies a legal conclusion. 

Defendant further objects to this Request on the ground that it is vague, ambiguous, unintelligible,

and harassing. Defendant additionally objects to this Request on the ground that it is overbroad. 

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 53

Admit that Wells Fargo cannot engage in unfair conduct while conducting its mortgage 

servicing operations. 

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 53

Defendant objects to this Request on the ground that it implies a legal conclusion. 

Defendant further objects to this Request on the ground that it is vague, ambiguous, unintelligible,

and harassing. Defendant additionally objects to this Request on the ground that it is overbroad.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 54

Admit that wrongfully denying a family a mortgage modification is unfair as that term is 

defined by the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act. 

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 54

Defendant objects to this Request to the extent the terms “unfair” and “wrongfully 

denying” implies a legal conclusion. Defendant further objects to this Request on the ground that 

it is vague, ambiguous, and constitutes an incomplete hypothetical. Defendant additionally objects 

to this Request on the ground that it is overbroad.

Case: 1:20-cv-02402 Document #: 50-2 Filed: 11/01/21 Page 24 of 28 PageID #:474
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 55

Admit that the highest levels of Wells Fargo’s management had both notice and knowledge 

of the errors with the “proprietary loan decisioning software tool” being used by Wells Fargo prior 

to the Garcias’ first being denied for a loan modification. 

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 55

Defendant objects to this Request to the extent it implies a legal conclusion and is 

compound and harassing. Defendant further objects to this Request on the ground that the term 

“highest level of Wells Fargo’s management” is vague and ambiguous. Defendant objects to this 

Request to the extent that it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or 

work-product protection. 

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 56

Admit that, but for Your calculation error that led you to wrongly deny the Garcias a trial 

mortgage loan modification, the Garcias’ home would not have been sold at judicial foreclosure 

sale on February 18, 2011.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 56

Defendant objects to this Request to the extent the terms “but for” and “wrongly deny” 

implies a legal conclusion. Defendant also objects to this Request on the ground that it is 

speculative. 

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, Defendant 

responds as follows: Denied.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 57

Admit that, but for Your calculation error that led you to wrongly deny the Garcias a trial 

mortgage loan modification, a deficiency judgement would not have been entered against the 

Garcias on March 29, 2011.

Case: 1:20-cv-02402 Document #: 50-2 Filed: 11/01/21 Page 25 of 28 PageID #:475
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 57

Defendant objects to this Request to the extent the terms “but for” and “wrongly deny” 

implies a legal conclusion. Defendant further objects to this Request on the ground that it is 

speculative.

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, Defendant 

responds as follows: Denied.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 58

Admit that, but for your calculation error, the Garcias would have still owned the Home on 

March 29, 2011.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 58

Defendant objects to this Request to the extent it implies a legal conclusion. Defendant 

further objects to this Request on the ground that it is speculative. 

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, Defendant 

responds as follows: Denied.

Dated: October 22, 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

Case: 1:20-cv-02402 Document #: 50-2 Filed: 11/01/21 Page 26 of 28 PageID #:476
sobi@winston.com

Counsel for Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

Case: 1:20-cv-02402 Document #: 50-2 Filed: 11/01/21 Page 27 of 28 PageID #:477
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that on the 22nd day of October 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 #: 50-2 Filed: 11/01/21 Page 28 of 28 PageID #:478