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); 

EDUARDO GARCIA; JULIA GARCIA; 

BYRON GARCIA; and MIRIAHM 

GARCIA, individually, 

 Plaintiff,

 v.

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,

 Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 1:20-cv-02402

Honorable Rebecca R. Pallmeyer

Honorable Heather K. McShain

JOINT STATUS REPORT 

1. Current Status. The Parties are currently working on fact discovery issues. The status of 

written discovery and document productions are as follows: 

a. Plaintiff’s Interrogatories.

Parties’ Position:

In keeping with the Court’s November 9, 2021 Order (Dkt. No. 53), Wells Fargo served 

verified supplemental interrogatory responses on Plaintiff on December 14, 2021. 

b. Plaintiff’s Requests for Production.

Plaintiff’s Position:

Wells Fargo previously produced 1466 pages of documents that were loan specific to the 

Garcias’ mortgage loan account. In addition, Wells Fargo made an initial production of 

documents previously produced in the Hernandez class action.

Defendant’s Position:

Pursuant to the Court’s November 9, 2021 Order (Dkt. No. 53) and the December 3, 2021 

status hearing, on December 9, 2021, Wells Fargo produced documents that were 

previously produced in the Hernandez v. Wells Fargo & Co., No. C 18-07354 WHA (N.D. 

Case: 1:20-cv-02402 Document #: 60 Filed: 12/17/21 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:645
Cal. June 3, 2019) (“Hernandez”) litigation that do not contain redactions of personally 

identifying information. Following that production, on December 13, 2021, Plaintiff 

identified 37 additional documents and requested that Defendant produce those documents

as they were redacted in the Hernandez litigation. Defendant has agreed to produce those 

documents in redacted form to account for borrower-specific information, except for two 

documents that Plaintiff identified that were clawed back on privilege grounds in the 

Hernandez action. Defendant has informed Plaintiff that for certain of those documents, 

Defendant has added further redactions to ensure that borrower-specific information has 

been redacted, beyond what was redacted in their production in the Hernandez litigation.

Status of Document Production: 

The Parties agree that this resolves the dispute regarding Defendant’s production of 

documents from the Hernandez litigation.

c. Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission.

Parties’ Position:

As stated in the Court’s November 9, 2021 Order (Dkt. No. 53), in light of the Court’s 

ruling, Plaintiff withdrew his remaining discovery requests, including those related to 

Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission.

d. Extension of the Fact Discovery Deadline Until February 9, 2022.

Plaintiff’s Position:

Plaintiff’s counsel understood the Court to have extended the discovery deadline pending 

further orders of the Court to allow Plaintiff’s counsel time to review the documents 

produced, identify the documents they intended to use in this case, and notify Wells Fargo 

of those documents. 

Plaintiff’s counsel understood the Court granted them until February 9, 2022, to complete 

this task. Plaintiff’s counsels’ understanding was the Court would provide an additional

short period of time for depositions beyond February 9, 2022. 

Wells Fargo has asked to take party discovery from the Garcias after they are substituted 

back into the case as real parties in interest. Plaintiff’s counsel has only asked that Wells 

Fargo not duplicate any prior discovery requests made to the Garcias. 

Defendant’s Position:

Wells Fargo believes that fact discovery should be extended to February 9, 2022, in the

event that Eduardo and Julia Garcia’s counsel move to have them promptly substituted as 

plaintiffs in this case (as further described in Section 2(a) below). If that occurs, Wells 

Case: 1:20-cv-02402 Document #: 60 Filed: 12/17/21 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:646
Fargo plans to take fulsome party discovery, rather than third party discovery, which is 

limited to document requests.

2. Real Parties in Interest.

a. The Bankruptcy Case.

Plaintiff’s Position:

The Bankruptcy case is complete, save for the entry of the administrative order formally 

closing the case. The Bankruptcy is fully administered, all claims, costs and expenses have 

been paid and a surplus has been returned to the Garcias. 

Plaintiff’s counsel has prepared an unopposed motion to substitute the Garcias back into 

the case as the proper party plaintiffs and real parties in interest. The Bankruptcy case has 

been administered fully without need for the administration of this lawsuit to satisfy the 

creditors of the estate and the costs of administration. By operation of 11 USC 554(c), all 

rights in this action revert to the Garcias as if they had never been vested in the bankruptcy 

trustee at the time of the closing of the case. 

In addition, Plaintiff’s counsel is discussing whether to file their motion for reconsideration 

related to the Court’s ruling on the now-adult Garcia children’s status as proper plaintiffs. 

Plaintiff’s counsel intends to make that decision and file that motion, if it is to be filed, 

within 21 days. 

Defendant’s Position:

On December 14, 2021, Defendant’s counsel responded to Plaintiff’s counsel and stated

that Defendant will not oppose if Plaintiff files a motion to substitute Julia and Eduardo 

Garcia as plaintiffs, so long as Plaintiff’s counsel does not oppose Defendant’s serving of 

party discovery on Julia and Eduardo Garcia if they are substituted into the case. To the 

extent that Plaintiff’s counsel moves for reconsideration of the Court’s order stating that 

Byron and Miriahm are not appropriate plaintiffs in this case, Defendant also informed 

Plaintiff that Defendant plans to oppose that motion and agrees with the Court’s August 

27, 2021 order stating that the Garcia children’s claims are derivative of their parents’ 

claims.

b. Party Discovery. 

Plaintiff’s Position:

Plaintiff’s counsel team believes that some depositions of Wells Fargo and a few key 

employees may be needed to prepare the case for trial. These should be able to be 

completed within 30 days of February 9, 2022. 

Further, Wells Fargo had several employees deposed and also submitted to 30(b)(6) 

examinations in the Hernandez matter. Wells Fargo’s production of those transcripts might 

obviate the need for, or seriously limit the scope of, any depositions needed in this case. 

Case: 1:20-cv-02402 Document #: 60 Filed: 12/17/21 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:647
Defendant’s Position:

On December 14, 2021, Defendant’s counsel notified Plaintiff’s counsel that if Plaintiff’s 

counsel moves to substitute Eduardo and Julia Garcia as plaintiffs, Defendant reserves the

right to serve written party discovery on them, as Defendant was previously limited to 

serving them with third party document requests. Defendant’s counsel also stated that 

while Defendant would not re-serve documents requests that were previously propounded 

on Eduardo and Julia Garcia in connection with third party subpoenas, Defendant reserves

the right to serve additional, distinct document requests. Defendant’s counsel also 

informed Plaintiff’s counsel that Defendant plans to schedule the Garcias’ depositions

(along with those of the Garcia adult children Byron and Miriahm) in the event formal 

substitution has occurred and party discovery on Eduardo and Julia Garcia is complete.

3. Proportionality.

Plaintiff’s Position:

If the case is tried, Plaintiff’s counsel expects to seek a seven-figure compensatory award 

for each of the Garcias, and a nine-figure punitive damages award against Wells Fargo.

Defendant’s Position:

Wells Fargo disputes that Plaintiff and/or the Garcias are entitled to damages or that 

 punitive damages are warranted in this case. 

[REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]

Case: 1:20-cv-02402 Document #: 60 Filed: 12/17/21 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:648
Dated: December 17, 2021 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Nick Wooten

Nicholas H. Wooten

NICK WOOTEN, LLC

5125 Burnt Pine Drive

Conway, Arkansas 72034

Phone: (833) 937-6389

nick@nickwooten.com

Rusty A. Payton

PAYTON LEGAL GROUP

20 North Clark Street, Suite 3300

Chicago, Illinois 60602

Phone: (773) 682-5210

info@payton.legal

Salvador J. Lopez

ROBSON & LOPEZ, LLC

180 W. Washington Street, Suite 700

Chicago, Illinois 60602

Phone: (312) 523-2166

lopez@robsonlopez.com

Counsel for the Plaintiff

/s/ Shawn R. Obi

Shawn R. Obi

WINSTON & STRAWN LLP

333 S. Grand Avenue

Los Angeles, California 90071

Phone: (213) 615-1700

Fax: (213) 615-1750

sobi@winston.com

Angela A. Smedley 

WINSTON & STRAWN LLP

200 Park Avenue

New York, New York 10166-4193

Phone: (212) 294-6700

Fax: (212) 294-4700

asmedley@winston.com

Christopher Parker

WINSTON & STRAWN LLP

35 West Wacker Drive

Chicago, Illinois 60601

Phone: (312) 558-8103

Fax: (312) 558-5700

cparker@winston.com

Counsel for Defendant

Case: 1:20-cv-02402 Document #: 60 Filed: 12/17/21 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:649