UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

EDUARDO GARCIA and JULIA GARCIA, 

 Plaintiffs,

 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 Parties 

report the status of remaining discovery, as follows: 

a. Remaining Discovery 

Plaintiffs’ Position:

On January 11, 2022, Wells Fargo served 22 first interrogatories and 13 second requests 

for production of documents on Eduardo Garcia, and 21 first interrogatories and 14 second 

requests for production of documents on Julia Garcia. Plaintiffs and their counsel are

working diligently to fully respond to the discovery by the due date.

Plaintiffs’ counsel team is attempting to identify any critical Wells Fargo employee fact 

witnesses who may not have been deposed in Herndandez while creating the document set 

for this trial from the Hernandez document production. 

The Parties continue to discuss Wells Fargo providing the deposition transcripts from the 

Hernandez matter in lieu of any further deposition testimony from the Wells Fargo 

employees deposed in Hernandez. Production of those transcripts should seriously limit 

the scope and number of any employee depositions needed in this case.

Plaintiffs have reserved the right to conduct employee depositions and a 30(b)(6) 

deposition, if necessary. These decisions will be made after the document set is created and 

Wells Fargo decides regarding the production of prior testimony from Hernandez. 

The parties have taken several depositions of the Garcias’ “friends and family” witnesses. 

More are scheduled. The parties are collaborating to complete the depositions of necessary 

medical providers. The parties have faced some resistance from Elmhurst regarding the 

scheduling of providers but anticipate resolution of that issue. 

Case: 1:20-cv-02402 Document #: 71 Filed: 02/09/22 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:695
Defendant’s Position:

Plaintiffs did not move the court to reconsider the court’s August 27, 2021 ruling that the 

Garcia children’s claims were derivative of their parents (Dkt. No. 62) and have confirmed 

that they no longer wish to pursue the adult children’s claims. Defendant’s counsel

requested that Plaintiffs update their $20,000,000 damages stated in their Rule 26(a)(1) 

initial disclosures in light of the Garcia children’s claims being officially dropped from the 

case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e)(1)(A) (“a party who has made a disclosure under Rule 26(a) 

. . . must supplement or correct its disclosure or response in a timely manner if the party 

learns that in some material respect the disclosure or response is incomplete or incorrect).” 

Defendant’s counsel also requested that Plaintiffs provide a “computation of each category 

of damages claimed by” Mr. and Mrs. Garcia pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A).

Relatedly, the Parties continue to discuss whether Mr. and Mrs. Garcia intend to proceed 

on their allegations claiming harm due to “watching the struggles of their children that 

followed the loss of their Family Home.” See Compl. ¶ 115(S)(h). As the Garcia children’s 

claims are no longer at issue in this case, Defendant believes that there may no longer be a 

need for certain third-party discovery relating to the Garcia children. If Mr. and Mrs. Garcia 

do intend to proceed with these allegations of harm premised on the alleged suffering of 

their children, then certain discovery, including regarding their school records, may 

continue to be relevant and within the proper scope of discovery. This is especially true 

given that Defendant does not have a computation of Plaintiffs’ claimed $20M in damages 

and how much of those damages can be derived from the Garcia children’s alleged 

suffering. 

The Parties have agreed to produce the deposition transcripts from the Hernandez action. 

Wells Fargo agrees to produce them based on Plaintiffs’ representation that they will not 

seek to re-depose the same witnesses in this action. As to the Hernandez 30(b)(6) 

deposition transcript specifically, Wells Fargo agrees to produce them based on Plaintiffs’

representation that they will not seek testimony on any topic that has been previously 

covered by the prior Hernandez 30(b)6 testimony. Wells Fargo agrees to be bound by that 

deposition testimony. 

b. Wells Fargo’s Request for an IME of Plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs’ Position: 

Plaintiffs’ counsel team has requested that Wells Fargo provide a proper notice, compliant 

with Rule 35, setting forth their proposed IME. 

Plaintiffs’ counsel team has not yet taken a position as to whether the Plaintiffs will consent 

to or contest the IME. That decision cannot be made without understanding the scope of 

the examination sought. 

Case: 1:20-cv-02402 Document #: 71 Filed: 02/09/22 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:696
Defendant’s Position: 

Defendant intends to seek the independent medical examinations of Eduardo Garcia and 

Julia Garcia pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 35 in light of the nature of the non-economic 

damages allegations in the Complaint. Defendant will work with Plaintiffs on a mutually 

agreeable time for those examinations and proposes a meet and confer to discuss the 

manner and scope of these examinations. 

c. Further Extension of the Fact Discovery Deadline.

Plaintiffs’ Position:

Plaintiffs hope to avoid any further extension of the fact discovery deadline. The Plaintiffs 

would like to have a trial setting as soon as possible.

Defendant’s Position:

Defendant does not seek an additional extension of the fact discovery deadline at this time,

but as the parties contemplated in their January 20, 2022 Joint Motion For Extension Of 

Fact Discovery Cutoff, another extension may become necessary “based on scheduling 

conflicts that may arise regarding third party deponents and whether briefing on the 

independent medical examinations will become necessary.” See Dkt. No. 64.

[REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]

Case: 1:20-cv-02402 Document #: 71 Filed: 02/09/22 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:697
Dated: February 9, 2022 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) 558-5600

Fax: (312) 558-5700

cparker@winston.com

Stacie C. Knight

WINSTON & STRAWN LLP

300 South Tryon Street

Charlotte, North Carolina 28202

Phone: (704) 350-7712

sknight@winston.com

Marjon Y. Momand

WINSTON & STRAWN LLP

101 California Street

San Francisco, California 94111

Phone: (415) 591-1542

MMomand@winston.com

Counsel for Defendant

Case: 1:20-cv-02402 Document #: 71 Filed: 02/09/22 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:698