1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION

PRETRIAL ORDER

This matter having come before the court at a pretrial conference held pursuant to Fed. R. 

Civ. P. (“Rule 16”), and Nick Wooten, Rusty A. Payton, and Salvador J. Lopez, having appeared 

as counsel for Plaintiffs and Amanda Groves, Scott Ahmad, Angela A. Smedley, and Christopher 

Parker, having appeared as counsel for Defendant, the following actions were taken: 

(1) This is an action for damages alleging Defendant violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud 

and Deceptive Business Practices Act (“ICFA”). Defendant denies the claims and asserts 

various defenses. Jurisdiction of the court is invoked under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(a) and 

1367. Jurisdiction is not disputed. 

(2) The following stipulations and statements were submitted and are made a part of this Order:

(a) a comprehensive stipulation or statement of all uncontested facts, which will become a part 

of the evidentiary record in the case (and which, in jury trials, may be read to the jury by 

the court or any party);

Stipulated Undisputed Facts

1. Plaintiffs Eduardo Garcia (“Eduardo”) and Julia Garcia (“Julia”) (collectively, the 

“Garcias”) are residents of Illinois.

2. Defendant Wells Fargo is a national banking association with its main office located 

in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, and its principal place of business in San Francisco,

California.

3. The Garcias purchased the property at 407 Beach Avenue, LaGrange Park, Illinois 

60526 for $203,000.00 in 2002. 

EDUARDO GARCIA and JULIA GARCIA,

Case No.: 1:20-cv-02402

Plaintiffs,

vs. Honorable Rebecca R. Pallmeyer

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Defendant.

Case: 1:20-cv-02402 Document #: 181 Filed: 06/12/23 Page 1 of 25 PageID #:4259
2

4. On or about January 26, 2006, the Garcias refinanced their mortgage loan with First 

NLC Financial Services, LLC.

5. The note for the refinance included an initial interest rate of 8.1400% with thefirst 

payment of $1,658.11 due on March 1, 2006. The note provided that the interest 

rate “may change on the first day of February 2008, and on that day every sixth 

month thereafter” and could increase up to 15.14%.

6. In May 2006, America’s Servicing Company, a division of Wells Fargo, first 

became the mortgage servicer for the Garcias’ loan.

7. In March 2008, pursuant to their note with First NLC Financial Services, the 

Garcias’ adjustable interest rate increased from 8.14% to 11.09625%, and their 

monthly mortgage payments increased from $1,658 to approximately $3,000.

8. In February 2009, the Home Affordable Modification Program, known as HAMP, 

was created. HAMP was intended to modify loans for borrowers who could make 

a modified payment under certain criteria announced by the Treasury Department.

9. On April 13, 2010, Wells Fargo placed into use the Home Preservation Application 

tool (“HPA tool”).

10. The HPA tool had a calculation error programmed into its logic which caused the 

dollar amount for recoverable attorneys’ fees to be erroneously overstated for 

certain borrowers.

11. On April 22, 2010, the Garcias applied for a HAMP trial loan modification.

12. The HPA tool error caused Wells Fargo to erroneously deny the Garcias’ HAMP 

trial loan modification on August 24, 2010.

13. The trial loan modification would have provided a monthly payment of $1,348.48 

if it had been granted.

14. The trial loan modification was not a permanent modification. The Garcias would 

have needed to take additional steps, including completing three trial payments to 

be eligible for a permanent loan modification.

Case: 1:20-cv-02402 Document #: 181 Filed: 06/12/23 Page 2 of 25 PageID #:4260
3

15. On May 26, 2011, the Garcias filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 7 of the 

Bankruptcy Code, Case No. 11-22208, Northern District of Illinois.

16. In July and November 2019, the Garcias received checks totaling $24,500 from 

Wells Fargo. 

Stipulated Case Description

Plaintiffs’ Proposal:

This trial involves a dispute about how Wells Fargo serviced (or handled) the Garcias’ 

mortgage loan account. The jury in this action will be called upon to decide this dispute. 

Defendant’s Proposal: 

Wells Fargo contends that Plaintiffs’ description is overbroad and instead proposes the 

following description, which Wells Fargo believes is aligned with what is in dispute in this 

matter:

This trial involves a dispute about whether Wells Fargo’s mistaken denial in August 2010 

of a trial loan modification violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act and proximately 

caused Plaintiffs’ injury. Wells Fargo denies these allegations. 

(b) except for rebuttal exhibits and demonstratives, the Parties’ exhibits are contained in Exhibit 

List A and B, as follows: 

Exhibit Lists: 

The Parties have agreed that as to any exhibits where there is no objection to 

admissibility, there are no objections to authenticity.

Exhibit “A” contains the Garcias’ proposed exhibit list along with Wells Fargo’s 

objections as Garcia 1-104. 

Exhibit “B” contains Wells Fargo’s proposed exhibit list along with the Garcias’ objections 

as WF1-142.01. 

(c) the following is a list or lists of names of the potential witnesses to be called by each party, 

with a statement of any objection to calling, or to the qualifications of, any witness identified 

on the list;

Case: 1:20-cv-02402 Document #: 181 Filed: 06/12/23 Page 3 of 25 PageID #:4261
4

Plaintiffs’ Witness List

As a threshold matter, Wells Fargo objects that Plaintiffs list at least 18 witnesses they 

intend to call, in addition to at least one witness they “may” call. In light of the fact that the parties 

informed the Court that the trial is “expected to be a five-day jury trial” (Dkt. No. 156), calling at 

least 18 witnesses for Plaintiffs alone is excessive and not feasible to accomplish in the 5-day time 

frame. In addition, Wells Fargo requests that the parties get equal time to make their presentations. 

Witnesses who will be called: 

1. Eduardo Garcia - Eduardo will testify as to his actions with respect to the 

mortgage loan, loan modification, and the allegations in the complaint, Wells 

Fargo’s conduct and actions with respect to the mortgage loan, loan 

modification, and allegations in the complaint, and the effect of Wells Fargo’s 

conduct on him, Julia, and their family.

Wells Fargo’s Position: No objection. 

2. Julia Garcia - Julia will testify as to her actions with respect to the mortgage 

loan, loan modification, and the allegations in the complaint, Wells Fargo’s 

conduct and actions with respect to the mortgage loan, loan modification, and 

allegations in the complaint, and the effect of Wells Fargo’s conduct on her, 

Eduardo, and their family.

Wells Fargo’s Position: No objection. 

3. Byron Garcia - Byron Garcia is the son of Eduardo and Julia. Byron observed 

his parents’ physical and emotional health during the relevant time period and 

how Wells Fargo’s conduct affected his mother and father, and the Garcia 

family.

Wells Fargo’s Position: No objection. 

4. Miriahm Garcia - Miriahm Garcia is the daughter of Eduardo and Julia. 

Miriahm observed her parents’ physical and emotional health during the 

relevant time period and how Wells Fargo’s conduct affected her mother and 

father, and the Garcia family.

Wells Fargo’s Position: No objection. 

Case: 1:20-cv-02402 Document #: 181 Filed: 06/12/23 Page 4 of 25 PageID #:4262
5

5. Rosa Garcia - Rosa Garcia is Julia’s sister. Rosa observed the Garcias during 

the relevant time period and will testify to what the Garcias were going through 

with Wells Fargo and their attempts to keep their Family Home.

Wells Fargo’s Position: Wells Fargo objects to Rosa Garcia’s testimony as 

being cumulative and/or duplicative of the testimony of the other members of 

the Garcia family and thus unnecessary for a 5-day trial.

6. Susan Vega - Susan Vega is a friend and was Julia’s co-worker prior to and 

during the relevant time. Ms. Vega will testify as to Julia’s work ethic at Alivio. 

Ms. Vega observed Julia during the relevant time and will testify to her 

observations of Julia’s physical and emotional health from before the Garcias’ 

issues with Wells Fargo through and after the Garcias’ loss of their Family 

Home.

Wells Fargo’s Position: Wells Fargo objects to any testimony regarding Mrs. 

Garcia’s “work ethic” as irrelevant.

7. Elena Briseño - Elena Briseño is a friend and was Julia’s co-worker prior to 

and during the relevant time. Ms. Briseño will testify as to Julia’s work ethic at 

Alivio. Ms. Briseño observed Julia during the relevant time and will testify to 

her observations of Julia’s physical and emotional health from before the 

Garcias’ issues with Wells Fargo through and after the Garcias’ loss of their 

Family Home.

Wells Fargo’s Position: Wells Fargo objects to any testimony regarding Mrs. 

Garcia’s “work ethic” as irrelevant.

8. Martha Polo Koehler - Martha Polo Koehler has been a spiritual, academic, 

and personal counselor, and Julia’s supervisor during the relevant time. Ms. 

Koehler will testify as to Julia’s work ethic at Alivio. Ms. Koehler observed 

Julia during the relevant time and will testify to her observations of Julia’s 

physical and emotional health from before the Garcias’ issues with Wells Fargo 

through and after the Garcias’ loss of their Family Home. Ms. Koehler will 

testify to her observations ofJulia and the stressshe was under when the Garcias 

were trying to save their home and after they lost their home to Wells Fargo. 

Ms. Koehler will testify to the importance for Latinos to own their own house 

and how the Latinos’ house payment is the main expense and it is a priority for 

Latinos to make their house payment.

Case: 1:20-cv-02402 Document #: 181 Filed: 06/12/23 Page 5 of 25 PageID #:4263
6

Wells Fargo’s Position: Wells Fargo objects to any testimony regarding Mrs. 

Garcia’s “work ethic” as irrelevant. Wells Fargo further objects to any 

testimony on “the importance for Latinos to own their own house and how the 

Latinos’ house payment is the main expense and it is a priority for Latinos to 

make their house payment” as irrelevant, improper opinion, and unduly 

prejudicial.

9. Marco Garduño is a friend and was Julia’s co-worker prior to and during the 

relevant time. Mr. Garduño will testify as to Julia’s work ethic at Alivio. Mr. 

Garduño observed Julia during the relevant time and will testify to his 

observations of Julia’s physical and emotional health from before the Garcias’ 

issues with Wells Fargo through and after the Garcias’ loss of their Family 

Home.

Wells Fargo’s Position: Wells Fargo objects to Marco Garduño’s testimony as 

being cumulative and/or duplicative of the testimony of Mrs. Garcia’s other 

former co-workers, including Ms. Vega, Ms. Briseño, and Ms. Koehler, and 

thus unnecessary for a 5-day trial. Wells Fargo further objects to any testimony 

regarding Mrs. Garcia’s “work ethic” asirrelevant.

10. Anita Pillai, M.D. - Dr. Pillai is the Garcias’ primary care physician. Dr. Pillai 

will testify as to her observations, diagnosis, treatment, care, and prognosis for 

Julia, including prescriptions issued during the course of her treatment and care 

of Julia. Dr. Pillai will testify that at each appointment with any member ofthe 

Garcia family, but primarily with Julia Garcia, that she undertook a differential 

diagnosis of her patient based upon her observations, examination, and her 

patient’s self-reported symptoms and issues. Dr. Pillai is expected to provide 

testimony on her treatment of Julia Garcia’s various medical issues, (including 

her medication and treatment regimen), and her personal observations, 

impressions, and opinions of her patient made during her treatment and care of 

Julia Garcia, and any other member of the Garcia family, in accordance with 

the voluminous medical records.

Wells Fargo’s Position: Wells Fargo objects to the extent Dr. Pillai attempts 

to offer expert opinion, as Plaintiffs have not designated her as an expert herein. 

Wells Fargo further objects to the extent Dr. Pillai intends to testify on the 

extent to which Wells Fargo allegedly caused any of Plaintiffs’ medical 

conditions, or the extent to which she would attribute any of those conditions 

to Wells Fargo. At Dr. Pillai’s deposition, she testified that she is “not an 

expert” and “cannot comment” on the extent to which she could “attribute” the

Case: 1:20-cv-02402 Document #: 181 Filed: 06/12/23 Page 6 of 25 PageID #:4264
7

Garcias’ conditions to Wells Fargo. See Pillai Tr. at 94:9-95:5. Dr. Pillai also 

cannot testify to causation because (1) she did not consider the cause of 

Plaintiffs’ injuries during her course of treatment and (2) did not submit a report 

opining on the cause of Plaintiffs’ injuries. See Meyers v. National Railroad 

Passenger Corp. (Amtrak), 619 F.3d 729, 734-35 (7th Cir. 2010) (“a treating 

physician who is offered to provide expert testimony as to the cause of the 

plaintiff’s injury, but who did not make that determination in the course of 

providing treatment,” is “required to submit an expert report in accordance with 

Rule 26(a)(2)”); Blanton v. RoundPoint Mortg. Servicing Corp., 825 F. App’x 

369, 373-74 (7th Cir. 2020) (rejecting argument that plaintiffs’ treating 

physician could provide admissible evidence on causation in ICFA case 

“because Dr. Bice did not make a determination about the causation of 

[plaintiff]’s injury at the time he treated [plaintiff]” and “did not submit an 

expert report”).

11. Robert Ferguson - Robert Ferguson is a Wells Fargo corporate representative. 

Mr. Ferguson was a lending manager in litigation and a team member in the 

litigation support area for Wells Fargo during the time Wells Fargo serviced the 

Garcias’ mortgage loan. Mr. Ferguson is now a manager for the litigation 

support area. Mr. Ferguson has information as to Wells Fargo’s conduct and 

handling of the Garcias’ account.

Wells Fargo’s Position: Wells Fargo objects to Plaintiffs’ inclusion of Mr. 

Ferguson on their witness list, as he resides over 100 miles from the Court and 

thus is outside the subpoena power of the Court.1Wells Fargo further objects to 

Plaintiffs’ characterization of Mr. Ferguson’s professional history.

12. Carmen Bell - Carmen Bell is a Wells Fargo corporate representative. Ms. Bell 

was a senior vice president for Wells Fargo (“Head, Wells Fargo Home 

Mortgage Customer Contact and Default Decisions”) during the time Wells 

Fargo Serviced the Garcias’ mortgage loan, and is currently a senior vice 

president. Ms. Bell has information as to Wells Fargo’s conduct and handling 

of the Garcias’ account, and information as to the Wells Fargo’s HPA Tool and

1 For all witnesses who appear on both Plaintiffs’ and Defendant’s witness lists, including Mr. 

Ferguson, the parties have agreed to a procedure for such witnesses. In particular, if Plaintiffs’ 

counsel calls a Wells Fargo employee or expert on Wells Fargo’s witness list at trial, Wells 

Fargo can do direct examination, not limited to the issues Plaintiffs’ counsel raises, as well as a 

re-direct. This way, witnesses should not need to testify twice (once by each party). This same 

arrangement applies for Plaintiffs, if any of their family members or other fact witnesses on 

Plaintiffs’ witness list are called by Wells Fargo.

Case: 1:20-cv-02402 Document #: 181 Filed: 06/12/23 Page 7 of 25 PageID #:4265
8

Wells Fargo’s erroneous denials of loan modifications. Ms. Bell was “primarily 

responsible for determining impacted customers and the remediation plan for 

the issues described in the [Hernandez] complaint.”

Wells Fargo’s Position: Wells Fargo objectsto Plaintiffs’ inclusion of Ms. Bell 

on their witness list, as she resides over 100 miles from the Court and thus is 

outside the subpoena power of the Court. Wells Fargo further objects to 

Plaintiffs’ characterization of Ms. Bell’s professional history and knowledge 

basis.

13. WF 30(b)(6) witness - Wells Fargo’s corporate representative will testify on 

those topics for trial listed in the Garcias’ trial subpoena to Wells Fargo.

Wells Fargo’s Position: Wells Fargo objects because Plaintiffs’ trial subpoena 

to Wells Fargo is improper and unsupported by the Federal Rules. There is no 

30(b)(6) witness at trial; 30(b)(6) witnesses are limited to depositions. Wells 

Fargo further objects that Plaintiffs’ topics listed on the purported trial subpoena 

are overbroad and include irrelevant topics that were not listed on Plaintiffs’ 

30(b)(6) deposition notice, including “Wells Fargo’s gross revenue for 2022” 

and “explain the term net interest income as used in Wells Fargo’s SEC 

reporting.” Wells Fargo plans to move to quash the trial subpoena. However, 

Wells Fargo will bring a corporate representative to trial.

14. William L. Conte, MD, MS - Dr. Conte was retained by Wells Fargo and 

conducted an Independent Medical Examination (physical) of Julia Garcia.Dr. 

Conte is a physician practicing in Merrillville, Indiana.

Wells Fargo’s Position: No objection.

15. David E. Hartman, PhD, MS, ABN, ABPP - Dr. Hartman was retained by 

Wells Fargo and conducted Independent Medical Examinations (mental) of 

Julia Garcia and Eduardo Garcia. Dr. Hartman is a clinical psychologist and 

neuropsychologist and is not a medical doctor.

Wells Fargo’s Position: No objection.

16. Peter Ross - Peter Ross is alleged to be an expert in banking hired by Wells 

Fargo to testify regarding the reasonableness of Wells Fargo’s actions in this 

case.

Case: 1:20-cv-02402 Document #: 181 Filed: 06/12/23 Page 8 of 25 PageID #:4266
9

Wells Fargo’s Position: No objection to Mr. Ross as a witness. Wells Fargo 

objects to the characterization of Mr. Ross’s engagement for Wells Fargo.

17. Any individual designated by Wells Fargo as its corporate representative, even 

if for appearance purposes only, or any employees of Wells Fargo on Wells 

Fargo’s witness list.

Wells Fargo’s Position: Wells Fargo objects to this category as unnecessary. 

Plaintiffs will have the opportunity to cross-examine any witnesses on Wells 

Fargo’s witness list.

18. Any witness needed solely for rebuttal.

Wells Fargo’s Position: No objection.

Witnesses who may be called:

19. Any person listed on Wells Fargo’s witness list but not named on the Garcias’ 

witness list.

Wells Fargo’s Position: Wells Fargo objects to this category as unnecessary. 

Plaintiffs will have the opportunity to cross-examine any witnesses on Wells 

Fargo’s witness list.

Witnesses whose testimony Plaintiffs will be presented by deposition or other 

testimony:

20. Diane Young - Diane Young was a 30(b)(1) deponent in the Hernandez matter. 

The Garcias may present portions of Ms. Young’s deposition transcript in 

Hernandez, including exhibits, for testimony, impeachment, to authenticate 

Wells Fargo’s business records, or for rebuttal purposes.

Wells Fargo’s Position: Wells Fargo objects that any designations of Ms. 

Young’s transcript from the Hernandez action cannot be read into the record at 

trial. Pursuant to FRE 804(b)(1), deposition transcripts from another action can 

only be read into the record at trial for any purpose if the testimony meets 

certain criteria and the witness is unavailable for trial as defined by FRE 804(a). 

Ms. Young is not unavailable pursuant to FRE 804(a), even though she resides 

over 100 miles from the Court and thus is outside the Court’s subpoena power.

Case: 1:20-cv-02402 Document #: 181 Filed: 06/12/23 Page 9 of 25 PageID #:4267
10

21. Beena Menon - Beena Menon was a 30(b)(1) deponent in the Hernandez 

matter. The Garcias may present portions of Ms. Menon’s deposition transcript 

in Hernandez, including exhibits, for testimony, impeachment, to authenticate 

Wells Fargo’s business records, or for rebuttal purposes.

Wells Fargo’s Position: Wells Fargo objects that any designations of Ms. 

Menon’s transcript from the Hernandez action cannot be read into the record at 

trial. Pursuant to FRE 804(b)(1), deposition transcripts from another action can 

only be read into the record at trial for any purpose if the testimony meets 

certain criteria and the witness is unavailable for trial as defined by FRE 804(a). 

Ms. Menon is not unavailable pursuant to FRE 804(a), even though sheresides 

over 100 miles from the Court and thus is outside the Court’s subpoena power.

22. Susan Crawford - Susan Crawford was a 30(b)(1) deponent in the Hernandez 

matter. The Garcias may present portions of Ms. Crawford’s deposition 

transcript in Hernandez, including exhibits, for testimony, impeachment, to 

authenticate Wells Fargo’s business records, or for rebuttal purposes.

Wells Fargo’s Position: Wells Fargo objects that any designations of Ms. 

Crawford’s transcript from the Hernandez action cannot be read into the record 

at trial. Pursuant to FRE 804(b)(1), deposition transcripts from another action 

can only be read into the record at trial for any purpose if the testimony meets 

certain criteria and the witness is unavailable for trial as defined by FRE 804(a). 

Ms. Crawford is not unavailable pursuant to FRE 804(a), even though she 

resides over 100 miles from the Court and thus is outside the Court’ssubpoena 

power.

23. Wells Fargo - The Garcias may use affidavits or deposition transcripts of Wells 

Fargo representatives or employees, not listed above, from Hernandez to 

authenticate its business records or for rebuttal purposes.

Wells Fargo’s Position: Wells Fargo objects to this “witness” en toto. Pursuant 

to FRE 804(b)(1), deposition transcripts from another action canonly be read 

into the record at trial for any purpose if the testimony meets certain criteria and 

the witness is unavailable for trial as defined by FRE 804(a). Plaintiffs have not

identified any deponents from the Hernandez action that are unavailable 

pursuant to FRE 804(a). Moreover, pursuant to LR16.1.4. - Final Pretrial Order

Form, Plaintiffs are required to identify “designated page and line

Case: 1:20-cv-02402 Document #: 181 Filed: 06/12/23 Page 10 of 25 PageID #:4268
11

numbers to be read into evidence” for any deposition testimony they plan to 

designate.

24. John G. Stumpf - John G. Stumpf testified at a hearing before the Committee 

on Financial Services, U.S. House of Representatives, on September 29, 2016. 

The Garcias may use portions of the transcript and video from that hearing in 

lieu of Mr. Stumpf’s deposition and live testimony, and for rebuttal purposes.

Wells Fargo’s Position: Wells Fargo objects to this testimony on a number of 

grounds. Wells Fargo objects that it is unaware of any Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure or Evidence that would provide that Plaintiffs can use Congressional 

testimony “in lieu of .... deposition and live testimony,” even though Mr. 

Stumpf does not reside within 100 miles of the Court and thus is not within its 

subpoena power. Wells Fargo objects that the video of testimony, which 

Plaintiffs designated as an exhibit, spans over 4 hours, so any attempt to excerpt 

it would be tantamount to cherrypicking sound bites without the full context. 

Wells Fargo further objects that this testimony is irrelevant because itoccurred 

in September 2016 – years after the relevant events in the action, including the 

August 2010 erroneous denial and the February 2011 foreclosure. Wells Fargo 

further objects that this testimony was conducted for various purposes unrelated 

to this action. Wells Fargo further objects that this testimony is unduly 

prejudicial, confuses the issues, would be misleading to the jury, and would 

waste time. Wells Fargo further objects that this exhibit was not identified 

during discovery. Wells Fargo further objects that this exhibit should bebarred 

from the action because Plaintiffs attempted to produce it on May 25, 2023, 

almost a year after the discovery deadline and less than a month before trial. 

Wells Fargo further objects to the authenticity of the exhibit. Wells Fargo 

further objects that this testimony is hearsay and thus is inadmissible. Wells

Fargo also intends to file a motion in limine to exclude all Congressional 

testimony from the trial on these grounds.

25. Timothy J. Sloan - Timothy J. Sloan testified at a hearing before the 

Committee on Financial Services, U.S. House of Representatives, on March 12, 

2019. The Garcias may use portions of the transcript and video from that 

hearing in lieu of Mr. Sloan’s deposition and live testimony, and for rebuttal 

purposes.

Wells Fargo’s Position: Wells Fargo objects to this testimony on a number of 

grounds. Wells Fargo objects that it is unaware of any Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure or Evidence that would provide that Plaintiffs can use Congressional 

testimony “in lieu of .... deposition and live testimony,” even though Mr. Sloan 

does not reside within 100 miles of the Court and thus is not within its subpoena 

power. Wells Fargo objects that the video of testimony, which Plaintiffs 

designated as an exhibit, spans over 4 hours,, so any attempt to excerpt it would

Case: 1:20-cv-02402 Document #: 181 Filed: 06/12/23 Page 11 of 25 PageID #:4269
12

be tantamount to cherrypicking sound bites without the full context. Wells 

Fargo further objects that this testimony is irrelevant because it occurred in 

March 2019 – years after the relevant events in the action, including the August 

2010 erroneous denial and the February 2011 foreclosure. Wells Fargo further 

objects that this testimony was conducted for various purposes unrelated to this 

action. Wells Fargo further objects that this testimony is unduly prejudicial, 

confuses the issues, would be misleading to the jury, and would waste time. 

Wells Fargo further objects that this exhibit was not identified during discovery. 

Wells Fargo further objects that this exhibit should be barred from the action 

because Plaintiffs attempted to produce it on May 25, 2023, almost a yearafter 

the discovery deadline and less than a month before trial. Wells Fargo further 

objects to the authenticity of the exhibit. Wells Fargo further objects that this 

testimony is hearsay and thus is inadmissible. Wells Fargo intends to file a 

motion in limine to exclude all Congressional testimony from the trial onthese 

grounds.

26. Elizabeth A. Duke, Chair, Wells Fargo & Company - Elizabeth A. Duke 

testified at a hearing before the Committee on Financial Services, U.S. House 

of Representatives, on March 11, 2020. The Garcias may use portions of the 

transcript and video from that hearing in lieu of Ms. Duke’s deposition and live 

testimony, and for rebuttal purposes.

Wells Fargo’s Position: Wells Fargo objects to this testimony on a number of 

grounds. Wells Fargo objects that it is unaware of any Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure or Evidence that would provide that Plaintiffs can use Congressional 

testimony “in lieu of .... deposition and live testimony,” even though Ms. Duke 

does not reside within 100 miles of the Court and thus is not within its subpoena 

power. Wells Fargo objects that the full video including the testimony, which 

Plaintiffs designated as an exhibit, spans nearly 3 hours, so any attempt to 

excerpt it would be tantamount to cherrypicking sound bites without the full 

context. Wells Fargo further objects that this testimony is irrelevant because it 

occurred in March 2020 – years after the relevant events in the action, including 

the August 2010 erroneous denial and the February 2011 foreclosure. Wells 

Fargo further objects that this testimony was conducted for various purposes 

unrelated to this action. Wells Fargo further objects that this testimony is unduly 

prejudicial, confuses the issues, would be misleading to the jury, and would 

waste time. Wells Fargo further objects that this exhibit was not identified

during discovery. Wells Fargo further objects that this exhibit should be barred

from the action because Plaintiffs attempted to produce it on May 25, 2023, 

almost a year after the discovery deadline and less than a month before trial. 

Wells Fargo further objects to the authenticity of the exhibit. Wells Fargo 

further objects that this testimony is hearsay and thus is inadmissible. Wells 

Fargo also intends to file a motion in limine to exclude all Congressional 

testimony from the trial on these grounds.

Case: 1:20-cv-02402 Document #: 181 Filed: 06/12/23 Page 12 of 25 PageID #:4270
13

27. James H. Quigley, Independent Chairman, Wells Fargo & Company -

James H. Quigley testified at a hearing before the Committee on Financial 

Services, U.S. House of Representatives, on March 11, 2020. The Garcias 

may use portions of the transcript and video from that hearing in lieu of Mr. 

Quigley’s deposition and live testimony, and for rebuttal purposes.

Wells Fargo’s Position: Wells Fargo objects to this testimony on a number of 

grounds. Wells Fargo objects that it is unaware of any Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure or Evidence that would provide that Plaintiffs can use Congressional 

testimony “in lieu of .... deposition and live testimony,” even though Mr. 

Quigley does not reside within 100 miles of the Court and thus is not withinits 

subpoena power. Wells Fargo objects that the full video including the 

testimony, which Plaintiffs designated as an exhibit, spans nearly 3 hours, so 

any attempt to excerpt it would be tantamount to cherrypicking sound bites 

without the full context. Wells Fargo further objects that this testimony is 

irrelevant because it occurred in March 2020 – years after the relevant events 

in the action, including the August 2010 erroneous denial and the February 2011 

foreclosure. Wells Fargo further objects that this testimony was conducted for 

various purposes unrelated to this action. Wells Fargo further objects that this 

testimony is unduly prejudicial, confuses the issues, would be misleading to the 

jury, and would waste time. Wells Fargo further objects that this exhibit was 

not identified during discovery. Wells Fargo further objects that this exhibit 

should be barred from the action because Plaintiffs attempted to produce it on 

May 25, 2023, almost a year after the discovery deadline and less than a month 

before trial. Wells Fargo further objects to the authenticity of the exhibit. Wells 

Fargo further objects that this testimony is hearsay and thus is inadmissible. 

Wells Fargo also intends to file a motion in limine to exclude all Congressional 

testimony from the trial on these grounds.

28. Lawrence Frank, M.D. - Dr. Lawrence Frank will testify in accordance with 

his deposition.

Wells Fargo’s Position: Wells Fargo objects to the extent that Dr. Frank 

attempts to offer expert opinion, as Plaintiffs have not designated him as an 

expert. Wells Fargo objects that any designations from Dr. Frank’s deposition 

cannot be read into the record at trial. Pursuant to FRCP 32(a)(4), deposition 

testimony can only be read into the record if a witness is unavailable for trial. 

As Dr. Frank resides within 100 miles of the Court, he could be subpoenaed to 

testify at trial.

29. Mark Loren Fehr, M.D. - Dr. Mark Fehr will testify in accordance with his 

deposition.

Wells Fargo’s Position: Wells Fargo objects to the extent that Dr. Fehr 

attempts to offer expert opinion, as Plaintiffs have not designated him as an

Case: 1:20-cv-02402 Document #: 181 Filed: 06/12/23 Page 13 of 25 PageID #:4271
14

expert.

Defendant's Witness List

Witnesses who will be called:

1. Robert Ferguson, Loan Administration Manager. Mr. Ferguson will testify 

regarding facts concerning the remediation plan described in the Complaint and 

Plaintiffs’ loan. 

2. Carmen Bell, Head, Wells Fargo Home Mortgage Customer Contact and Default 

Decisions. Ms. Bell will testify regarding facts concerning the remediation plan 

described in the Complaint. She will also testify regarding facts concerning the loan 

modification underwriting tool error alleged in the Complaint, and facts concerning 

Wells Fargo’s compliance efforts with respect to mortgage modifications.

3. Peter M. Ross. Mr. Ross is an expert witness who has over thirty-five years of 

experience in mortgage banking. He has examined Plaintiffs’ loan file. He will 

testify regarding facts concerning Plaintiffs’ loan file and issues related to 

causation.

4. Eduardo Garcia. Mr. Garcia is one of the parties to this action. He would be 

expected to testify regarding the facts and circumstances surrounding the 

allegations in the Complaint and Plaintiffs’ claimed damages.

5. Julia Garcia. Mrs. Garcia is one of the parties to this action. She would be expected 

to testify regarding the facts and circumstances surrounding the allegations in the 

Complaint and Plaintiffs’ claimed damages.

6. Byron Garcia. Byron Garcia is the son of Eduardo and Julia Garcia. He would be 

expected to testify regarding the Garcias’ financial condition, prior foreclosure 

proceedings, and their claimed damages.

7. Miriahm Garcia. Miriahm Garcia is the daughter of Eduardo and Julia Garcia. She 

would be expected to testify regarding her mother’s decision to leave her 

employment at Alivio Medical Center. She would also be expected to testify 

regarding the Garcias’ financial condition, prior foreclosure proceedings, and their 

claimed damages.

Case: 1:20-cv-02402 Document #: 181 Filed: 06/12/23 Page 14 of 25 PageID #:4272
15

8. Susan Vega. Susan Vega was Mrs. Garcia’s co-worker prior to and during the 

relevant time. She would be expected to testify regarding Mrs. Garcia’s decision to 

leave her employment at Alivio Medical Center.

10. Elena Briseño. Elena Briseño was Mrs. Garcia’s co-worker prior to and during the 

relevant time. She would be expected to testify regarding Mrs. Garcia’s decision to 

leave her employment at Alivio Medical Center.

11. Martha Polo Koehler. Martha Polo Koehler has been Mrs. Garcia’s “spiritual” 

advisor and was Mrs. Garcia’s supervisor during the relevant time. She would be 

expected to testify regarding Mrs. Garcia’s decision to leave her employment at 

Alivio Medical Center.

Witnesses who may be called:

12. Dr. William L. Conte. Dr. Conte is a doctor who performed an independent 

medical examination of Mrs. Garcia. He may testify as an expert witness 

regarding facts concerning Mrs. Garcia’s medical conditions.

13. Dr. David Hartman. Dr. Hartman is a psychologist who performed an 

independent medical examination concerning Plaintiffs’ mental health 

conditions and medical history. He may testify as an expert witness regarding 

facts concerning Plaintiffs’ mental health conditions and medical history.

14. Daisy Garcia. Daisy Garcia is Byron Garcia’s spouse. She may testify regarding 

Plaintiffs’ claimed damages.

15. Dr. Lawrence Frank. Dr. Frank is a doctor who saw Mrs. Garcia as a patient in 

2019. He may testify regarding facts concerning Mrs. Garcia’s mental and 

medical conditions.

(d) list of all depositions, and designated page and line numbers, to be read into evidence and 

statements of any objections thereto;

Plaintiffs’ designations:

Deposition of Lawrence Frank, M.D. - Pages 89:8-90:24.

Wells Fargo objects that these designations cannot be read into the record at trial. Pursuant to 

FRCP 32(a)(4), deposition testimony can only be read into the record if a witness is unavailable 

for trial. As Dr. Frank resides within 100 miles of the Court, he could be subpoenaed to testify at

Case: 1:20-cv-02402 Document #: 181 Filed: 06/12/23 Page 15 of 25 PageID #:4273
16

trial. Dr. Frank is also listed on Wells Fargo’s witness list as a witness Wells Fargo may call. Wells 

Fargo further objects to this testimony on the grounds that the selected provision includes an 

extraneous comment directed at defense counsel and is not testimony at 89:1-7. Wells Fargo 

further objects to this testimony as irrelevant (FRE 401, 402) and prejudicial (FRE 403).

Defendant’s counter designations are as follows: Deposition of Lawrence Frank, M.D. 39:11-19; 

52:2-11; 88:25.

Deposition of Mark Loren Fehr, M.D. Pages 70:6-71:20.

. Wells Fargo objects to the selected testimony as irrelevant (FRE 401, 402) and prejudicial (FRE 

403).

Defendant’s counter designations are as follows:

Deposition of Mark Loren Fehr, M.D. 29-12 -30: 4, 69:16- 25

Deposition of Diane Young. Pages 80:19-23 (Exhibit 367), 91:11-94:9 (Exhibit 369), 113:20-

118:21 (Exhibit 376), 117:16-119:11; 147-148:10 (Exhibit 388)

Wells Fargo objects that any designations of Ms. Young’s transcript from the Hernandez action 

cannot be read into the record at trial. Pursuant to FRE 804(b)(1), deposition transcripts from 

another action can only be read into the record at trial for any purpose if the testimony meets certain

criteria and the witness is unavailable for trial as defined by FRE 804(a). Ms. Young is not 

unavailable pursuant to FRE 804(a), even though Ms. Young resides over 100 milesfrom the Court 

and thus is outside of its subpoena power. Wells Fargo further objects to the selected testimony on 

the grounds that it is irrelevant (FRE 401, 402) and prejudicial (FRE 403), including that it would 

confuse the issues and mislead the jury. Wells Fargo further objects that the selected testimony 

includes references to deposition exhibits, which cannot be designated as part of deposition

designations.

Defendant’s counter designations are as follows:

Plaintiffs’ Designations Defendant’s Counter Designations

80:19-23 (Exhibit 367) None

91:11-94:9 (Exhibit 369) 90:5-91:9

113:20-118:21 (Exhibit 376) 112:23-113:18

117:16-119:11 93:15-94:9, 108:3-7, 115:17-116:4, 119:12-21

147-148:10 (Exhibit 388) 143:14-146:16; 148:12-19

Case: 1:20-cv-02402 Document #: 181 Filed: 06/12/23 Page 16 of 25 PageID #:4274
17

Deposition of Beena Menon: 12:14-24; 114:10-22; 115:4-8; 116:17-21, 24-117:1 (Exhibit 376

and 374)

Wells Fargo objects that any designations of Ms. Menon’s transcript from the Hernandez action 

cannot be read into the record at trial. Pursuant to FRE 804(b)(1), deposition transcripts from 

another action can only be read into the record at trial if the testimony meets certain criteria and 

the witness is unavailable for trial as defined by FRE 804(a). Ms. Menon is not unavailable 

pursuant to FRE 804(a), even though she resides over 100 miles from the Court and thus is outside 

of its subpoena power. Wells Fargo further objects to the selected testimony on the grounds that 

it is irrelevant (FRE 401, 402) and prejudicial (FRE 403), including that it would confuse the issues 

and mislead the jury. Wells Fargo further objects that the selected testimony includes references 

to deposition exhibits, which cannot be designated as part of deposition designations.

Defendant’s counter designations are as follows:

Plaintiffs’ Designations Defendant’s Counter-Designations

12:14-24 12:3-13; 12:25-13:4

114:10-22; 115:4-8; 116:17-21, 24-117:1

(Exhibit 376 and 374)

112:11-113:19; 115:9-116:16; 116:22-23

Deposition of Susan Crawford: 13:7-19; 66-68:17 (lead-in to 68:6-17); 69:7-10, 18-23; 70-71:4

Wells Fargo objects that any designations of Ms. Crawford’s transcript from the Hernandez action 

cannot be read into the record at trial. Pursuant to FRE 804(b)(1), deposition transcripts from 

another action can only be read into the record at trial if the testimony meets certain criteria and 

the witness is unavailable for trial as defined by FRE 804(a). Ms. Crawford is not unavailable 

pursuant to FRE 804(a), even though she resides over 100 miles from the Court and thus is outside 

the Court’s subpoena power. Moreover, pursuant to LR16.1.4. - Final Pretrial Order Form, 

Plaintiffs are required to identify “designated page and line numbers to be read into evidence” for 

any deposition testimony they plan to designate. Several of Plaintiffs’ designations do not include 

line numbers and omit complete questions and responses. Wells Fargo further objects to the 

selected testimony on the grounds that it is irrelevant (FRE 401, 402) and prejudicial (FRE 403), 

including that it would confuse the issues and mislead the jury.

Defendant’s counter designations are as follows:

Plaintiffs’ designations Defendant’s counter-designations

13:7-19 None

66-68:17 (lead-in to 68:6-17) 65:23-69:13

69:7-10, 18-23 69:14-23, 69:24-71:4

70-71:4 72:2-8, 118: 2-9

Case: 1:20-cv-02402 Document #: 181 Filed: 06/12/23 Page 17 of 25 PageID #:4275
18

Defendant’s designations:

Wells Fargo’s Designations for Dr. Mark Loren Fehr

7:21-24 

12:3-8 

28:3-23 

30:16-31:2 

35:14-22 

36:19-37:15 

37:17-39:2 

60:6-62:14 

(e) an itemized statement of damages;

1) Approximately $68,850 invested in improvements and upgrades to the 

foreclosed home. 

2) $2,049 in Chapter 7 fees and attorneys fees.

3) Loss of equity in home of $207,888.00. 

4) Approximately $1,500 in apartment application fees.

5) The costs of moving from their home to an apartment.

6) Approximately $5,000 in tools and power tools that Mr. Garcia was forced 

to sell cheaply or give away.

7) Loss of furniture and personal belongings that had to be sold, given away, 

or thrown out when they were forced out of the house. 

8) Approximately $150 per month for prescription costs associated with antianxiety and antidepressant medications prescribed by Dr. Pillai.

9) Out of pocket medical expenses related to stress, anxiety, and depression. 

10) Time spent by the Garcias trying to get Wells Fargo to address their loan 

modification efforts, going to court on the foreclosure case, and moving 

from their home. 

Wells Fargo objects to #3 as being subject to a motion in limine Wells Fargo intends to 

file.

Wells Fargo objects to #5, #7, #9 and #10 as lacking an itemization as required by 

LR16.1.4.-Final Pretrial Order Form. As the Northern District of Illinois has explained, complying 

with the pretrial order requirements, including the itemization of damages, is of critical 

importance. Toney v. Rosewood Care Ctr., Inc., No. 98 C 693, at 2002 WL 992642 *2-3 (N.D.

Case: 1:20-cv-02402 Document #: 181 Filed: 06/12/23 Page 18 of 25 PageID #:4276
19

Ill. May 15, 2002). Thus, if Plaintiffs cannot itemize these categories at this stage in the case, they 

should be excluded from the trial.

Wells Fargo further objects to #10 to the extent it includes “time spent by the Garcias to 

address their loan modification efforts.” #10 is speculative, including because the Garcias do not 

state how much time they spent on those efforts or how time spent could be calculated into 

damages. Under Illinois law, damages need to be demonstrated to a reasonable degree of certainty, 

and may not be awarded based on conjecture or speculation. See Dunkin’ Donuts Inc. v. N.A.S.T., 

Inc., 428 F.Supp.2d 761, 767 (N.D. Ill. 2005).

Wells Fargo objects to #8 and #9 as seeking damages for expenses Plaintiffs would have 

incurred regardless of any injury allegedly caused by Wells Fargo. To recover damages for ICFA, 

a plaintiff needs to “show he suffered actual damage as a result of the defendant’s violation of the 

act.” Camasta v. Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc., 761 F.3d 732, 739 (7th Cir. 2014) (emphasis added). 

It is undisputed that Mrs. Garcia suffered from depression, anxiety and stress before the erroneous 

denial and thus would have needed that medical care regardless of Wells Fargo’s conduct.

Wells Fargo further objects to #1 - #10, excluding the amount for Chapter 7 filing fees, as 

lacking sufficient support, including because they lack documentary support, making them 

speculative and lacking “a reasonable degree of certainty.” Under Illinois law, damages need to be 

demonstrated to a reasonable degree of certainty, and may not be awarded based on conjecture or 

speculation. See Dunkin’ Donuts, 428 F.Supp.2d at 767. Moreover, even if a party establishes it is

entitled to damages, but is unable to prove those damages with a reasonable degree of certainty, it 

may only recover nominal damages awarded at the discretion of the trial judge. Euroholdings 

Capital & Inv. Corp. v. Harris Trust.& Sav. Bank, 602 F. Supp. 2d. 928, 936 (N.D. Ill. 2009).

As to general unliquidated damages:

Compensatory Damages:

The Plaintiffs will seek an amount of general unliquidated damages to be 

determined as the jury deems reasonable and may award. The Plaintiffs have 

previously provided the formula that they intend to present to the jury as 

their proposal to calculate compensatory damages in this case.

Wells Fargo objects to the inclusion of the formula that Plaintiffs plan to 

present and is seeking the exclusion of it from the trial in a motion in limine.

Punitive Damages:

Case: 1:20-cv-02402 Document #: 181 Filed: 06/12/23 Page 19 of 25 PageID #:4277
20

The Plaintiffs will seek an award of punitive damages as the jury deems 

reasonable and may award. The Plaintiffs have previously provided Wells 

Fargo several various manners of calculating punitive damages that they 

may suggest to the jury as part of their arguments. Ultimately, the jury will 

determine if these damages should be awarded, and, if so, in what amount.

Wells Fargo objects and states that it does not believe that “Plaintiffs have 

“previously provided Wells Fargo several various manners of calculating 

punitive damages that they may suggest to the jury as part of their 

arguments.” Wells Fargo further objects and states that it is well-settled that

“punitive damages are . . . not subject to precise calculation” and “must not 

be grossly excessive.” Davis v. Harris, 2006 WL 3513918, at *4 (C.D. Ill. 

Dec. 5, 2006).

With regard to Plaintiffs’ specific proposed formulas for punitive damages, 

Wells Fargo objects to the presentation of those formulas to the jury as 

irrelevant, unduly prejudicial, confusing the issues for the jury, misleading 

the jury, and not grounded in law on their face. Wells Fargo further objects 

that these formulas were not disclosed during discovery. Wells Fargo is 

seeking the exclusion of those formulas from the trial in a motion in limine.

Plaintiffs’ Response: The Defendants are not entitled to invade the workproduct or trial strategy of Garcias’ counsel. There is no case law that 

requires Plaintiffs’ counsel to disclose a calculation of unliquidated 

damages. It should be noted that adjustments to the roster of Winston 

attorneys handling this case could be the reason that trial counsel is not 

familiar with previous conversations on this point.

In the past, Garcias’ counsel has suggested several ways that punitive 

damages could be argued. Garcias’ counsel is not bound to argue any one 

of these methods. Garcias’ counsel may argue some or all of these methods 

as plausible, reasonable, and justifiable. After all, Garcias’ counsel’s 

argument about an appropriate damages award is not evidence, but simply 

arguments to the jury. Among the many ways that a jury could determine a 

proper punitive damages award include, at least, the following: 

disgorgement of all funds received by Wells Fargo under HAMP; a 

percentage of Wells Fargo’s revenue equivalent to the percentage of income 

derived by dividing the criminal fines for various categories of offenses by 

the average median income for Cook County to yield a percentage of 

income which would then be multiplied by Wells Fargo’s 2022 revenue to

Case: 1:20-cv-02402 Document #: 181 Filed: 06/12/23 Page 20 of 25 PageID #:4278
21

produce a similar financial punishment; a multiple of Wells Fargo’s daily 

net interest income from 2022’s financials; an amount equal to fines and 

penalties levied against Wells Fargo under various consent decrees; a 

multiple of the fines and penalties levied against Wells Fargo under the 

various consent decrees; a disgorgement of all Wells Fargo’s net income 

between 2011-2022; and finally, a death penalty award large enough to put 

Wells Fargo into FDIC receivership. 

(f) for a jury trial, each party shall provide the following: 

(i) The parties have been instructed not to file trial briefs.

(ii) one set of marked proposed jury instructions, verdict forms and special 

interrogatories, if any; and

(iii) a list of the questions the party requests the court to ask prospective jurors in 

accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 47(a);

Voir Dire Questions

Exhibit “C-1” contains the Garcias’ voir dire questions and Defendant’s objections. 

Exhibit “C-2” contains Wells Fargo’s proposed voir dire. 

Exhibit “D” contains the Garcias’ proposed Jury Questionnaire and Defendant’s 

objections. 

Wells Fargo objects to the inclusion of Plaintiffs’ proposed jury questionnaire because it 

does not adhere to the Court’s protocol. Instead, the Court’s protocol states that the Court 

drafts the jury questionnaire with the input of the parties. The Court’s rules on the Jury 

Selection Process state, “In drafting the questionnaire, Judge Pallmeyer uses the parties’ 

proposed voir dire questions and ordinarily permits counsel to review the questionnaire 

and make suggestions for changes prior to administration of the questionnaire.” Thus, 

Wells Fargo contends that this exhibit should be removed. 

Jury Instructions

Exhibit E contains the parties jury instructions. Nine instructions are disputed. The rest are 

agreed.

Verdict Forms

Exhibit “F-1” contains the Garcias’ proposed verdict forms with Defendant’s objections 

and Exhibit “F-2” contains Defendant’s proposed jury verdict forms with the Garcia’s 

objections. 

Case: 1:20-cv-02402 Document #: 181 Filed: 06/12/23 Page 21 of 25 PageID #:4279
22

(g) The Parties agree discovery is complete.

Expert Witness Qualifications

Exhibit G contains Wells Fargo’s expert witnesses’ qualifications, followed by any objections 

by the Garcias.

Garcias and Wells Fargo have agreed: 

a. Not to reference any motions in limine; 

b. Not to reference any settlement discussions in this matter;

c. To bar non-party witnesses from the courtroom prior to their testimony;

d. Not to reference the Court’s prior orders in this case on motions in limine and 

discovery motions; 

e. Not to mention whether a party refused to stipulate to a fact;

f. Not to mention any prior versions of the complaint other than the operative 

complaint;

g. Not to reference that the Garcias may have a contingency attorney fee agreement;

h. Not to use the following phrases: (a) McDonald’s coffee cup case and its 

derivatives; (b) Runaway jury verdict; (c) Lawsuit lottery; (d) Frivolous lawsuit; 

or (e) Jackpot Justice

i. Not to mention the size of the law firm or number of lawyers or other 

professionals representing any party; 

j. Not to mention liability insurance;

k. Not to mention what the Garcias would do with the proceeds from a judgment; 

l. The Golden Rule;

m. Not to present a day in the life evidence for the Garcias;

n. Not to elicit testimony from the Garcias on hearsay medical information received 

from their doctors. 

(h) subject to full compliance with all the procedural requirements of Rule 37(a)(2), a brief 

summary of intended motions in limine. Any briefs in support of and responses to such 

motions shall be filed as directed by the Court. 

Defendant’s Motions in Limine: 

1. Motion in Limine to preclude any prescribed methodology for or numeric value of 

non-economic damages not based in evidence.

Case: 1:20-cv-02402 Document #: 181 Filed: 06/12/23 Page 22 of 25 PageID #:4280
23

2. Motion in Limine to exclude evidence and argument related to theories of liability 

that were not alleged in plaintiffs’ complaint, including (i) dual tracking, and (ii) 

allegedly “predatory” modification offers and servicing.

3. Motion in Limine to preclude evidence of consent orders, Congressionaltestimony 

and reports, all documents produced after the discovery deadline, and punitive 

damages, including Plaintiffs’ purported proposed formulasfor calculating punitive 

damages, or to bifurcate punitive damages in the alternative.

4. Motion in Limine to exclude evidence and argument regarding recovery of 

economic damages for lost equity.

5. Motion in Limine to exclude evidence and argument regarding any inflammatory, 

offensive, and defamatory rhetoric of Wells Fargo, including any unrelated press 

mentions or settlements of any other matters involving Wells Fargo, including but 

not limited to Hernandez v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 3:18cv07354 (N.D. Cal.).

The following optional statement was submitted and is included below and made a part of this 

Order:

(i) an agreed statement or statements of the contested issues of fact and law;

The contested issues of fact and law are:

(1) Whether Wells Fargo violated the ICFA;

(2) Whether the Garcias suffered damages proximately caused by Wells Fargo; and

(3) The amount of damages, if any, that the Garcias should be awarded.

(3) Garcias’ position is that the trial of this case is expected to take 7 days including jury selection. 

Given the impending 4th of July holidays, the Garcias can begin the trial earlier than June 23, 

2023, if the Court is so inclined.

Wells Fargo’s position is the trial of this case is expected to take 5-6 days, including jury 

selection. Wells Fargo does not agree to alter the trial start date.

The case is currently listed on the trial calendar for June 23, 2023, to be tried when reached. 

(4) [Indicate the type of trial by placing an X in the appropriate box] 

[X] Jury [ ] Non-jury

(5) The parties recommend that 12 jurors be selected at the commencement of the trial.

Case: 1:20-cv-02402 Document #: 181 Filed: 06/12/23 Page 23 of 25 PageID #:4281
24

(6) The Garcias do not agree that liability and damages, or punitive damages, should be 

bifurcated for trial. Wells Fargo intends to file a motion in limine to bar punitive damages 

from the action, and Wells Fargo also intends to move to bifurcate punitive damagesfrom 

the trial, in the alternative.

(7) [Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), parties may consent to the reassignment of this case to a 

magistrate judge who may conduct any or all proceedings in a jury or non jury civil matter 

and order the entry of judgment in the case. Indicate below if the parties consent to such a 

reassignment.] 

The parties do not consent to this case being reassigned to a magistrate judge for trial. 

(8) This Order will control the course of the trial and may not be amended except by consent of 

the parties and the court, or by order of the court to prevent manifest injustice.

(9) The possibility of settlement of this case was considered by the parties.

ENTER:

Dated: June 12, 2023

REBECCA R. PALLMEYER

United States District Judge

Dated:

/s/ Nick Wooten 

Nicholas H. Wooten 

DC LAW, PLLC

1012 W. Anderson Lane 

Austin, Texas 78757 

Phone: (512) 910-3285 

Fax: (512) 220-1801 

nick@texasjustice.com

Rusty A. Payton 

PAYTON LEGAL GROUP

20 North Clark Street, Suite 3300 

Chicago, Illinois 60602 

Phone: (773) 682-5210 

/s/ Amanda L. Groves 

Amanda L. Groves 

WINSTON & STRAWN LLP

333 S. Grand Avenue 

Los Angeles, California 90071 

Phone: (213) 615-1700 

Fax: (213) 615-1750 

agroves@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 

Case: 1:20-cv-02402 Document #: 181 Filed: 06/12/23 Page 24 of 25 PageID #:4282
25

info@payton.legal asmedley@winston.com

Salvador J. Lopez 

ROBSON & LOPEZ, LLC

121 S. Western Avenue, Suite 1 

Chicago, Illinois 60612 

Phone: (312) 523-2166 

lopez@robsonlopez.com

Counsel for Plaintiffs

Scott Ahmad

Christopher Parker 

WINSTON & STRAWN LLP

35 West Wacker Drive 

Chicago, Illinois 60601 

Phone: (312) 558-5600 

Fax: (312) 558-5700 

sahmad@winston.com

cparker@winston.com

Counsel for Defendant 

Case: 1:20-cv-02402 Document #: 181 Filed: 06/12/23 Page 25 of 25 PageID #:4283