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, 

 Plaintiffs,

 v.

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,

 Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 1:20-cv-02402

Honorable Rebecca R. Pallmeyer

Honorable Heather K. McShain

REPORT OF PARTIES’ PLANNING MEETING

1. Meeting. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f), a meeting was held on April 30, 2021 via

telephone and was attended by:

Nick Wooten, for Plaintiff Andrew J. Maxwell, not individually, but as Trustee for 

the estate of Eduardo Garcia and Julia Garcia

Angela A. Smedley, for the Defendant (whose appearance is forthcoming)

2. Nature of the Case.

a. The case involves the following claims and counterclaims:

After the Court’s ruling on the Motion to Dismiss, the remaining claim is for 

unfairness under the ICFA. There are no counterclaims. 

This case has the added dimension of the Chapter 7 Trustee for the Garcias being 

the plaintiff in this case. It is anticipated the Chapter 7 Trustee will complete the 

administration of the bankruptcy estate in short order and file a motion to relinquish 

his interest in this case back to the Debtors. Therefore, there may a substitution of 

the real parties in interest in short order. 

b. The basis for federal jurisdiction: 

This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1332(a) and 28 U.S.C. §1367. 

Case: 1:20-cv-02402 Document #: 26 Filed: 05/05/21 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:330
Diversity: The matter in controversy exceeds $75,000.00 exclusive of punitive 

damages, and/or interest and costs, and is between citizens of different States. 

i. Domicile of Plaintiffs: Citizens of Illinois

ii. Domicile of Defendant: Wells Fargo is a national banking association. Its

main office is located in Sioux Falls, South Dakota 57104. Its principal 

place of business is in San Francisco, California.

3. Pre-trial Schedule. The parties jointly propose to the court the following discovery plan: 

a. Discovery will be needed on the following subjects:

This case is an “opt-out” from the Hernandez class action. It is the Plaintiff’s 

position that, in this unique situation, Rule 1 would be served, judicial economy 

would be enhanced, and the case would be substantially narrowed and time for 

discovery shortened by ordering Wells Fargo to produce “cloned discovery” in the 

form of the documents produced in the Hernandez class action along with the Wells 

Fargo depositions taken in Hernandez. Plaintiff believes resolution of this question 

is the paramount and threshold issue since it covers over 200,000 pages and 54 

deposition transcripts. 

Plaintiff proposes that resolution of the question regarding cloned discovery from 

the Hernandez action will control whether and to what extent any additional 

discovery will be required. The Plaintiff believes that a conference with Judge 

McShain on this matter would be appropriate. Once a decision is made on the issue 

of cloned discovery, the parties can determine if any other discovery is necessary 

beyond party depositions specific to this case. 

Wells Fargo opposes Plaintiff’s proposal on the ground that it is premature. Wells 

Fargo submits that it would be more appropriate to commence discovery with loanlevel documents from the Garcias’ loan file, and subsequently address the issue of 

cloned discovery only if Plaintiff continues to believe it is necessary after reviewing 

the loan-level production. Wells Fargo also opposes Plaintiff’s proposal on the 

grounds that the production of Hernandez class discovery would violate the 

protective order in that matter and is overbroad and irrelevant for this singleplaintiff case.

The Parties agree there will be a need for a protective order, as there is likely to be 

requested of Defendant certain information that is proprietary and confidential, and 

there is likely to be information pertaining to the Garcias’ personal and confidential 

information. The Plaintiff has proposed the use of the Court’s model confidentiality 

order with Option B of paragraph 4, regarding depositions. Wells Fargo agrees that 

the Court’s standard model confidentiality order should govern in the first instance 

but anticipates and reserves the right to propose appropriate modifications, subject 

to the agreement of Plaintiff and approval by the Court.

Case: 1:20-cv-02402 Document #: 26 Filed: 05/05/21 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:331
b. Disclosures pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) to be made by June 4, 2021. The 

Plaintiff believes that determination of an appropriate discovery cutoff also is 

impacted by the decision on cloned discovery. The Plaintiff believes that discovery 

could be completed in approximately 90-120 days if cloned discovery is ordered. 

Otherwise, the Plaintiff would expect the discovery period would need to be 

approximately one year. 

Wells Fargo believes that cloned discovery would be inappropriate in this case and 

anticipates that all fact discovery could be completed by February 4, 2022.

c. The parties have discussed discovery of electronically stored information [“ESI”]. 

The parties acknowledge their obligation to take reasonable and proportionate steps 

for preserving relevant and discoverable ESI within their possession, custody, or 

control. The parties acknowledge, further, that requests for ESI, and responses to 

those requests, must be reasonably targeted, clear, and as specific as practicable. 

The parties propose the following methodologies for identifying ESI, eliminating 

duplicative ESI, developing filters or keywords for searches:

The Plaintiff’s position is that the availability of cloned discovery would likely 

obviate the need for any additional ESI discovery in this case. If, however, cloned 

discovery is not ordered, the Plaintiff will have to develop search terms to submit 

to Wells Fargo reasonably targeted to address the Plaintiff’s burden in this case. 

Wells Fargo’s position is that cloned Hernandez discovery would be overbroad and 

irrelevant and is thus inappropriate for this case. 

d. The number of depositions needed by the Plaintiff will also turn upon the issue of 

cloned discovery. In Hernandez, there were 54 depositions of Wells Fargo 

witnesses taken. If the Plaintiffs are provided those transcripts, then the Plaintiff 

would anticipate a single 30(b)(6) deposition to cover case specific facts. If these 

are not ordered produced, then the Plaintiff would likely need at least ten 

depositions. Defendant anticipates the need for up to ten depositions. 

e. Reports from retained experts under Rule 26(a)(2) due: 

From Plaintiff 30 days after the close of fact discovery. Depositions to be taken 

within 30 days of receipt of the expert’s report. 

From Defendant by 30 days after the deposition of Plaintiff’s expert(s). Deposition 

to be taken within 30 days of receipt of any expert’s report. 

f. All potentially dispositive motions should be filed by 30 days after completion of 

expert discovery. 

[Note: The court will not consider a summary judgment motion until the parties 

have first discussed settlement. Any motion for summary judgment must be 

Case: 1:20-cv-02402 Document #: 26 Filed: 05/05/21 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:332
accompanied by a statement signed by lead counsel for both parties certifying that 

they have engaged in good faith settlement efforts.]

4. Trial Schedule.

The Parties have not provided proposed dates for this section because Plaintiff 

believes that resolution of the cloned discovery issue will affect how quickly the case could 

be ready for trial. If cloned discovery is ordered, then the Plaintiff believes the case could 

be tried within approximately 8-10 months. Without cloned discovery, the case may take 

closer to eighteen months to be made ready for trial. The Parties propose to file an amended 

report when this issue is resolved. 

a. Final pretrial order: Plaintiff to prepare proposed draft by [TBD]; parties to file 

joint final pretrial order by [TBD].

b. The case should be ready for trial by [TBD]. At this time, Plaintiff expects the trial 

to take approximately seven (7) days. Based on current knowledge, Defendant 

expects the trial to take significantly less time, as this is a single-plaintiff case.

5. Expected Evidentiary Proceedings.

The Parties anticipate there may be the following types of evidentiary hearings: a jury trial. 

6. Settlement. At least 10 days prior to the Rule 16[b] scheduling conference, Plaintiff is 

directed to make a written settlement demand to the Defendant. At least 3 days prior to the 

scheduling conference, Defendant is to respond in writing to the Plaintiff’s settlement 

demand.

7. Consent. The parties do not consent unanimously to proceed before a Magistrate Judge.

Case: 1:20-cv-02402 Document #: 26 Filed: 05/05/21 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:333
Dated: May 5, 2021 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Nick Wooten

Nicholas H. Wooten

NICK WOOTEN, LLC

5125 Burnt Pine Drive

Conway, Arkansas 72034

(833) 937-6389

nick@nickwooten.com

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) 523-2166

lopez@robsonlopez.com

Counsel for the Plaintiff

/s/ Scott P. Glauberman

Scott P. Glauberman

Winston & Strawn LLP

35 West Wacker Drive

Chicago, Illinois 60601

(312) 558-8103

sglauber@winston.com

Angela A. Smedley (pro hac vice

application forthcoming)

Winston & Strawn LLP

200 Park Avenue

New York, NY 10166-4193

(212) 294-6700

Asmedley@winston.com

Counsel for Defendant

Case: 1:20-cv-02402 Document #: 26 Filed: 05/05/21 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:334