IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

BUREAU OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL )

PROTECTION, )

) Case No. 1:20-cv-04176

Plaintiff, ) 

) Judge Franklin U. Valderrama

v. ) Magistrate Judge Gabriel A. Fuentes

)

TOWNSTONE FINANCIAL, INC. AND )

BARRY STURNER, )

)

Defendants. )

JOINT STATUS REPORT

AND REQUEST FOR STATUS CONFERENCE

In compliance with the Court’s September 6, 2024, Order, Dkt. No. 123, 

Plaintiff Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (Bureau or CFPB) and Defendants 

Townstone Financial and Barry Sturner (collectively, Defendants), by and through 

their counsel, respectfully submit this joint status report and request a status 

conference. The parties believe that a status conference would aid the Court and the 

parties in deciding the best course of action in the case going forward. Toward that 

end, they first describe the status of the case on February 3, 2023, when the Court 

granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss, Dkt. No. 110, and what discovery remains

outstanding. Then each party describes their position on next steps.

Status of Discovery

1. When this Court ruled on the motion to dismiss on February 3, 2023, the 

discovery schedule, see Dkt. No. 103, was as follows: 

February 23, 2023: fact discovery cutoff; 

March 24, 2023: Rule 26(a)(2) expert reports due to be served by CFPB;

Case: 1:20-cv-04176 Document #: 127 Filed: 09/19/24 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:823
- 2 -

April 28, 2023: Rule 26(a)(2) expert reports due to be served by Defendants;

May 26, 2023: CFPB expert depositions to be completed; and

June 30, 2023: Defendants’ expert depositions to be completed and all 

discovery closed. 

2. The Bureau received responses to its initial sets of requests for production 

and conducted six depositions. Defendants received responses to their

initial sets of requests for production. The parties still have some disputes 

concerning these requests and responses and must confirm whether all 

documents or information concerning requests not in dispute have been 

produced.

3. Defendants served supplemental sets of interrogatories and requests for 

production and requests for admission on January 6, 2023, and a second 

supplemental set of discovery requests and a second set of requests for 

admission on January 23, 2023. The Bureau had not yet responded to these 

requests when the Court issued its February 3, 2023, Order. As a result of 

that Order, the parties consider the requests mooted. Defendants anticipate 

renewing the discovery requests and requests for admission.

4. The Bureau proposed stipulations regarding certain pieces of data and 

facts. The specific stipulations were not yet agreed upon, but the parties 

intend to revisit the proposals.

5. The Bureau scheduled four further depositions, including a Rule 30(b)(6) 

deposition of Townstone, before the close of fact discovery, and Defendants 

Case: 1:20-cv-04176 Document #: 127 Filed: 09/19/24 Page 2 of 7 PageID #:824
- 3 -

anticipate serving notice of one Rule 30(b)(6) deposition on the Bureau and 

possibly additional depositions of fact witnesses.

6. The parties anticipate needing four additional months to complete fact 

discovery. The parties anticipate that they will have disagreements 

concerning some of the remaining discovery, but, as they have done so far 

in this case, they will work diligently to resolve those disputes before

making any motions to the Court.

7. On December 27, 2022, Defendants filed Rule 72(a) Objections to 

Magistrate Judge Fuentes’ denial of their Motion to Compel, Dkt. No. 105,

which was fully briefed as of January 18, 2023, but not yet ruled upon. The 

parties would appreciate guidance from the Court concerning the best 

approach to the Objections going forward, as that dispute remains live and 

nothing about the appeal changed the parties’ positions regarding that 

dispute.

Defendants’ Proposed Approach Concerning Case Scheduling 

8. Defendants intend to file a motion for summary judgment as soon as 

practicable concerning their First Amendment defenses, among others. 

Because some additional discovery is likely relevant to such a motion, 

Defendants propose that the Court establish a schedule (1) allowing the 

parties to complete fact discovery, (2) setting a briefing schedule for the 

summary judgment motion, and (3) staying expert discovery pending the 

outcome of Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Defendants’ First 

Case: 1:20-cv-04176 Document #: 127 Filed: 09/19/24 Page 3 of 7 PageID #:825
- 4 -

Amendment defenses are potentially dispositive, so if the Court rules in 

favor of Defendants on any First Amendment defenses, the case will be 

dismissed. Because the First Amendment issues in the case are serious, and 

because Defendants claim that the Bureau’s case is chilling Defendants’ 

speech (and could have a broader chilling effect on others) (see, e.g., Dkt. 

Nos. 32, 100, 100-1), Defendants believe that the Court should address 

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment before allowing expert discovery 

to proceed. Unlike the previous motion to stay discovery, this request is 

based upon threshold First Amendment issues and focuses only on expert 

discovery. Cf. Dkt. No. 104. Hiring experts and conducting expert discovery

will be extremely expensive and time consuming for both parties, and that 

time and expense will only contribute to the chilling effect that this case 

has already had on Defendants’ free speech. Defendants are prepared to 

brief the reasons a stay of discovery is appropriate when First Amendment 

rights are at stake; alternatively, Defendants could address this issue in a 

status conference. If the Court is amenable to this approach, Defendants 

can work with the Bureau to devise a schedule for remaining discovery and 

briefing that is agreeable to both parties and the Court.

Plaintiff’s Proposed Approach Concerning Case Scheduling

9. The Court’s most recent scheduling order, Dkt. No. 103, directing all 

discovery be completed by June 30, 2023, also denied Defendants’ prior 

motion to stay discovery pending a ruling on their motion to dismiss, Dkt. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04176 Document #: 127 Filed: 09/19/24 Page 4 of 7 PageID #:826
- 5 -

No. 77, holding instead that discovery should proceed and that the schedule 

was “firm.” The Bureau sees no reason to depart from that prior order or to 

revisit the Court’s decision denying Defendants’ motion to stay discovery, 

especially considering that the recent appellate court decision extinguished 

one of the two primary grounds for Defendants’ motion to dismiss.

Accordingly, while the Bureau agrees with Defendants that four months is 

an appropriate duration for the parties to complete fact discovery, meaning 

fact discovery would close on about January 20, 2025, the Bureau requests 

that the Court enter an order directing that expert discovery proceed on a 

similar schedule to what the Court ordered before the case was dismissed, 

with the Bureau’s expert reports due about one month after the close of fact 

discovery (February 19, 2025), Defendants’ expert reports due about one 

month after that (March 19, 2025); and expert depositions taken no later 

than two months after the due date for Defendants’ reports (May 19, 2025). 

Request for Status Conference

10.Despite their differences concerning whether expert discovery should be 

stayed, the parties agree that a status conference with the Court would be 

appropriate to discuss next steps, establish the procedure for how to 

address the Objections to the Magistrate’s ruling on Defendants’ motion to 

compel, and identify a mechanism for devising a schedule that reflects the 

Court’s input.

Case: 1:20-cv-04176 Document #: 127 Filed: 09/19/24 Page 5 of 7 PageID #:827
- 6 -

11.Accordingly, the parties respectfully submit this joint status report and ask 

that the Court grant the request for a status conference.

Dated: September 19, 2024.

Respectfully submitted,

CONSUMER FINANCIAL

PROTECTION BUREAU

/s/ Jacob A. Schunk

JACOB A. SCHUNK (IA AT001908) 

 jacob.schunk@cfpb.gov 

Tele: (202) 718-0394 

GREGORY W. JONES

 (IL ARDC #6313157) 

 gregory.jones@cfpb.gov 

MARY OLSON (IL ARDC # 629733) 

 mary.olson@cfpb.gov 

230 S. Dearborn St. 

Suite 1590 

Chicago, IL 60604 

and 

1700 G Street NW 

Washington, DC 20552

Attorneys for Plaintiff

TOWNSTONE FINANCIAL, INC. &

BARRY STURNER

/s/ Steven M. Simpson

STEVEN M. SIMPSON 

 DC Bar No. 462553 

ASHLEY TORKELSON LEVINE

 AZ Bar No. 032544

Pacific Legal Foundation

3100 Clarendon Blvd., Suite 1000

Arlington, VA, 22201

Tel: (202) 888-6881

SSimpson@pacificlegal.org 

ALevine@pacificlegal.org

OLIVER J. DUNFORD

 FL Bar No. 017991

Pacific Legal Foundation

4440 PGA Boulevard, Suite 307 

Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 

Tel: (916) 503-9060

ODunford@pacificlegal.org

SEAN P. BURKE

Mattingly Burke Cohen & Biederman 

LLP 

155 E. Market St. Suite 400

Indianapolis, IN 46204

MARX DAVID STERBCOW

The Sterbcow Law Group LLC

824 Elmwood Park Blvd., Suite 205 

New Orleans, LA 70123

Attorneys for Defendants

Case: 1:20-cv-04176 Document #: 127 Filed: 09/19/24 Page 6 of 7 PageID #:828
- 7 -

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certify that on September 19, 2024, I electronically 

filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court via the CM/ECF system, 

which will cause a copy to be served upon counsel of record.

/s/ Steven M. Simpson

STEVEN M. SIMPSON

Case: 1:20-cv-04176 Document #: 127 Filed: 09/19/24 Page 7 of 7 PageID #:829