Spaan v. Wells Fargo & Company

1
Kayla Hathcote
From: 	Patrick M. Flood <PFlood@pheblaw.com>
Sent: 	Tuesday, November 25, 2025 2:08 PM
To: 	carson@ned.uscourts.gov
Cc: 	Crowell, Bradley; Carroll, Tom; Sydney M. Grad
Subject: 	Joel Spaan v. Wells Fargo; Case No. 8:24-cv-148
Follow Up Flag: 	Follow up
Flag Status: 	Flagged
CAUTION - EXTERNAL:
Judge Carson:
I represent the PlaintiƯ in the above-referenced case. The parties currently have a discovery
dispute. The PlaintiƯ has requested available dates from Defendant’s counsel for the deposition of an
employee of Defendant whose name is Sophia Garcia. Ms. Garcia was an employee in the “Employee
Care” Division of Wells Fargo who had communications with the PlaintiƯ at the time he was considering
signing a severance agreement and made certain representations to PlaintiƯ about what his Job
ClassiƱcation Code was. Since severance was tied to a Job ClassiƱcation Code, Ms. Garcia’s
representations had a direct impact on PlaintiƯ’s decision to accept the severance agreement oƯered to
him or not. In a nutshell, Ms. Garcia told PlaintiƯ that Job ClassiƱcation Code was a “1” , but it turned out
to be a “5”. There are at least two important emails which PlaintiƯ’s counsel who would like to question
Ms. Garcia about, as well as a phone conversation which she had with PlaintiƯ concerning the topic of
his job classiƱcation code.
Defendant has Ʋatly objected to producing Ms. Garcia for a deposition, contending that her deposition is
irrelevant or that the burden and expense of preparing and defending this deposition clearly outweigh the
value of her testimony. PlaintiƯ contends that her testimony is important because she made certain
admissions important to PlaintiƯ’s case. PlaintiƯ also wants to inquire what training Ms. Garcia had
before Ʊelding calls and communications from inquiring employees (like from PlaintiƯ) and what
instructions she was given by her superiors regarding employees’ job classiƱcation codes. PlaintiƯ
believes its questioning of Ms. Garcia will be reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence at trial. In terms of expense, we cannot imagine that a company like Wells Fargo would endure
that much expense for preparing this witness for a deposition and attending the deposition. PlaintiƯ
would be willing to take the deposition by zoom.
Thank you,
Pat Flood
Patrick M. Flood
Attorney
Firm: 	402.397.5500
8:24-cv-00148-JFB-RCC Doc # 42 Filed: 12/08/25 Page 1 of 2 - Page ID #
<pageID>

2
Direct: 	402-504-9446
Email: pƲood@pheblaw.com
PANSING HOGAN ERNST & BUSER LLP | 10250 Regency Circle, Suite 300 |Omaha, NE 68114
__________________________________________________________________
This message and any attachments are conƱdential, may contain privileged information, and are intended solely
for the recipient named above. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivery to the
intended recipient, you are notiƱed that any review, distribution, dissemination or copying is prohibited. If you
have received this email in error, you should notify the sender by return email and delete the message from your
computer system.
CAUTION - EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email originated outside the Judiciary. Exercise caution when opening
attachments or clicking on links.
8:24-cv-00148-JFB-RCC Doc # 42 Filed: 12/08/25 Page 2 of 2 - Page ID #
<pageID>