NOTICE PLAINTIFFS' DISCOVERY POSITION STATEMENT by Ursula Auburn, Cindy Baker, Clara… — Bofa Ca Unemployment (Dkt. 57)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California · No. 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB · Doc. 57 · 2021-08-05 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

Plaintiffs’ Discovery Position Statement 
Case No. 3:21-md-02992-LAB-MSB 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
JOSEPH W. COTCHETT (SBN 36324) 
jcotchett@cpmlegal.com 
BRIAN DANITZ (SBN 247403) 
bdanitz@cpmlegal.com 
KARIN B. SWOPE (PRO HAC VICE) 
kswope@cpmlegal.com 
ANDREW F. KIRTLEY (SBN 328023) 
akirtley@cpmlegal.com 
KEVIN J. BOUTIN (SBN 334965) 
kboutin@cpmlegal.com 
COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY LLP 
840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200 
Burlingame, CA  94010 
Telephone: (650) 697-6000 
Fax: (650) 697-0577 
 
Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs and the Class
MICHAEL RUBIN (SBN 080618) 
mrubin@altber.com 
STACEY M. LEYTON (SBN 203827) 
sleyton@altber.com 
MATTHEW MURRAY (SBN 271461) 
mmurray@altber.com 
CONNIE K. CHAN (SBN 284230) 
cchan@altber.com 
ALTSHULER BERZON LLP 
177 Post Street, Suite 300 
San Francisco, CA  94108 
Telephone: (415) 421-7151 
Fax: (415) 362-8064 
 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 
 
IN RE:  BANK OF AMERICA 
CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT 
BENEFITS LITIGATION 
 
 
 Case No.  3:21-md-02992-LAB-MSB 
 
CLASS ACTION 
 
PLAINTIFFS’ DISCOVERY POSITION 
STATEMENT 
 
Date:  
 
August 5, 2021 
Time:  
 
9:30 a.m. 
Location: 
 
Zoom 
Judge: 
 
Hon. Michael S. Berg 
 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 57     Filed 07/29/21     PageID.141     Page 1
of 5

 
Plaintiffs’ Discovery Position Statement 
Case No. 3:21-md-02992-LAB-MSB
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Plaintiffs submit this Statement pursuant to the Court’s Order, Dkt. No. 51. 
Procedural Posture.  Plaintiffs commenced this action in January 2021. On 
May 17, the district court in Yick issued an Order Re Preliminary Injunction finding that 
Plaintiffs “demonstrated a strong likelihood of success” on their EFTA, UCL, and breach 
of contract claims and established irreparable harm, and it provisionally certified a Rule 
23(b)(2) class. Yick, Dkt. 89. The parties held a Rule 26(f) conference that same day, and 
on May 18 the district court ordered: “Discovery may proceed in the case immediately.” 
Yick Dkt. 93. On May 21, the court entered the parties’ Stipulated Protective Order. Yick 
Dkt. 97. On June 1, the court entered a Preliminary Injunction. Yick Dkt. 101. On June 
9, the parties exchanged initial disclosures and Plaintiffs served a First Set of Requests 
for Production. The parties are finalizing their ESI Protocol.  
Plaintiffs’ Claims. Plaintiffs assert two sets of claims. The first arises from 
BofA’s inadequate security measures, including its use of outmoded magstripe cards and 
failure to prevent data breaches, which unreasonably exposed and continues to expose 
EDD cardholders to identity theft and fraudulent transactions that deprive them of access 
to their UI benefits. The second arises from BofA’s response to EDD cardholders who 
complained about stolen UI benefits, which: (1) rejected the cardholders’ claims of 
fraudulent transactions, and (2) froze the cardholders’ accounts, depriving them of 
access to their UI funds. The Preliminary Injunction concerns this second set of claims, 
and is limited to claim denials and account freezes caused by BofA’s automated “fraud 
filter.” The Complaint is not so limited, and aggrieved EDD cardholders continue to 
contact Plaintiffs’ counsel about unauthorized transactions and blocked accounts. Due 
to the vulnerable nature of the Class of UI benefits recipients, time is of the essence in 
restoring Plaintiffs’ legal rights.  
DISCOVERY CATEGORIES 
 
1. Plaintiffs’ Files. Plaintiffs need to access their BofA files, including account 
statements, call logs, account notes, and investigation findings, to show the classwide 
nature of BofA’s violations and to respond to its anticipated challenges to standing. 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 57     Filed 07/29/21     PageID.142     Page 2
of 5

 
Plaintiffs’ Discovery Position Statement 
Case No. 3:21-md-02992-LAB-MSB
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2. Class Definition. Plaintiffs still need basic data about the impacts of BofA’s 
practices, including how many class members have thus far been affected.  
3. Account Freezing/Blocking. Plaintiffs need to know what it means for BofA 
to “freeze” or “block” an account, why it summarily freezes or blocks accounts, how 
many accounts were and continue to be affected, and for how long.   
4. Claims Making Process. Under EFTA and BofA’s contracts, BofA must 
conduct a good faith investigation into each unauthorized-transaction claim and must 
provide provisional credit if its investigation is not completed within 10 business days. 
Plaintiffs need information regarding BofA’s investigation policies, how and why those 
policies changed, and how many claims were denied and continue to be denied without 
adequate investigation. 
5. Initial Claims Fraud Filter. Plaintiffs need information about BofA’s fraud 
filter, including its content, error rate, and the number of claims/accounts it affected. 
6. Compliance with Injunction.  Plaintiffs need discovery “sufficient to show” 
BofA’s compliance with the injunction to evaluate the need for further enforcement. 
7. Data Breaches/Magstripe Cards. BofA’s allegedly inadequate security 
measures continue to expose EDD cardholders to UI theft. Prompt discovery into these 
claims is needed to document the cases and evaluate the need for further interim relief. 
 
Categories 1-6 relate to claims Judge Chhabria found had “a strong likelihood of 
success,” but Plaintiffs still do not know how BofA’s “fraud filter” operated, who it 
affected, or the scope and content of BofA’s other challenged practices. Providing 
relevant discovery now rather than later will cause BofA no undue burden. Category 7 
discovery is particularly urgent because class members continue to have UI benefits 
stolen due to BofA’s lax security measures and cannot obtain timely relief without 
targeted discovery. BofA’s motion to dismiss will not eliminate Plaintiffs’ principal 
claims, while the requested focused discovery will enable this case to proceed 
expeditiously while limiting the ongoing, irreparable harm to class members. 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 57     Filed 07/29/21     PageID.143     Page 3
of 5

 
Plaintiffs’ Discovery Position Statement 
Case No. 3:21-md-02992-LAB-MSB
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
 
Respectfully submitted, 
 
Dated:  July 29, 2021 
COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP 
 
By:  /s/ Brian Danitz 
 
 
 
 
JOSEPH W. COTCHETT 
BRIAN DANITZ 
KARIN B. SWOPE 
ANDREW F. KIRTLEY 
KEVIN J. BOUTIN 
 
Interim Co-Lead Counsel 
Dated:  July 29, 2021 
ALTSHULER BERZON LLP 
 
By:  /s/ Michael Rubin  
 
 
 
MICHAEL RUBIN 
STACEY M. LEYTON 
MATTHEW MURRAY 
CONNIE K. CHAN 
 
Interim Co-Lead Counsel  
 
 
 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 57     Filed 07/29/21     PageID.144     Page 4
of 5

 
Plaintiffs’ Discovery Position Statement 
Case No. 3:21-md-02992-LAB-MSB
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ATTESTATION OF E-FILED SIGNATURE 
 
Pursuant to Section 2(f)(4) of the Electronic Case Filing Administrative 
Policies and Procedures Manual, I, Brian Danitz, hereby certify that the content of 
this document is acceptable to counsel for Plaintiff and that I have obtained 
counsel’s authorization to affix his electronic signature to this document. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Brian Danitz 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BRIAN DANITZ 
 
 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 57     Filed 07/29/21     PageID.145     Page 5
of 5

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.casd.709615.57.0.pdf

Size

399,872 bytes

SHA-256

90065fea6dfa32509ae3d5165689ee69feac3b53f821d9aae52307a10b7ab173

Our copy

gov.uscourts.casd.709615.57.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)