Pandemic Darlings The pandemic economy, in original documents
Home Court filings Bofa Ca Unemployment In re: Bank of America California Unemployment Benefits Litigation — S.D. Cal., No. 21-md-02992 Supplement Letter from Andre L. Verdun concerning Discovery — In re BofA Unemployment Litigation (Dkt. 133-1)

Court filing

Supplement Letter from Andre L. Verdun concerning Discovery — In re BofA Unemployment Litigation (Dkt. 133-1)

Filed June 2, 2023 in In re Bank of America California Unemployment Benefits Litigation; one of 1415 filings from this case.

Record facts

CourtU.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
Filed2023-06-02

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California · No. 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB · Doc. 133-1 · 2023-06-02 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

Primary Mailing Address 
Law Office of Andre L. Verdun 
1777 N. Ventura Ave. 
Ventura, CA. 93001 
 
 
 
 
 
Primary Office Contact 
Main Line: (866) 880-4732 
Email: service@verdunlaw.com 
 
June 02, 2023 
 
Hon. Michael S. Berg 
Edward J. Schwartz - United States Courthouse 
Chambers Rm. #: Suite 2160 
221 West Broadway 
San Diego, CA 92101 
efile_berg@casd.uscourts.gov  
 
 
 
Re:   Bank of American California Unemployment 
Benefits Litigation MDL, CASE #: 3:21-md-02992-
LAB-MSB; Request for Discovery for Individual 
Plaintiffs 
 
 
 
 
 
Dear Hon. Michael S. Berg:  
 
This letter is presented on behalf of myself as the attorney for three individual 
plaintiffs in the case identified above, as well as for a portion of the legal counsel 
representing individual plaintiffs.  Counsel for the individual plaintiffs had multiple 
meetings this week, and met with liaison counsel, who also conferred with counsel for 
the class. See the Joint [Proposed] Scheduling Order, filed June 2, 2023 (“Liaison 
Counsel for the non-class plaintiffs to meet and confer regarding the timing of discovery 
as to the non-class plaintiffs."). Docket # 128, 2:1-2. 
To ensure that all plaintiffs, those in the proposed class, as well as cases brought 
by individual plaintiffs have input in the discovery process, we respectfully request the 
Court order the following: 
Class counsel shall proceed with the discovery plan filed on 
June 2, 2023, and in doing so, will conduct discovery 
consistent with the interests of the individual plaintiffs, and 
will communicate and work with the individual plaintiffs' 
counsel in the drafting and serving of discovery.  Counsel 
are encouraged to place a joint call to chambers to request a 
further discovery conference if the need arises. 
So, Your Honor is not left in the dark, and to provide an explanation, the three 
plaintiffs I represent alleged claims which are not asserted in the class action, as  
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 133-1     Filed 06/03/23     PageID.1039     Page
1 of 2

 
 
 
mentioned in the Opposition to Motion to Dismiss (See Docket #90, 2:24-28; referring to 
Plaintiffs Alverez, Rojas and Verdun, and their claims of California Identity Theft Act and 
Conversion). Thus, there will be some differences in the discovery these plaintiffs need 
to propound, as compared with the class of plaintiffs.  
 
 
Since the Motion to Dismiss has been denied in part, and discovery will open, I 
could foresee needing discovery to support the claims my clients alleged (which will 
vary some degree from the class discovery).  In addition to having input in the discovery 
served on Defendant, I respectfully request the ability to serve on behalf of each of my 
three clients: 
1) 10 Interrogatories, 
2) 10 Requests for Production of Documents, and 
3) to conduct two Depositions, 
 
This would help ensure that the discovery propounded would not be limited to the 
issues relating to the proposed class, but also other plaintiffs who expect competent 
advocacy from their counsel to support and advance their claims. Indeed, regarding at 
least one of the three plaintiffs I represent, we believe at least two dozen people 
working for Defendant have knowledge related to the state claims. Despite this large 
number, we are currently seeking to depose only two of these employees. If plaintiffs 
are forced to wait until 2024 to conduct depositions, we run the risk the individuals will 
no longer be employees of defendant, and evidence will not be preserved.  
We have made arrangements to attend Monday’s Zoom video discovery conference in 
the event that the Court has any questions.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Thank you,  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Andre L. Verdun 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Attorney at Law 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 133-1     Filed 06/03/23     PageID.1040     Page
2 of 2

File and source

File
gov.uscourts.casd.709615.133.1.pdf
Size
219,766 bytes
SHA-256
a6d72696a3a58f5cb4658fc708f3f230fe5e99395cd254c11a056b29fd0dc8e7
Our copy
gov.uscourts.casd.709615.133.1.pdf
Original
PACER (login required)
Back to top