Court filing
RESPONSE re 209 Supplemental Briefing, Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendant's Motion… — Bofa Ca Unemployment (Dkt. 215)
No. 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB · Doc. 215 · Docket on CourtListener
Summary
Plaintiffs' opposition to the bank's motion to preclude additional ESI discovery, filed January 30, 2024 as Doc. 215 in In re Bank of America California Unemployment Benefits Litigation, No. 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. The plaintiffs ask the court to compel the bank to add eight ESI custodians, five executives including its CEO and three non-executives, or at minimum three executive custodians of their choosing. They argue the added cost is the same per custodian, that the executives hold unique documents on the Fraud Filter strategy, and that such evidence bears on treble damages under 15 U.S.C. §1693f(e) and punitive damages. On proportionality, they assert that over 100,000 Californians lost access to benefits and cite a $225 million CFPB and OCC fine. The 9-page brief is signed by Brian Danitz and Connie K. Chan.
Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used
Full text
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 215 Filed 01/30/24 PageID.2248 Page 1
of 9
1 JOSEPH W. COTCHETT (SBN 36324) MICHAEL RUBIN (SBN 80618)
2 jcotchett@cpmlegal.com mrubin@altber.com
BRIAN DANITZ (SBN 247403) STACEY M. LEYTON (SBN 203827)
3 bdanitz@cpmlegal.com sleyton@altber.com
4 KARIN B. SWOPE (Pro Hac Vice) MATTHEW MURRAY (SBN 271461)
kswope@cpmlegal.com mmurray@altber.com
5 ANDREW F. KIRTLEY (SBN 328023) CONNIE K. CHAN (SBN 284230)
6 akirtley@cpmlegal.com cchan@altber.com
COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP ALTSHULER BERZON LLP
7 840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200 177 Post Street, Suite 300
8 Burlingame, CA 94010 San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (650) 697-6000 Telephone: (415) 421-7151
9
Fax: (650) 697-0577 Fax: (415) 362-8064
10
Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class
11 (Additional Counsel Listed Below)
12
13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
14 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
15
16 IN RE BANK OF AMERICA Case No. 3:21-md-02992-LAB-MSB
CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT
17 BENEFITS LITIGATION PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO
18 DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO
PRECLUDE ADDITIONAL ESI
19 DISCOVERY
20
This Document Relates to All Actions Judge: Hon. Larry Alan Burns
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Plaintiffs’ Opp’n to Def.’s Mot. to Preclude Additional ESI Discovery
Case No. 3:21-md-02992-LAB-MSB
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 215 Filed 01/30/24 PageID.2249 Page 2
of 9
1 The Bank fails to justify its refusal to search the eight key witnesses’ ESI.
2 First, as to burden, the Bank admits it “offered eight additional ESI custodians”
3 to Plaintiffs (McGarry Decl. ¶9) and that its incremental per-custodian cost is the same
4 for executives and non-executives (Anderson Decl. ¶9). Adding executives Moynihan,
5 Bessant, Athanasia, Montag, and Channels, each of whom has relevant documents (see
6 Exs. 1-15), will cost the Bank no more than adding any other five custodians.
7 Second, each of the requested custodians has relevant and unique knowledge
8 about the issues—especially CEO Moynihan, who personally prepared memos and
9 presented on key issues at closed-door Board meetings. Exs. 1, 10-12. The Bank
10 responds by inventing a “key decision maker” standard, but the law is clear that an
11 executive’s documents are subject to ESI review if the executive has “uniquely relevant
12 information that is not available from the sources already designated.” In re Facebook,
13 Inc. Consumer Privacy User Profile Litig., 2021 WL 10282213, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Nov.
14 14, 2021); see also Blackberry Ltd. v. Facebook, Inc., 2019 WL 4544425, at *5-6 (C.D.
15 Cal. Aug. 19, 2019) (considering only whether custodian “has ‘unique or personal
16 knowledge of the subject matter’”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).1 Even under the Bank’s
17 test, Plaintiffs should prevail based on evidence indicating that Moynihan personally
18 authorized freezing 46,000 cards the very day the Bank deployed its Fraud Filter
19 strategy (Ex. 7),2 and that Moynihan, Bessant, Athanasia, and other executives directed
20 changes to the Bank’s claims-processing procedures specifically to avoid paying
21 EFTA-required provisional credit (Exs. 4, 13). Those and other documents show that
22 top Bank executives were not merely aware of but were driving the key issues.3 And
23 1
The so-called “apex doctrine,” which applies to potentially disruptive depositions,
24 does not shield executives “from merely collecting and producing documents.”
Blankenship v. Fox News Network LLC, 2021 WL 2345972, *3 n.5 (S.D. W. Va. June
25 8, 2021); accord Rosinbaum v. Flower Foods, Inc., 238 F.Supp.3d 738, 749 (E.D.N.C.
2017) (“apex doctrine” does not “shield an executive from a request for production”).
26 2
Notably, the Bank neither denies that Moynihan is the “Brian” who authorized those
freezes nor identifies any other “Brian” to whom the email may have been referring.
27 3
The evidence here is thus a far cry from Blackberry, in which plaintiff conceded the
28 CEO was “far afield” from the issues and relied solely on an editorial by the CEO
that showed no personal knowledge of the patent at issue. 2019 WL 4544425, at *7.
28 Plaintiffs’ Opp’n to Def.’s Mot. to Preclude Additional ESI Discovery 1
Case No. 3:21-md-02992-LAB-MSB
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 215 Filed 01/30/24 PageID.2250 Page 3
of 9
1 because those executives often communicated only with one another (see, e.g., Exs. 1,
2 3), their documents are unique and cannot be obtained through other sources. See In re
3 Facebook, 2021 WL 10282213, at *2.4
4 Third, the requested documents are critical and will help resolve this case, at
5 trial or otherwise, if they confirm—as Plaintiffs have shown is likely (see Exs. 7, 11,
6 12, 15, 16)—that these executives authorized the Fraud Filter’s continued use despite
7 knowing it was wrongfully depriving tens of thousands of innocent Californians of
8 critical UI funds for weeks and months on end. That would establish the Bank’s
9 knowledge and willfulness and thus Plaintiffs’ entitlement to treble damages under
10 EFTA, as well as punitive damages. See 15 U.S.C. §1693f(e) (treble damages available
11 if no “good faith investigation,” if no “reasonable basis” for denying claim, or if
12 violations were “knowing[] and willful[]”); Dang v. Cross, 422 F.3d 800, 808-09 (9th
13 Cir. 2005) (punitive damages if defendant acted with malice, oppression, gross
14 negligence, willful or wanton misconduct, or in reckless disregard of plaintiffs’ rights).
15 Likewise, if those documents confirm—as Plaintiffs have shown is likely (see Exs. 3,
16 4, 11, 13, 14)—that top executives directed development of the Fraud Filter strategy to
17 protect the Bank at the expense of innocent cardholders, that would support Plaintiffs’
18 claims for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of the implied covenant, and treble and
19 punitive damages. Discovery into what executives knew about the Fraud Filter and its
20 impacts, when they knew it, and what actions they directed, authorized, or ratified is
21 critical to resolving these key issues, and Plaintiffs are entitled to it under Rule 26.
22 Fourth, the scope of discovery to date is nothing unusual for an MDL class
23 action of this complexity and scope. See Schoen Decl. ¶6.5 Plaintiffs’ search terms were
24 4
While the Bank is of course right that the documents cited by Plaintiffs were
25 obtained from existing custodians, the point is that those documents show why the
requested custodians will undoubtedly have highly material, non-duplicative
26 documents. See Shenwick v. Twitter, 2018 WL 833085, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2018).
Because the Bank will not need to re-review any duplicate documents, its per-
27 custodian cost estimate is likely inflated. Decl. of Jaclyn Schoen ¶8.
28 Nor is there anything improper about Plaintiffs’ interrogatories asking the Bank to
5
identify which documents it may rely upon in defending its use of the Fraud Filter.
28 Plaintiffs’ Opp’n to Def.’s Mot. to Preclude Additional ESI Discovery 2
Case No. 3:21-md-02992-LAB-MSB
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 215 Filed 01/30/24 PageID.2251 Page 4
of 9
1 not overbroad, yielding a reasonable hit rate by industry standards, and the Bank could
2 have reduced costs by choosing more efficient and cost-effective review methods. Id.
3 ¶¶3-5.6 Plaintiffs also reasonably limited the requested documents to a two-year period.
4 That the Bank had to hire more contract attorneys and expedite review to meet the
5 December 4 deadline is a problem of the Bank’s own making. Plaintiffs served their
6 RFPs on June 12. Had the Bank properly disclosed all relevant ESI custodians in its
7 July 31 disclosures, it could have begun collecting and reviewing documents in August
8 rather than waiting until October. See Chan Decl. ¶¶25-32; McGarry Decl. ¶5.
9 Finally, the requested discovery is proportional given the importance of issues
10 and the amount in controversy, notwithstanding the Bank’s attempt to downplay the
11 enormous harm it caused. The Bank used its Fraud Filter to automatically deny claims
12 and freeze or block accounts, depriving over 100,000 innocent Californians of access
13 to hundreds of millions of dollars in UI and disability benefits.7 The reason the Bank
14 stopped using the Fraud Filter after “approximately 9 months” (Bank Br. 2) was
15 because on June 1, 2021, a federal court issued a preliminary injunction enjoining the
16 Bank’s practices, based on Plaintiffs’ “strong likelihood of success” and showing of
17 irreparable harm. The CFPB and OCC then imposed on the Bank a $225 million fine
18 for its misconduct. Plaintiffs and class members seek to recover treble and punitive
19 damages that the regulators were not statutorily authorized to pursue.8
20 For these reasons, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court deny the Bank’s
21 motion and compel the Bank to add the eight additional ESI custodians (executives
22 Moynihan, Bessant, Athanasia, Montag, and Channels, plus non-executives Boussuge,
23 Johnson, and Blasi) or, at minimum, adopt its tentative ruling compelling the Bank to
24 add three executive custodians of Plaintiffs’ choosing.
25
26 6
In any event, Plaintiffs have already agreed to meet and confer with the Bank to
negotiate a narrower set of search terms for the eight requested custodians.
27 7 See https://www.consumerfinance.gov/enforcement/actions/bank-of-america-na-2/.
8
28 See 12 U.S.C. §5565(a)(3), 15 U.S.C. §1693o(a)(5) (authorizing CFPB to recover
restitution and civil money penalties but not exemplary or punitive damages).
28 Plaintiffs’ Opp’n to Def.’s Mot. to Preclude Additional ESI Discovery 3
Case No. 3:21-md-02992-LAB-MSB
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 215 Filed 01/30/24 PageID.2252 Page 5
of 9
1 Dated: January 30, 2024 COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP
2 By: /s/ Brian Danitz
JOSEPH W. COTCHETT
3 BRIAN DANITZ
KARIN B. SWOPE
4 ANDREW F. KIRTLEY
5
Dated: January 30, 2024 ALTSHULER BERZON LLP
6
By: /s/ Connie K. Chan
7 MICHAEL RUBIN
STACEY M. LEYTON
8 MATTHEW MURRAY
CONNIE K. CHAN
9
Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs and the
10 Proposed Class
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
28 Plaintiffs’ Opp’n to Def.’s Mot. to Preclude Additional ESI Discovery 4
Case No. 3:21-md-02992-LAB-MSB
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 215 Filed 01/30/24 PageID.2253 Page 6
of 9
1 DAVID S. CASEY, JR. (SBN 060768) JOSHUA B. SWIGART (SBN 225557)
2
dcasey@cglaw.com josh@swigartlawgroup.com
GAYLE M. BLATT (SBN 122048) JULIANA G. BLAHA (SBN 331066)
3 gmb@cglaw.com juliana@swigartlawgroup.com
4
JEREMY ROBINSON (SBN 188325) SWIGART LAW GROUP, APC
jrobinson@cglaw.com 2221 Camino Del Rio South. Suite 308
5 P. CAMILLE GUERRA (SBN 326546) San Diego, CA 92108
6
camille@cglaw.com Telephone: (866) 219-3343
CATHERINE McBAIN (SBN 303911) Fax: (866) 219-8344
7 kmcbain@cglaw.com
8
CASEY GERRY SCHENK DANIEL G. SHAY (SBN 250548)
FRANCAVILLA BLATT & danielshay@tcpafdcpa.com
9 PENFIELD, LLP LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL G. SHAY
10 110 Laurel Street 2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 308
San Diego, CA 92101 San Diego, CA 92108
11 Telephone: (619) 238-1811 Telephone: (619) 222-7429
12 Fax: (619) 544-9232 Fax: (866) 431-3292
13 Liaison Counsel for Class Plaintiffs Liaison Counsel for Individual Plaintiffs
14
DANIEL L. WARSHAW (SBN 185365) FRANCIS A. BOTTINI, JR. (SBN 175783)
15 dwarshaw@pswlaw.com fbottini@bottinilaw.com
16 BOBBY POUYA (SBN 245527) ANNE B. BESTE (SBN 326881)
bpouya@pswlaw.com abeste@bottinilaw.com
17 PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP ALBERT Y. CHANG (SBN 296065)
18 15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400 achang@bottinilaw.com
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 YURY A. KOLESNIKOV (SBN 271173)
19 Telephone: (818) 788-8300 ykolesnikov@bottinilaw.com
20 Fax: (818) 788-8104 BOTTINI & BOTTINI, INC.
7817 Ivanhoe Avenue, Suite 102
21 RAYMOND P. BOUCHER (SBN 115364) La Jolla, CA 92037
22 ray@boucher.la Telephone: (858) 914-2001
BOUCHER LLP Fax: (858) 914-2002
23 21600 Oxnard Street, Suite 600
24 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Attorneys for Plaintiff Lindsay McClure
Telephone: (818) 340-5400 and the Proposed Class
25 Fax: (818) 340-5401
26
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Jonathan Smith,
27 Alex Yuan, and the Proposed Class
28
28 Plaintiffs’ Opp’n to Def.’s Mot. to Preclude Additional ESI Discovery 5
Case No. 3:21-md-02992-LAB-MSB
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 215 Filed 01/30/24 PageID.2254 Page 7
of 9
1 THOMAS E. FRAYSSE (SBN 104436) ADAM MCNEILE (SBN 280296)
tef@knoxricksen.com adam@kbklegal.com
2 MAISIE C. SOKOLOVE (SBN 239665) KRISTIN KEMNITZER (SBN 278946)
3 mcs@knoxricksen.com kristin@kbklegal.com
AMANDA M. PLOWMAN (SBN 317462) KEMNITZER, BARRON & KRIEG, LLP
4 amp@knoxricksen.com 42 Miller Avenue, 3rd Floor
5 KNOX RICKSEN LLP Mill Valley, CA 94941
2033 N. Main Street, Suite 340 Telephone: (415) 632-1900
6 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Fax: (415) 632-1901
7 Telephone: (925) 433-2500
Fax: (925) 433-2505 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Roland
8 Oosthuizen, Rosemary Mathews, and the
9 Attorneys for Plaintiff Robert L. Wilson Proposed Class
and the Proposed Class
10
11
MARY E. ALEXANDER (SBN 104173) CHRISTOPHER J. HAMNER (SBN
12 malexander@maryalexanderlaw.com 197117)
13 BRENDAN D.S. WAY (SBN 261705) chamner@hamnerlaw.com
bway@maryalexanderlaw.com EVELINA M. SERAFINI (SBN 187137)
14 ARIN R. SCAPA (SBN 283400) eserafini@hamnerlaw.com
15 ascapa@maryalexanderlaw.com HAMNER LAW OFFICES, APLC
CATALINA S. MUÑOZ (SBN 317856) 26565 West Agoura Road, Suite 200
16 cmunoz@maryalexanderlaw.com Calabasas, CA 91302
17 MARY ALEXANDER & Telephone: (888) 416-6654
ASSOCIATES, P.C.
18 44 Montgomery Street, Suite 1303 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Jory Zoelle, Cindy
19 San Francisco, CA 94104 Baker, Ursula Auburn, and the Proposed
Telephone: (415) 433-4440 Class
20 Fax: (415) 433-5440
21
Attorneys for Plaintiff Clara Cajas
22
and the Proposed Class
23
24
25
26
27
28
28 Plaintiffs’ Opp’n to Def.’s Mot. to Preclude Additional ESI Discovery 6
Case No. 3:21-md-02992-LAB-MSB
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 215 Filed 01/30/24 PageID.2255 Page 8
of 9
1 JAMES V. NOLAN (SBN 84239) BENJAMIN GUBERNICK (SBN 321883)
2
jvnolan@yololaw.com ben@gubernicklaw.com
ROBERT P. NAKKEN (SBN 77550) GUBERNICK LAW, P.L.L.C.
3 rnakken@yololaw.com 10720 W. Indian School Rd., Suite 19
4
DAVID W. JANES (SBN 71334) Phoenix, AZ 85037
dwjanes@yololaw.com Telephone: (734) 678-5169
5 GARDNER, JANES, NAKKEN,
6
HUGO & NOLAN LAWYERS DAVID N. LAKE (SBN 180775)
429 First Street david@lakelawpc.com
7 Woodland, CA 95695 LAW OFFICES OF DAVID N. LAKE
8
Telephone: (530) 662-7367 16130 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 650
Fax: (530) 666-9116 Encino, CA 91436
9 Telephone: (818) 788-5100
10 Attorneys for Plaintiff Brian Wiggins and Fax: (818) 479-9990
the Proposed Class
11 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Julie Hicks,
12 Kuang Ting Chong, Stephanie Moore,
and the Proposed Class
13
14 THOMAS MARTIN III (SBN 218456)
tom@mblawapc.com ANDRE L. VERDUN (SBN 365436)
15 NICHOLAS J. BONTRAGER (SBN 252114) Andre@VerdunLaw.com
16 nick@mblawapc.com LAW OFFICES OF ANDRE L. VERDUN
MARTIN & BONTRAGER, APC 1777 N. Ventura Avenue
17 4605 Lankershim Blvd., Suite 535 Ventura, CA 93001
18 Toluca Lake, CA 91602 Telephone: (619) 880-0110
Telephone: (323) 940-1700 Fax: (866) 786-6993
19 Fax: (323) 328-8095
20 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Rosa Alvarez,
Attorneys for Plaintiff Steven Hart Elana Martina Rojas de Charolet, and
21 Jessie Verdun
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
28 Plaintiffs’ Opp’n to Def.’s Mot. to Preclude Additional ESI Discovery 7
Case No. 3:21-md-02992-LAB-MSB
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 215 Filed 01/30/24 PageID.2256 Page 9
of 9
SIGNATURE CERTIFICATION
1
2 Pursuant to Section 2(f)(4) of this Court’s Electronic Case Filing
3 Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, I, Connie K. Chan, hereby certify
4 that the content of this document is acceptable to all the signatories herein and that I
5 have obtained counsel’s authorization to affix their electronic signatures to this
6 document.
/s/ Connie K. Chan
7
CONNIE K. CHAN
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
28 Plaintiffs’ Opp’n to Def.’s Mot. to Preclude Additional ESI Discovery 8
Case No. 3:21-md-02992-LAB-MSB
File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.casd.709615.215.0.pdf
- Size
- 260,110 bytes
- SHA-256
- 55cc1efd635192d5251007003c330a6f806337e9c2815d1429b9f5212e844e63
- Original
- PACER (login required)