Response to Motion re 220 Ex Parte Motion to Compel Compliance — In re BofA Unemployment Litigation (Dkt. 222)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California · No. 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB · Doc. 222 · 2024-02-23 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

Response to Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Motion to Compel Compliance with  
Subpoena for the Production of Documents by TTEC                 Case No. 21MD2992 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
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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 
 
The Honorable Michael S. Berg 
 
Response to Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Motion to 
Compel Compliance with Subpoena for 
the Production of Documents by TTEC 
Government Solutions, LLC 
 
This Document Relates to All Actions 
 
 
 
 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 222     Filed 02/23/24     PageID.2340     Page 1
of 46

 
 
 
1 
Response to Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Motion to Compel Compliance with  
Subpoena for the Production of Documents by TTEC    
Case No. 21MD2992 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
INTRODUCTION 
The present motion asks the Court to compel a non-party to comply with a 15-page, 23-
request subpoena despite the moving party wholly ignoring the non-party’s objections. Among its 
many deficiencies, the subpoena is grossly overbroad, seeks substantial amounts of information that 
non-party TTEC Government Solutions, LLC (“TTEC”) cannot access, and seeks substantial 
amounts of information that Class Representative Lindsay McClure (“Plaintiff”) can readily obtain 
from the Defendant, Bank of America, N.A. (“BANA”). For these reasons and the additional reasons 
detailed in TTEC’s written objections, the motion to compel should be denied. 
FACTUAL BACKGROUND 
TTEC provides limited customer support services for BANA, including regarding BANA 
customers’ receipt of benefits from the California Economic Development Department. TTEC 
received Plaintiff’s third-party subpoena on November 9, 2023. The subpoena’s 23 requests included 
many grossly overbroad and irrelevant requests, such as: 
 REQUEST NO. 3: DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS sufficient to show all of 
YOUR policies and procedures for recruiting, hiring, onboarding, training, disciplining, and 
terminating YOUR CALL CENTER EMPLOYEES for Bank of America in effect at any 
time during the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD. 
 REQUEST NO. 4: All DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS RELATING TO any 
decisions, policies, instructions, or procedures regarding the alteration, suspension or 
elimination of any requirements related to the education, experience, background checks or 
training requirements for YOUR CALL CENTER EMPLOYEES at any time during the 
RELEVANT TIME PERIOD. 
 REQUEST NO. 5: DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS sufficient to show all 
training materials, scripts, directives, and other instructions provided to YOUR CALL 
CENTER EMPLOYEES. 
 REQUEST NO. 7: Reports and summaries sufficient to show the total number of and 
average hours worked by YOUR CALL CENTER EMPLOYEES RELATING TO EDD 
CARDHOLDERS on a weekly basis. 
 REQUEST NO. 8: Reports and summaries sufficient to show the average tenure of CSRs 
staffing the CALL CENTERS RELATING TO EDD CARDHOLDERS. 
 REQUEST NO. 15: All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO COMMUNICATIONS between 
YOUR CALL CENTERS and EDD DEBIT CARDHOLDERS RELATING TO: a) suicide 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 222     Filed 02/23/24     PageID.2341     Page 2
of 46

 
 
 
2 
Response to Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Motion to Compel Compliance with  
Subpoena for the Production of Documents by TTEC    
Case No. 21MD2992 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
and depression, b) threats of other self-harm or violence, and c) the inability to pay for food, 
shelter, clothing, medication, or other necessities; including YOUR decisions, policies, 
procedures, and instructions RELATING TO those COMMUNICATIONS. 
See Subpoena, Ex. 1. Despite not being a party to this litigation, TTEC hired legal counsel, at 
significant cost, to respond to the subpoena. On November 22, 2023, TTEC served Plaintiff with a 
19-page written response and objections to the subpoena. TTEC Objections, Ex. 2. Plaintiff 
confirmed receipt of TTEC’s objections, yet never provided a substantive written response to the 
objections. Plaintiff and TTEC held a telephonic meet and confer regarding the subpoena on 
November 29, 2023, during which Plaintiff refused to meaningfully respond to any of TTEC’s 
objections and refused to attempt to narrow any of the subpoena requests. The subpoena and motion 
to compel amount to harassment of TTEC. 
ARGUMENT 
Despite receiving TTEC’s written objections to the subpoena and participating in a 
telephonic conference during which TTEC reiterated its objections to the subpoena, Plaintiff 
completely ignores all of TTEC’s objections in its MTC, which it filed without any good faith 
engagement on the substance of the subpoena. A party responsible for issuing a subpoena must take 
reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on a person subject to the subpoena. 
Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(1). “The court is required to enforce this duty, particularly when a subpoena has 
been served upon a nonparty to the litigation.” Hukman v. Sw. Airlines Co., No. 18CV1204-GPC 
(RBB), 2019 WL 2289390, at *2 (S.D. Cal. May 28, 2019) (internal citations omitted); see also Dart 
Indus. Co., Inc. v. Westwood Chem. Co., Inc., 649 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1980) (“While discovery is a 
valuable right and should not be unnecessarily restricted, the ‘necessary’ restriction may be broader 
when a nonparty is the target of discovery.”). 
The Federal Rules “specifically require parties to avoid creating undue burdens on third 
parties via subpoenas.” Akkawi v. Sadr, No. 2:20-cv-1034 MCE AC, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 226261, 
at *4 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 15, 2022). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(c)(1) says “[a] party or attorney 
responsible for issuing and serving a subpoena must take reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue 
burden or expense on a person subject to the subpoena. The issuing court must enforce this duty and 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 222     Filed 02/23/24     PageID.2342     Page 3
of 46

 
 
 
3 
Response to Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Motion to Compel Compliance with  
Subpoena for the Production of Documents by TTEC    
Case No. 21MD2992 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
impose an appropriate sanction—which may include lost earnings and reasonable attorney's fees—
on a party or attorney who fails to comply.” “This rule imposes obligations on both attorneys and 
courts; attorneys must obey their duty under the rule, and courts must enforce it.” Mount Hope Church 
v. Bash Back!, 705 F.3d 418, 425 (9th Cir. 2012). “In determining whether a subpoena poses an undue 
burden, courts weigh the burden to the subpoenaed party against the value of the information to the 
serving party. Generally, this requires consideration of relevance, the need of the party for the 
documents, the breadth of the document request, the time period covered by it, the particularity with 
which the documents are described and the burden imposed.” In re Subpoena of DJO, LLC, 295 F.R.D. 
494, 497 (S.D. Cal. 2014) (internal citations and quotations omitted). 
Third party subpoenas under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 are also subject to the 
limitations of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(i) requires the court to limit discovery 
otherwise allowed if “the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can be 
obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive[.]” 
Courts “routinely disallow discovery from third parties where the same discovery is easily obtained 
from a party.” Akkawi, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 226261, at *5. See also Glass Egg Digital Media v. Gameloft, 
Inc., No. 17-cv-04165-MMC-RMI, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 149896, 2019 WL 4166780, at *5 (N.D. 
Cal. Sept. 3, 2019); Nidec Corp. v. Victor Co. of Japan, 249 F.R.D. 575, 577 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (“There is 
simply no reason to burden nonparties when the documents sought are in possession of the party 
defendant.”).  
An overview of some of TTEC’s objections demonstrates why the MTC should be denied. 
 
I. 
Plaintiff’s Subpoena Seeks Materials TTEC Cannot Access and that Plaintiff Can 
Obtain from BANA. 
Many of the subpoena requests seek information or documents to which TTEC does not 
have access. See, e.g., Requests No. 6 (seeking, in part, communications between BANA and any 
named class representative), No. 11 (seeking, in part, documents to show the use of codes relating to 
EDD debit cards and accounts), and No. 15 (seeking, in part, communications between agents and 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 222     Filed 02/23/24     PageID.2343     Page 4
of 46

 
 
 
4 
Response to Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Motion to Compel Compliance with  
Subpoena for the Production of Documents by TTEC    
Case No. 21MD2992 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
EDD debit cardholders). These documents and information were, at all times, housed on BANA 
systems that were only accessible through BANA-provided devices and BANA-provided virtual 
private networks (VPNs). 
In addition, many of the subpoena requests seek information or documents that the 
Defendant, BANA, obviously has in its possession. See, e.g., Requests No. 1 (seeking contracts and 
agreements between TTEC and BANA), No. 6 (seeking, in part, communications between BANA 
and any named class representative), No. 19 (seeking documents and communications from BANA 
regarding TTEC’s performance), No. 20 (seeking documents showing communications by TTEC 
with BANA), and No. 21 (seeking documents regarding BANA’s “key supervisors and decision 
makers”). 
Plaintiff cannot require TTEC to produce documents TTEC cannot access, and Plaintiff is 
required to seek documents from actual parties to Plaintiff’s lawsuit where possible. As such, the 
MTC should be denied. 
II. 
Plaintiff’s Requests are Unduly Burdensome, Oppressive, and Expensive. 
Discovery may be refused where the burden of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely 
benefits, taking into account such factors as the needs of the case, the parties’ resources, the 
importance of the issues at stake, and the role of the proposed discovery in resolving those issues. 
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b )(2). Moreover, an “abusively drawn” subpoena may be quashed because it 
imposes an “undue burden.” Mattel, Inc. v. Walking Mountain Prods., 353 F.3d 792, 813 (9th Cir. 2003) 
(subpoena “way too broad” and drafted without any attempt made to “try to tailor the information 
request to the immediate needs of the case”). 
Here, Plaintiff demands that non-party TTEC provide numerous types of information and 
documents that would impose undue burden or expense on TTEC. Among many examples, Request 
No. 10 seeks “all documents and communications related to unauthorized or improper use of 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 222     Filed 02/23/24     PageID.2344     Page 5
of 46

 
 
 
5 
Response to Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Motion to Compel Compliance with  
Subpoena for the Production of Documents by TTEC    
Case No. 21MD2992 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
cardholder’s personal confidential information by” TTEC’s employees or “third parties.” Plaintiff 
neither defines “third parties” nor place any temporal limit on this broad request. Compelling TTEC 
to comply would result in a costly wild goose chase. 
Request No. 15 seeks all documents relating to communications between TTEC’s call centers 
and EDD cardholders relating to “suicide and depression, threats of other self-harm or violence, and 
the inability to pay for food, shelter, clothing, medication, or other necessities.” According to the 
definitions in Plaintiff’s subpoena, to comply TTEC must locate and produce “any paper or writing 
of whatever description” regarding “any transmission or transfer of information of any kind … at 
any time or place, and under any circumstances” related to such topics (see subpoena definitions of 
“Communications” and “Document” at pp. 5-6).  
Request No. 3 seeks all documents and communications relating to TTEC’s “policies and 
procedures for recruiting, hiring, onboarding, training, disciplining, and terminating [its] call center 
employees for [BANA] in effect at any time during the relevant time period.”  
Request No. 5 seeks all documents and communications “sufficient to show all training 
materials, scripts, directives, and other instructions provided to [TTEC’s] call center employees.” 
Plaintiff has made no effort to explain the relevance of such topics to the present litigation, 
and TTEC struggles to see any. The time, effort, and expense TTEC would undergo in sifting through 
many thousands of records to discern interactions that relate to these topics would, by contrast, be 
substantial. In addition, that burden is compounded by the fact that the systems housing such records 
are maintained by BANA, were captured and/or developed using BANA-provided equipment, and 
were transmitted through a BANA-provided VPN. 
Plaintiff has made no effort to ease these substantial burdens on non-party TTEC. As a 
result, the MTC should be denied.  
III. 
Plaintiff’s Subpoena, Definitions, and Document Descriptions are Vague, 
Ambiguous, and Overbroad. 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 222     Filed 02/23/24     PageID.2345     Page 6
of 46

 
 
 
6 
Response to Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Motion to Compel Compliance with  
Subpoena for the Production of Documents by TTEC    
Case No. 21MD2992 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
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(a)(l)(C), a subpoena must “designate” the 
documents or records to be produced. However, many of the terms in the Subpoena are vague, 
ambiguous, overbroad, and fail to identify with sufficient particularity the information to be 
produced. Moreover, several of Plaintiff's Document Requests are entirely unintelligible, as they do 
not actually seek “documents,” but rather, information that might be included in interrogatories, not 
document requests. For example, many of Plaintiff's requests seek verbal communications between 
different individuals. See, e.g., Requests No. 2 (seeking all communications relating to the preliminary 
injunction—including oral) and No. 6. (seeking all communications—including oral—by TTEC, its 
employees, or BANA with any named class representative). Given Plaintiff’s failure to clearly or 
properly “designate” the documents and records to be produced, the MTC should be denied. 
CONCLUSION 
For the reasons listed above and for the reasons in TTEC’s written objections—which 
Plaintiff has ignored—the present motion to compel this overbroad and harassing third-party 
subpoena should be denied. 
   
Dated: February 23, 2024 
PERKINS COIE LLP 
 
By: /s/ Jasmine Wetherell 
Jasmine Wetherell 
Attorneys for Non-Party TTEC 
Government Solutions, LLC 
 
 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 222     Filed 02/23/24     PageID.2346     Page 7
of 46

EXHIBIT 1
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 222     Filed 02/23/24     PageID.2347     Page 8
of 46
EXHIBIT 1 | Page 7

AO 88B  (Rev. 02/14) Subpoena to Produce Documents, Information, or Objects or to Permit Inspection of Premises in a Civil Action
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
for the
__________ District of __________
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff
v.
Civil Action No.
Defendant
SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS, INFORMATION, OR OBJECTS
OR TO PERMIT INSPECTION OF PREMISES IN A CIVIL ACTION 
To:
(Name of person to whom this subpoena is directed)
u Production: YOU ARE COMMANDED to produce at the time, date, and place set forth below the following 
documents, electronically stored information, or objects, and to permit inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of the
material:
Place:
Date and Time:
u Inspection of Premises: YOU ARE COMMANDED to permit entry onto the designated premises, land, or 
other property possessed or controlled by you at the time, date, and location set forth below, so that the requesting party
may inspect, measure, survey, photograph, test, or sample the property or any designated object or operation on it.
Place:
Date and Time:
The following provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 are attached – Rule 45(c), relating to the place of compliance;
Rule 45(d), relating to your protection as a person subject to a subpoena; and Rule 45(e) and (g), relating to your duty to
respond to this subpoena and the potential consequences of not doing so.
Date:
CLERK OF COURT
OR
Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk
Attorney’s signature
The name, address, e-mail address, and telephone number of the attorney representing (name of party)
, who issues or requests this subpoena, are:
Notice to the person who issues or requests this subpoena
If this subpoena commands the production of documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things or the
inspection of premises before trial, a notice and a copy of the subpoena must be served on each party in this case before
it is served on the person to whom it is directed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(4).
 Southern District of California
In re Bank of Am. Cal. Unemployment Benefits Litig.
3:21-md-2992-LAB-MSB
TTEC Government Solutions, LLC, c/o Arthur J. Rooney, Perkins Coie LLP, 110 North Wacker Drive, Suite 3400,
Chicago, Illinois 60606-1511
✔
    See Schedule A
BOTTINI & BOTTINI, INC.
7817 Ivanhoe Ave., Suite 102
La Jolla, CA 92037
12/08/2023 5:00 pm
11/09/2023
s/ Francis A. Bottini, Jr.
Plaintiff,
Lindsay McClure
Francis A. Bottini, Jr., 7817 Ivanhoe Ave., Suite 102, La Jolla, CA 92037; fbottini@bottinilaw.com; (858)914-2001
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 222     Filed 02/23/24     PageID.2348     Page 9
of 46
EXHIBIT 1 | Page 8

AO 88B  (Rev.  02/14) Subpoena to Produce Documents, Information, or Objects or to Permit Inspection of Premises in a Civil Action (Page 2)
Civil Action No.
PROOF OF SERVICE
(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 45.)
I received this subpoena for (name of individual and title, if any)
on (date)
.
u I served the subpoena by delivering a copy to the named person as follows:
on (date)
; or
u I returned the subpoena unexecuted because:
.
Unless the subpoena was issued on behalf of the United States, or one of its officers or agents, I have also 
tendered to the witness the fees for one day’s attendance, and the mileage allowed by law, in the amount of
$
.
My fees are $
for travel and $
for services, for a total of $
.
I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.
Date:
Server’s signature
Printed name and title
Server’s address
Additional information regarding attempted service, etc.:
3:21-md-2992-LAB-MSB
0.00
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 222     Filed 02/23/24     PageID.2349     Page
10 of 46
EXHIBIT 1 | Page 9

AO 88B  (Rev.  02/14) Subpoena to Produce Documents, Information, or Objects or to Permit Inspection of Premises in a Civil Action(Page 3)
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 (c), (d), (e), and (g) (Effective 12/1/13)
(c) Place of Compliance.
  (1) For a Trial, Hearing, or Deposition. A subpoena may command a
person to attend a trial, hearing, or deposition only as follows:
    (A) within 100 miles of where the person resides, is employed, or
regularly transacts business in person; or
    (B) within the state where the person resides, is employed, or regularly
transacts business in person, if the person
        (i) is a party or a party’s officer; or
        (ii) is commanded to attend a trial and would not incur substantial
expense.
  (2) For Other Discovery. A subpoena may command:
    (A) production of documents, electronically stored information, or
tangible things at a place within 100 miles of where the person resides, is
employed, or regularly transacts business in person; and
    (B) inspection of premises at the premises to be inspected.
(d) Protecting a Person Subject to a Subpoena; Enforcement.
  (1) Avoiding Undue Burden or Expense; Sanctions. A party or attorney
responsible for issuing and serving a subpoena must take reasonable steps
to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on a person subject to the
subpoena. The court for the district where compliance is required must
enforce this duty and impose an appropriate sanction—which may include
lost earnings and reasonable attorney’s fees—on a party or attorney who
fails to comply.
  (2) Command to Produce Materials or Permit Inspection.
(A) Appearance Not Required. A person commanded to produce
documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things, or to
permit the inspection of premises, need not appear in person at the place of
production or inspection unless also commanded to appear for a deposition,
hearing, or trial.
(B) Objections. A person commanded to produce documents or tangible
things or to permit inspection may serve on the party or attorney designated
in the subpoena a written objection to inspecting, copying, testing, or
sampling any or all of the materials or to inspecting the premises—or to
producing electronically stored information in the form or forms requested.
The objection must be served before the earlier of the time specified for
compliance or 14 days after the subpoena is served. If an objection is made,
the following rules apply:
(i) At any time, on notice to the commanded person, the serving party
may move the court for the district where compliance is required for an
order compelling production or inspection.
  (ii) These acts may be required only as directed in the order, and the
order must protect a person who is neither a party nor a party’s officer from
significant expense resulting from compliance.
  (3) Quashing or Modifying a Subpoena.
(A) When Required. On timely motion, the court for the district where
compliance is required must quash or modify a subpoena that:
        (i) fails to allow a reasonable time to comply;
(ii) requires a person to comply beyond the geographical limits
specified in Rule 45(c);
(iii) requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter, if no
exception or waiver applies; or
(iv) subjects a person to undue burden.
(B) When Permitted. To protect a person subject to or affected by a
subpoena, the court for the district where compliance is required may, on
motion, quash or modify the subpoena if it requires:
(i) disclosing a trade secret or other confidential research,
development, or commercial information; or
(ii) disclosing an unretained expert’s opinion or information that does
not describe specific occurrences in dispute and results from the expert’s
study that was not requested by a party.
(C) Specifying Conditions as an Alternative. In the circumstances
described in Rule 45(d)(3)(B), the court may, instead of quashing or
modifying a subpoena, order appearance or production under specified
conditions if the serving party:
(i) shows a substantial need for the testimony or material that cannot be
otherwise met without undue hardship; and
(ii) ensures that the subpoenaed person will be reasonably compensated.
(e) Duties in Responding to a Subpoena.
  (1) Producing Documents or Electronically Stored Information. These
procedures apply to producing documents or electronically stored
information:
(A) Documents. A person responding to a subpoena to produce documents
must produce them as they are kept in the ordinary course of business or
must organize and label them to correspond to the categories in the demand.
(B) Form for Producing Electronically Stored Information Not Specified.
If a subpoena does not specify a form for producing electronically stored
information, the person responding must produce it in a form or forms in
which it is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable form or forms.
(C) Electronically Stored Information Produced in Only One Form. The
person responding need not produce the same electronically stored
information in more than one form.
(D) Inaccessible Electronically Stored Information. The person
responding need not provide discovery of electronically stored information
from sources that the person identifies as not reasonably accessible because
of undue burden or cost. On motion to compel discovery or for a protective
order, the person responding must show that the information is not
reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost. If that showing is
made, the court may nonetheless order discovery from such sources if the
requesting party shows good cause, considering the limitations of Rule
26(b)(2)(C). The court may specify conditions for the discovery.
(2) Claiming Privilege or Protection.
(A) Information Withheld. A person withholding subpoenaed information
under a claim that it is privileged or subject to protection as trial-preparation
material must:
(i) expressly make the claim; and
(ii) describe the nature of the withheld documents, communications, or
tangible things in a manner that, without revealing information itself
privileged or protected, will enable the parties to assess the claim.
(B) Information Produced. If information produced in response to a
subpoena is subject to a claim of privilege or of protection as
trial-preparation material, the person making the claim may notify any party
that received the information of the claim and the basis for it. After being
notified, a party must promptly return, sequester, or destroy the specified
information and any copies it has; must not use or disclose the information
until the claim is resolved; must take reasonable steps to retrieve the
information if the party disclosed it before being notified; and may promptly
present the information under seal to the court for the district where
compliance is required for a determination of the claim. The person who
produced the information must preserve the information until the claim is
resolved.
(g) Contempt.
The court for the district where compliance is required—and also, after a
motion is transferred, the issuing court—may hold in contempt a person
who, having been served, fails without adequate excuse to obey the
subpoena or an order related to it.
For access to subpoena materials, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a) Committee Note (2013).
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 222     Filed 02/23/24     PageID.2350     Page
11 of 46
EXHIBIT 1 | Page 10

1 
 
SCHEDULE A 
(TTEC Government Solutions, LLC) 
 
I. DEFINITIONS 
Each word or term used in these Requests is intended to have the broadest meaning 
permitted under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of this Court. 
Furthermore, these Requests shall be interpreted by reference to the definitions set forth below.  
1. 
“YOU” and “YOUR” means TTEC Government Solutions, LLC, its business 
segments, and any of its predecessors, successors, parents, subsidiaries, divisions, partnerships, 
and branches; its international, foreign, national, regional, and local offices; and all present or 
former officers, directors, partners, employees, agents, attorneys, advisors, accountants, tax, 
financial and other consultants, and all other persons acting on behalf of TTEC Government 
Solutions, LLC.  
2. 
“DEFENDANT” refers to Bank of America, N.A., the Defendant in this action, and 
any other person or entity acting on DEFENDANT’s behalf, including YOU as appropriate. 
3. 
“BLOCKING,” and related words, such as “BLOCK” and “BLOCKED” refer to 
actions taken by DEFENDANT or YOU which prevent an EDD DEBIT CARDHOLDER from 
accessing funds in, or otherwise using, their EDD DEBIT CARD ACCOUNT and that may be 
lifted when the EDD DEBIT CARDHOLDER verifies his or her identity with DEFENDANT 
(under DEFENDANT’S stated policy). This definition of BLOCKING is intended to encompass, 
at a minimum, any instance in which DEFENDANT uses the word “blocking,” “blocked,” or 
another iteration of the word “block” in connection with or relation to an EDD DEBIT CARD, an 
EDD DEBIT CARD ACCOUNT, or an EDD DEBIT CARDHOLDER’s ability or inability to 
access or use their EDD DEBIT CARD or EDD DEBIT CARD ACCOUNT. 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 222     Filed 02/23/24     PageID.2351     Page
12 of 46
EXHIBIT 1 | Page 11

2 
 
4. 
“CARDHOLDER” includes any EDD DEBIT CARDHOLDER as well as any 
other individual to whom DEFENDANT issues a debit card or credit card.  
5. 
 “CLAIM” refers to a COMMUNICATION from a CARDHOLDER to the 
DEFENDANT or YOU by which the CARDHOLDER communicates information to 
DEFENDANT or YOU indicating the CARDHOLDER’s belief that they did not initiate or 
authorize an electronic fund transfer or transaction from their EDD DEBIT CARD ACCOUNT or 
another account, or that they otherwise dispute the transfer or transaction. 
6. 
“CLAIM INVESTIGATION” refers to all acts that YOU take or have taken in 
response to a CLAIMANT’s submission of a CLAIM in order to resolve the CLAIM.  
7. 
“CLAIMANT” refers to a CARDHOLDER who has submitted a CLAIM to 
DEFENDANT or YOU.  
8. 
“COMMUNICATION” and “COMMUNICATING” refers to any transmission or 
transfer of information of any kind, whether orally, electronically (e.g., by e-mail, text message, 
chat or any other electronic transmission), in writing, or in any other manner, at any time or place, 
and under any circumstances.  
9. 
“CONTRACTOR” refers to any person or entity with whom YOU contract for 
services RELATING TO EDD DEBIT CARD ACCOUNTS, including, but not limited to, any 
other CSP, and also includes any subcontractor of that CONTRACTOR.  
10. 
“CSP” (customer service provider) refers to YOU and any other third-party 
company providing customer service RELATING TO EDD DEBIT CARDHOLDER 
ACCOUNTS. 
11. 
“CSR” (customer service representative) refers to a natural person or simulated 
person, including, without limitation, any employee or independent contractor or temporary 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 222     Filed 02/23/24     PageID.2352     Page
13 of 46
EXHIBIT 1 | Page 12

3 
 
worker employed by or working for DEFENDANT, YOU, or any CSP, who provides or has 
provided customer service RELATING TO EDD DEBIT CARDS or EDD DEBIT CARD 
ACCOUNTS. 
12. 
“DOCUMENT” or “DOCUMENTS” have the full meaning ascribed to those terms 
under Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and include, without limitation 
correspondence; letters; emails; text messages; chats, calendar entries; memoranda; records; 
books; reports; summaries of personal conversations or interviews; diaries; graphs; charts; 
diagrams; tables; photographs; recordings; tapes; microfilms; minutes; and summaries of meetings 
or conferences; records and reports of consultants; press releases; stenographic, handwritten, and 
any other notes; work papers; checks, front and back; check vouchers, check stubs, and receipts; 
tape data sheets, data processing cards and discs, and any other written, recorded, transcribed, 
punched, taped, filmed or graphic matter, however produced or reproduced; and any paper or 
writing of whatever description, including any computer database or information contained in any 
computer. Any production of electronically stored information shall include the information 
needed to understand such information. The term “DOCUMENT” or “DOCUMENTS” further 
includes any and all drafts and all copies where the copy is not identical to the original. 
13. 
“EDD” means the California Employment Development Department. 
14. 
“EDD BENEFITS” refers to any public benefits funds disbursed by EDD, including 
without limitation any such funds disbursed as unemployment insurance benefits, disability 
insurance benefits, or paid family leave benefits. 
15. 
“EDD DEBIT CARD” refers to a prepaid debit card issued by DEFENDANT to an 
EDD DEBIT CARDHOLDER for the purpose of allowing the CARDHOLDER to access, spend, 
or otherwise use EDD BENEFITS deposited into their EDD DEBIT CARD ACCOUNT. 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 222     Filed 02/23/24     PageID.2353     Page
14 of 46
EXHIBIT 1 | Page 13

4 
 
16. 
“EDD DEBIT CARD ACCOUNT” refers to a bank account established by 
DEFENDANT for use by an EDD DEBIT CARDHOLDER. 
17. 
“EDD DEBIT CARDHOLDER” refers to a person to whom DEFENDANT issues 
an EDD DEBIT CARD, or for whom DEFENDANT establishes an EDD DEBIT CARD 
ACCOUNT. 
18. 
“EXECUTIVE OFFICER” means a person employed by YOU who holds a title of 
Vice President or higher, and includes all positions designated as “Chief.” 
19. 
“FREEZING” and related words, such as “FREEZE,” “FROZE,” and “FROZEN,” 
refer to actions taken by DEFENDANT or YOU which prevent an EDD DEBIT CARDHOLDER 
from accessing funds in, or otherwise using, their EDD DEBIT CARD ACCOUNT and 
encompasses, at a minimum, any instance in which DEFENDANT or YOU uses the word 
“freezing,” “froze,” “frozen,” or another iteration of the word “freeze” in connection with or 
relation to an EDD DEBIT CARD, an EDD DEBIT CARD ACCOUNT, or an EDD DEBIT 
CARDHOLDER’s ability or inability to access or use their EDD DEBIT CARD or EDD DEBIT 
CARD ACCOUNT. 
20. 
“CLAIMS FRAUD FILTER” refers to any automated tool, analysis, algorithm, 
process, or combination thereof used by YOU or the DEFENDANT at any time during the 
RELEVANT PERIOD as a purported means of identifying potentially fraudulently submitted 
CLAIMS. 
21. 
“NAMED CLASS REPRESENTATIVES” means the class plaintiffs in this action, 
consisting of: Jennifer Yick, Vanessa Rivera, Candace Koole, Azuri Moon, Roland Oosthuizen, 
Rosemary Mathews, Carlos Rodriguez, J. Michael Willrich, Lindsay McClure, Robert L. Wilson, 
Clara Cajas, Stephanie Smith, Alan Karam, Luis Perez, Jonathan Smith, Alex Yuan, Jory Zoelle, 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 222     Filed 02/23/24     PageID.2354     Page
15 of 46
EXHIBIT 1 | Page 14

5 
 
Cindy Baker, Ursula Auburn, Julie Hicks, Kuang Ting Chong, Stephanie Moore, Zinaida Petrova, 
and Claire Blankenship. 
22. 
“PERSONAL CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION” refers to any information that 
concerns an EDD DEBIT CARD, an EDD DEBIT CARD ACCOUNT, or an EDD DEBIT 
CARDHOLDER and that could help someone effect an unauthorized transfer or transaction from 
that EDD DEBIT CARD ACCOUNT. Examples of PERSONAL CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION include: (a) unique identifying information for an EDD DEBIT CARD (such as 
the debit card number, expiration date, CVV code, cardholder name, or PIN code); (b) unique 
identifying information for an EDD DEBIT CARD ACCOUNT (such as the account number, 
name of the accountholder, address of the accountholder, accountholder phone number, or 
accountholder email address); (c) any security code, access code, or password that would permit 
access to an EDD DEBIT CARD ACCOUNT; and (d) any unique identifying personal information 
of an EDD DEBIT CARDHOLDER (such as their date of birth, all or part of their social security 
number, any security challenge questions, and the answers to any such questions). 
23. 
“PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION” means the Preliminary Injunction Order entered 
in Yick v. Bank of America, N.A., Case No. 21-cv-00376-VC on or about June 2, 2021 (N.D. Cal, 
Case No. 3:21-cv-00376-VC, Dkt. No. 103), and the underlying order entered in Yick dated May 
17, 2021 and reported at 539 F. Supp. 3d 1023.   
24. 
“PROVISIONAL CREDIT” refers to a temporary credit or payment that YOU or 
DEFENDANT issues or makes to an EDD DEBIT CARD ACCOUNT during the pendency of a 
CLAIM INVESTIGATION, including pursuant to the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (“EFTA”) 
and Regulation E. 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 222     Filed 02/23/24     PageID.2355     Page
16 of 46
EXHIBIT 1 | Page 15

6 
 
25. 
“RELATING TO” or “RELATED TO” means relating to, containing, concerning, 
referencing, embodying, discussing, or reflecting. 
26. 
“TRANSACTIONAL FRAUD” refers to transactions from an EDD DEBIT CARD 
ACCOUNT that were not authorized by the EDD DEBIT CARDHOLDER on that ACCOUNT.  
27. 
“UNBLOCKING” means DEFENDANT’S or YOUR act of reversing 
DEFENDANT’S or YOUR prior act of BLOCKING an EDD DEBIT CARD ACCOUNT and 
restoring the EDD DEBIT CARDHOLDER’s ability to access funds in his or her EDD DEBIT 
CARD ACCOUNT. 
28. 
“UNFREEZING” refers to a decision and resulting set of actions by which YOU 
or DEFENDANT reverses its prior FREEZING of an EDD DEBIT CARD ACCOUNT or EDD 
DEBIT CARD. 
29. 
“CALL CENTER,” “CLAIMS INITIATION CALL CENTER,” and “FRAUD 
CALL CENTER” mean YOUR departments, subdivisions, and sections, including customer 
forward or back-office facing, through which YOU provide or provided services to DEFENDANT 
RELATING TO EDD DEBIT CARDHOLDERS and/or their EDD DEBIT CARD ACCOUNTS, 
CLAIMS, CLAIM INVESTIGATION, or FRAUD, and includes all remote locations, including 
but not limited to the homes of YOUR CSRs. 
30. 
“YOUR CALL CENTER EMPLOYEES” and “EMPLOYEES” means YOUR 
CSRs, supervisors, team leaders, managers, coaches and other employees, independent 
contractors, and agents, including those serving in all capacities in YOUR CALL CENTERS 
RELATING TO EDD DEBIT CARDHOLDERS.  
II. INSTRUCTIONS 
1. 
The terms “and,” “or,” “any,” “all,” “each,” “every,” “herein,” and “including” are 
to be read expansively, inclusively, in both the conjunctive and disjunctive, singly, plurally, and 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 222     Filed 02/23/24     PageID.2356     Page
17 of 46
EXHIBIT 1 | Page 16

7 
 
wholly, and shall serve as a request for Discovery Materials that would be responsive under any 
of those readings.  
2. 
The use of a verb in any tense shall be construed as the use of the verb in all other 
tenses.  
3. 
A Request for “All DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS” concerning a 
subject is made with the understanding that the scope of YOUR review and production of 
DOCUMENTS will be in accordance with FRCP Rule 45.  
4. 
In responding to these requests, YOU shall produce all responsive DOCUMENTS 
(including those stored electronically), which are in YOUR possession, custody, or control, or in 
the possession, custody, or control of YOUR predecessors, successors, parents, subsidiaries, 
divisions or affiliates, or any of YOUR respective directors, officers, managing agents, agents, 
employees, attorneys, accountants, or other representatives.  A DOCUMENT shall be deemed to 
be within YOUR control if YOU have the right to secure the DOCUMENT or a copy of the 
DOCUMENT from another person having possession or custody of the DOCUMENT. 
5. 
Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, YOU are to produce for 
inspection and copying original DOCUMENTS, as they are kept in the ordinary course of business 
or organized and labeled to correspond to the requests in this demand, and all electronically 
maintained DOCUMENTS shall be produced in the way such DOCUMENTS are stored and 
retrieved, and produced in their native format. If the original is not in YOUR custody, then YOU 
shall produce a copy thereof, and all non-identical copies which differ from the original or from 
the other copies produced for any reason, including, without limitation, the making of notes 
thereon. 
6. 
If any objection is made to any of these DOCUMENT Requests, the response shall 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 222     Filed 02/23/24     PageID.2357     Page
18 of 46
EXHIBIT 1 | Page 17

8 
 
state with specificity the grounds for the objection, whether any DOCUMENT or 
COMMUNICATION is being withheld from inspection and production based on such objection, 
or whether inspection or production of the responsive items will occur notwithstanding such 
objection.   
7. 
If production of DOCUMENTS is withheld on the ground of privilege, as to each 
such withheld DOCUMENT state the following information: 
(a) 
Which privilege is claimed; 
(b) 
Who is asserting the privilege; 
(c) 
A precise statement of the facts upon which said claim of privilege is based; 
(d) 
The following information describing each purportedly privileged 
DOCUMENT: 
(i) 
A brief description sufficient to identify its nature, i.e., agreement, 
letter, memorandum, type, etc.; 
(ii) 
A brief description sufficient to identify its subject matter and 
purpose of the DOCUMENT; 
(iii) 
The date it was prepared; 
(iv) 
The date it bears; 
(v) 
The date it was sent; 
(vi) 
The date it was received; 
(vii) 
The identity of the person preparing it; 
(viii) 
The identity of the person sending it; 
(ix) 
The identity of each person to whom it was sent or was to have been 
sent, including all addresses and all recipients of copies; 
(x) 
A statement as to whom each identified person represented or 
purported to represent at all relevant times; and 
(xi) 
All persons to whom its contents have been disclosed; and 
(e) 
A precise description of the place where each copy of that DOCUMENT is 
kept, including the title or description of the file in which said DOCUMENT may be found and 
the location of such file. 
8. 
If a portion of any DOCUMENT responsive to these requests is withheld under 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 222     Filed 02/23/24     PageID.2358     Page
19 of 46
EXHIBIT 1 | Page 18

9 
 
claim of privilege pursuant to Instruction No. 7 above, any non-privileged portion of such 
DOCUMENT must be produced with the portion claimed to be privileged redacted. 
9. 
YOU are to produce each DOCUMENT requested herein in its entirety, without 
deletion or excision (except as qualified by Instruction Nos.7 and 8 above), regardless of whether 
YOU consider the entire DOCUMENT to be relevant or responsive to the requests. 
10. 
Whenever a DOCUMENT is not produced in full or is produced in redacted form, 
so indicate on the DOCUMENT and state with particularity the reason or reasons that it is not 
being produced in full in accordance with Instruction Nos. 7 and 8 above. 
11. 
If a DOCUMENT responsive to these requests was at any time in YOUR 
possession, custody, or control, but is no longer available for production, as to each such 
DOCUMENT state the following information: 
(a) 
Whether the DOCUMENT is missing or lost; 
(b) 
Whether it has been destroyed; 
(c) 
Whether and to whom the DOCUMENT has been transferred or delivered 
and, if so, at whose request; 
(d) 
Whether the DOCUMENT has been otherwise disposed of; and 
(e) 
A precise statement of the circumstances surrounding the disposition of the 
DOCUMENT and the date of its disposition. 
 
12. 
If there are no Discovery Materials responsive to any DOCUMENT Request or 
subpart thereof, YOU shall state so in writing.  
III. FORM OF PRODUCTION 
1. 
Scanned DOCUMENTS should be provided as single-page tiff images with an .opt 
image cross-reference file and a delimited database load file.  The database load file should contain 
the following fields: “BEGNO,” “ENDNO,” “PAGES,” “VOLUME,” and “CUSTODIAN.”  The 
DOCUMENTS should be logically unitized (i.e., contain correct DOCUMENT breaks:  for 
instance, a five-page fax consisting of a cover page and a four-page memo should be unitized as a 
five-page DOCUMENT).  Multi-page OCR text for each DOCUMENT should also be provided. 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 222     Filed 02/23/24     PageID.2359     Page
20 of 46
EXHIBIT 1 | Page 19

10 
 
2. 
Electronically stored information (“ESI”) should be produced as single-page tiff 
images except for Microsoft Excel spreadsheets, audio, and database-type files, including, but not 
limited to, Microsoft Access – which shall be produced in native format.  Each native file should 
be named according to the Bates number it has been assigned, and should be linked directly to its 
corresponding record in the load file using the NATIVELINK field.  To the extent that either party 
believes native files should be produced for a specific DOCUMENT or class of DOCUMENTS 
not required to be produced in native format pursuant to this paragraph, the parties agree to meet 
and confer on the issue in good faith.  Additionally, all ESI should be produced with a delimited, 
Unicode database load file that contains the metadata fields listed in Table 1, attached hereto.  An 
.opt image cross-reference file should also be provided for all tiff images. 
 
IV. RELEVANT TIME PERIOD 
All requests herein refer to the time period from January 1, 2020 to December 31, 2022 
(the “RELEVANT TIME PERIOD”) and shall include all information and DOCUMENTS that 
relate to the Relevant Time Period, even if prepared or published outside of the Relevant Time 
Period. 
V. REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION 
REQUEST NO. 1: 
All contracts and agreements, including drafts of such agreements, for services between 
YOU and DEFENDANT RELATING TO EDD DEBIT CARDHOLDERS, EDD DEBIT CARD 
ACCOUNTS, EDD BENEFITS, and CLAIMS. 
REQUEST NO. 2: 
 
 All COMMUNICATIONS RELATING TO the PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION and the 
implementation of and compliance with such PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION. 
 
 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 222     Filed 02/23/24     PageID.2360     Page
21 of 46
EXHIBIT 1 | Page 20

11 
 
REQUEST NO. 3: 
 
DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS sufficient to show all of YOUR policies and 
procedures for recruiting, hiring, onboarding, training, disciplining, and terminating YOUR 
CALL CENTER EMPLOYEES for Bank of America in effect at any time during the 
RELEVANT TIME PERIOD. 
REQUEST NO. 4: 
  
 All DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS RELATING TO any decisions, policies, 
instructions, or procedures regarding the alteration, suspension or elimination of any 
requirements related to the education, experience, background checks or training requirements 
for YOUR CALL CENTER EMPLOYEES at any time during the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD.  
REQUEST NO. 5: 
 DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS sufficient to show all training materials, 
scripts, directives, and other instructions provided to YOUR CALL CENTER EMPLOYEES.  
REQUEST NO. 6: 
 
All COMMUNICATIONS (including all tracking forms related to such 
COMMUNICATIONS) between YOU, YOUR CALL CENTER EMPLOYEES or the 
DEFENDANT, on one hand, and any NAMED CLASS REPRESENTATIVE, on the other hand. 
REQUEST NO. 7: 
 Reports and summaries sufficient to show the total number of and average hours worked 
by YOUR CALL CENTER EMPLOYEES RELATING TO EDD CARDHOLDERS on a weekly 
basis. 
REQUEST NO. 8: 
Reports and summaries sufficient to show the average tenure of CSRs staffing the CALL 
CENTERS RELATING TO EDD CARDHOLDERS.   
REQUEST NO. 9: 
 DOCUMENTS sufficient to show the security measures taken by YOU to prevent theft 
of CARDHOLDERS’ PERSONAL CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION by YOUR 
EMPLOYEES. 
REQUEST NO. 10: 
 
 All DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS related to unauthorized or improper use 
of CARDHOLDER’S PERSONAL CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION by: 
a) YOUR EMPLOYEES or 
b) Third parties. 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 222     Filed 02/23/24     PageID.2361     Page
22 of 46
EXHIBIT 1 | Page 21

12 
 
REQUEST NO. 11: 
 
 DOCUMENTS sufficient to show YOUR use of codes, including the code “199,” 
RELATING TO the EDD DEBIT CARDS AND EDD DEBIT CARD ACCOUNTS. 
REQUEST NO. 12: 
DOCUMENTS sufficient to show the average wait times experienced, on a weekly basis 
by EDD DEBIT CARDHOLDERS. 
REQUEST NO. 13: 
DOCUMENTS sufficient to show on a weekly basis the number of EDD DEBIT 
CARDHOLDERS who called YOUR CALL CENTER but failed to successfully 
communicate with YOUR CSRs, including but not limited to calls that were dropped or 
otherwise terminated based on the volume of calls, excessive wait times, or, the caller hanging 
up. 
REQUEST NO. 14: 
DOCUMENTS sufficient to show the volume of resolutions of EDD DEBIT 
CARDHOLDER CLAIMS and CLAIM INVESTIGATIONS, on a weekly basis, including the 
percentage of denied CLAIMS and percentage of CARDHOLDERS COMMUNICATING they 
were satisfied with the resolution and service provided by YOUR EMPLOYEES.  
REQUEST NO. 15: 
 
 All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO COMMUNICATIONS between YOUR CALL 
CENTERS and EDD DEBIT CARDHOLDERS RELATING TO:  
a) suicide and depression,  
b) threats of other self-harm or violence, and 
c) the inability to pay for food, shelter, clothing, medication, or other necessities; 
including YOUR decisions, policies, procedures, and instructions RELATING TO those 
COMMUNICATIONS. 
REQUEST NO. 16: 
 All DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS concerning concerns, complaints, 
criticisms, and suggestions for improvement from YOUR EMPLOYEES concerning:  
a) training RELATING TO CLAIMS, CLAIMS INVESTIGATION and EDD 
DEBIT CARD ACCOUNTS, 
b) the CLAIMS FRAUD FILTER, 
c) FREEZING or BLOCKING of EDD DEBIT CARD ACCOUNTs, and  
d) the closing or denying of CLAIMs submitted by EDD DEBIT 
CARDHOLDERs.  
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 222     Filed 02/23/24     PageID.2362     Page
23 of 46
EXHIBIT 1 | Page 22

13 
 
This Request includes all COMMUNICATIONS made by YOUR EMPLOYEES to internal and 
external ethics hot lines (including audio recordings). 
REQUEST NO. 17: 
 All DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS concerning YOUR responses to 
concerns, complaints, criticism, and suggestions for improvement received from YOUR 
EMPLOYEES and CSRs RELATING to EDD CARDHOLDER CLAIMS.  
REQUEST NO. 18: 
 All DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS related to concerns, complaints, 
criticisms, and suggestions for improvement from YOUR EXECUTIVE OFFICERS RELATING 
TO:  
a) EDD DEBIT CARDHOLDERS,  
b) EDD DEBIT CARD ACCOUNTS,  
c) EDD BENEFITS,  
d) CLAIMS INVESTIGATIONS,  
e) FREEZING AND BLOCKING OF EDD DEBIT CARD ACCOUNTS, and 
f) the closing or denying of CLAIMS submitted by EDD DEBIT 
CARDHOLDERS.  
REQUEST NO. 19: 
 All DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS concerning concerns, complaints, 
criticisms, and suggestions for improvement from DEFENDANT regarding YOUR performance 
of contracts or agreements for DEFENDANT, including YOUR response to same.    
REQUEST NO. 20: 
DOCUMENTS sufficient to show YOUR EMPLOYEES who were responsible for 
supervising, interacting and otherwise COMMUNICATING with DEFENDANT.   
REQUEST NO. 21: 
DOCUMENTS sufficient to show DEFENDANT’s key supervisors and decision makers 
responsible for handling tasks related to YOUR contracts and agreements with DEFENDANT. 
REQUEST NO. 22: 
 All DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS RELATING TO the CLAIMS FRAUD 
FILTER. 
REQUEST NO. 23: 
 
 All DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS containing the phrase “G Bam” or the 
phrase “Systemic Denial.” 
 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 222     Filed 02/23/24     PageID.2363     Page
24 of 46
EXHIBIT 1 | Page 23

TABLE 1: METADATA FIELDS 
Field Name 
Example I Format 
Description 
BEG NO 
ABCOOOOOOl (Unique ID) 
The Document ID number associated with 
the first page of a document. 
ENDNO 
ABC0000003 (Unique ID) 
The Document ID number associated with 
the last page of a document. 
BEGATIACH 
ABCOOOOOOl (Unique ID Parent-Child Relationships) 
The Document ID number associated with 
the first page of the parent document 
ENDATIACH 
ABC0000008 (Unique ID Parent-Child Relationships) 
The Document associated with the last 
page of the last attachment. 
PAGES 
3 (Numeric) 
The number of pages for a document. 
VOLUME 
VOLOOl 
The name of CD, DVD or Hard Drive 
(vendor assigns). 
RECORDTYPE 
Options: e-mail, attachment, hard copy, loose e-file 
The record type of a document 
DESIGNATION 
Confidential, Highly Confidential, etc. 
If the document is only provided in native, 
this field would be populated with the 
designation the native file should have if 
printed. 
SENTDATE 
MM/DD/YYYY HH:MM 
The date & time the email was sent. 
CREATEDATE 
MM/DD/YYYY HH:MM 
The date & time the email was created. 
LASTMODDATE 
MM/DD/YYYY HH:MM 
The date & time the email was modified. 
RECEIVED DATE 
MM/DD/YYYY HH:MM 
The date & time the email was received. 
TIMEZONE 
PST, CST, EST, etc. 
The time zone the document was 
PROCESSED 
processed in. Note: This should be the 
time zone where the documents were 
located at time of collection. 
FILE PATH 
i.e. Joe Smith/E-mail/lnbox 
Location of the original document. The 
Joe Smith/E-mail/Deleted Items 
source should be the start of the full path. 
Joe Smith/Loose Files/Accounting/ ... 
Joe Smith/Loose Files/Documents and Settings/ ... 
AUTHOR 
jsmith 
The author of a document from entered 
metadata. 
FROM 
Joe Smith <jsmith@email.com> 
The display name and e-mail of the author 
of an e-mail. If only e-mail is given, then 
just list the e-mail address. An e-mail 
address should always be provided for 
every document. 
TO 
Joe Smith <jsmith@email.com>; tjones@email.com 
The display name and e-mail of the 
recipient(s) of an e-mail. If only e-mail is 
given, then just list the e-mail address. An 
e-mail address should always be provided 
for every document. 
cc 
Joe Smith <jsmith@email.com>; tjones@email.com 
The display name and e-mail of the 
copyee(s) of an e-mail. If only e-mail is 
given, then just list the e-mail address. An 
e-mail address should always be provided 
for every document. 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 222     Filed 02/23/24     PageID.2364     Page
25 of 46
EXHIBIT 1 | Page 24

BCC 
Joe Smith <jsmith@email.com>; tjones@email.com 
The display name and e-mail of the blind 
copyee(s) of an e-mail. If only email is 
given, then just list the e-mail address. An 
e-mail address should always be provided 
for every document. 
SUBJECT 
The subject line of the e-mail. 
DOCTITLE 
The extracted document title of a 
document. 
CUSTODIAN 
The custodian/source of a document. 
Note: If the documents are de-duped on 
a global level, this field should contain the 
name of each custodian from which the 
document originated. 
ATIACH COUNT 
Numeric 
Number of attachments to a document. 
FILE EXT 
XLS 
The file extension of a document. 
FILENAME 
Document Name.xis 
The file name of a document. 
FILESIZE 
Numeric 
The file size of a document (including 
embedded attachments). 
MOS HASH 
The MOS Hash value or "de-duplication 
key" assigned to a document. 
CONVERSATION 
ID used to file together e-mail threads. 
INDEX 
NATIVELINK 
D:\NATIVES\ABCOOOOOl.xls 
The full path to a native copy of a 
document. 
FULL TEXT 
D:\ TEXT\ABCOOOOOl.txt 
The path to the full extracted text of the 
document. There should be a folder on 
the deliverable, containing a separate text 
file per document. These text files should 
be named with their corresponding bates 
numbers. Note: E-mails should include 
header information: author, recipient, cc, 
bee, date, subject, etc. If the attachment 
ore-file does not extract any text, then 
OCR for the document should be 
provided. 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 222     Filed 02/23/24     PageID.2365     Page
26 of 46
EXHIBIT 1 | Page 25

EXHIBIT 2
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 222     Filed 02/23/24     PageID.2366     Page
27 of 46
EXHIBIT 2 | Page 26

Arthur J. Rooney
ARooney@perkinscoie.com
D. +1.312.263.5071
November 22, 2023 
 
VIA EMAIL 
Francis A. Bottini, Jr. 
Anne B. Beste 
Bottini & Bottini, Inc. 
7817 Ivanhoe Ave., Ste. 102 
La Jolla, CA 92037 
Re: 
In re Bank of Am. Cal. Unemployment Benefits Litig., 3:21-md-2992 (S.D. Cal.) 
Counsel: 
TTEC Government Solutions, LLC (“TTEC”) has received your subpoena for documents 
dated November 9, 2023 (the “Subpoena”) in the above-referenced matter. The Subpoena appears 
to generally seek documents from TTEC related to California Employment Development 
Department (“EDD”) public benefit funds accessible via debit cards issued by Defendant Bank of 
America, N.A., on behalf of your client, Lindsay McClure. 
TTEC is not a party to the above-referenced matter, but is willing to consider producing 
documents in response to non-objectionable aspects of the Subpoena, so long as the Subpoena 
seeks discoverable information in TTEC’s possession, custody, or control, and is properly tailored 
to avoid unreasonable burden on TTEC.   
At this point, however, as set forth in TTEC’s objections and responses to the Subpoena 
and its enumerated requests below, it is not clear (a) precisely what information the Subpoena is 
requesting; (b) why the information sought by the Subpoena is discoverable in the underlying 
litigation; and (c) why much or all of the information requested by the Subpoena cannot be 
obtained directly from a party to the underlying action.  
Because TTEC is unable to discern the scope of the Subpoena, TTEC is unable to respond 
to the Subpoena as currently presented. TTEC, however, is willing to meet and confer to discuss 
the scope of the Subpoena. Accordingly, I invite you to contact me at 312.324.8400 to further 
discuss the Subpoena. In the meantime, TTEC makes the following objections and responses to 
the Subpoena and its enumerated requests. 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 222     Filed 02/23/24     PageID.2367     Page
28 of 46
EXHIBIT 2 | Page 27

Francis A. Bottini, Jr. 
Anne B. Beste 
November 22, 2023 
Page 2 
 
General Objections 
First, First, Non-party TTEC is headquartered and has custodians of records in Colorado. 
TTEC therefore objects to the Subpoena because it designates a place for compliance that is more 
than 100 miles from its location in Colorado. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c).  
Second, TTEC objects to the Subpoena on the grounds that the specified date of production 
is unreasonable and unduly burdensome. To the extent TTEC agrees to produce documents in 
response to the subpoena, it will do so at a later, more reasonable date. 
Third, TTEC objects to the Subpoena on the grounds that it is unduly burdensome to the 
extent its Requests are not reasonably tailored in scope. 
Fourth, TTEC objects to the Subpoena on the grounds that it seeks to impose an undue 
burden on TTEC, which is not a party to the underlying action. TTEC further objects to the 
Subpoena to the extent it seeks documents or information that is in the possession, custody, or 
control of a party to the underlying action (such as communications between TTEC and Defendant 
Bank of America) or equally available from another source (including public sources) that is more 
convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive than requiring TTEC to produce such documents 
or information. As a disinterested non-party, TTEC should not be subjected to the burden of 
searching for and producing such documents or information unless and until all reasonable means 
of obtaining that information directly from such other sources (such as parties to the litigation) 
have been exhausted. 
Fifth, TTEC objects to the Subpoena to the extent it seeks documents or information that 
are not proportionate to the needs of the case or not relevant to any party’s claims or defenses. 
Moreover, because neither a copy of the underlying complaint nor a description of the underlying 
claims at issue accompanied the Subpoena, TTEC is unable to discern whether the documents or 
information sought by the Subpoena are discoverable, and what its obligations are, if any, to 
respond to the Subpoena. 
Sixth, TTEC objects to the Subpoena to the extent it fails to provide information sufficient 
to enable TTEC to conduct a reasonable search for documents and information responsive to the 
Subpoena, if any. Without such information, the Subpoena would subject TTEC to an 
unreasonable burden of conducting an overbroad inquiry and search for responsive documents or 
information. 
Seventh, TTEC objects to the Subpoena to the extent it purports to require TTEC to 
perform anything more than a reasonable and diligent search for documents (including electronic 
documents) from reasonably accessible sources (including electronic sources).  
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 222     Filed 02/23/24     PageID.2368     Page
29 of 46
EXHIBIT 2 | Page 28

Francis A. Bottini, Jr. 
Anne B. Beste 
November 22, 2023 
Page 3 
Eighth, TTEC objects to the Subpoena to the extent it seeks electronically stored 
information that is not reasonably accessible to TTEC. 
Ninth, TTEC objects to the Subpoena to the extent that it is vague, ambiguous, or unlimited 
in time or scope.  
Tenth, TTEC objects to the Subpoena to the extent it seeks information protected by any 
privilege, including the attorney-client privilege, work product immunity doctrine, common 
interest privilege, or any other applicable privilege, immunity, or restriction on discovery. Any 
disclosure of privileged information by TTEC in response to the Subpoena shall not be deemed a 
waiver of any such privilege, and TTEC expressly requests that any party that receives any such 
privileged information produced by TTEC immediately return and do not make use of any 
produced privileged information. 
Eleventh, TTEC objects to the Subpoena to the extent it seeks confidential financial, 
proprietary or trade secret information belonging to TTEC or a third party, or any other information 
subject to a confidentiality agreement, protective order or legal duty of non-disclosure 
(“Confidential Information”). TTEC will only produce information it deems confidential pursuant 
to a confidentiality agreement or protective order that it believes is suitable for the protection of 
its Confidential Information. Even if an adequate protective order has been entered in the 
underlying action by the presiding court, TTEC will only provide Confidential Information to the 
extent TTEC can do so consistent with its legal, contractual and other confidentiality obligations. 
TTEC reserves the right to redact Confidential Information belonging to TTEC or third parties, as 
well as information concerning irrelevant matters. 
Twelfth, TTEC objects to the Subpoena’s definitions and instructions to the extent they 
purport to impose obligations on TTEC in excess of any applicable federal or state codes of civil 
procedure, rules of evidence, or any other applicable law. 
Thirteenth, TTEC objects to the Subpoena’s definition of “TTEC” and/or “You” and 
“Your” on the grounds that the definition renders the Subpoena overbroad, vague and ambiguous, 
and unduly burdensome. TTEC further objects to the Subpoena to the extent it seeks information 
not currently in the possession, custody, or control of TTEC. TTEC responds solely on behalf of 
itself (TTEC Government Solutions, LLC) and not any subsidiary or affiliate of TTEC, or 
any other person or entity. TTEC further objects to the Subpoena’s definition of “TTEC” and/or 
“You” and “Your” on the grounds that the definition includes TTEC’s attorneys and requires 
TTEC to provide a legal conclusion or to produce documents or information that is 
protected by any privilege, including the attorney-client privilege, work product immunity 
doctrine, common interest privilege, or any other applicable privilege, immunity, or restriction 
on discovery. 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 222     Filed 02/23/24     PageID.2369     Page
30 of 46
EXHIBIT 2 | Page 29

Francis A. Bottini, Jr. 
Anne B. Beste 
November 22, 2023 
Page 4 
 
Fourteenth, TTEC objects to the Subpoena to the extent it seeks documents or information 
that is not currently in the possession, custody, or control of TTEC. 
Fifteenth, TTEC objects to the Subpoena’s definition of “CARDHOLDER”, “CLAIM,” 
“CLAIMANT” and “DEFENDANT” on the grounds that such definitions render the Subpoena 
overbroad, vague and ambiguous, and unduly burdensome. 
Sixteenth, TTEC objects to the Subpoena to the extent it seeks information relating to the 
knowledge, recollections, or mental impressions of former employees who are no longer employed 
by TTEC, or any other information that is no longer in the possession, custody, or control of TTEC. 
TTEC reserves the right to assert additional objections, or to supplement its objections and 
responses as appropriate, particularly if any additional information regarding the Subpoena or the 
underlying claims at issue is provided. 
Responses and Objections to Enumerated Document Requests 
Subject to and without waiving the above-listed objections, TTEC responds to the Subpoena’s 
enumerated requests as follows: 
REQUEST NO. 1: 
All contracts and agreements, including drafts of such agreements, for services between YOU and 
DEFENDANT RELATING TO EDD DEBIT CARDHOLDERS, EDD DEBIT CARD 
ACCOUNTS, EDD BENEFITS, and CLAIMS. 
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 1: 
In addition to the above-listed objections, which are incorporated herein by reference, TTEC 
specifically objects to this request on multiple grounds, including but not limited to the following:  
(1) it is unduly burdensome and overbroad as it is not reasonably limited or discernible in scope; 
(2) it is vague and ambiguous as to the phrase “services”; (3) it seeks information that is not within 
TTEC’s possession, custody or control; (4) it seeks electronically stored information that is not 
reasonably accessible by TTEC without undue burden and/or cost; and (5) it calls for information 
that TTEC is not capable of producing (or not reasonably able to produce); and (6) it seeks 
information already in the possession of a party to the litigation; (7) it seeks information that is 
highly confidential, proprietary, that contains trade secrets, and/or is subject to a confidentiality 
agreement or protective order; (8) it seeks information protected by the right to privacy under state 
and/or federal laws; (9) it seeks information that is not proportionate to the needs of the case and 
not relevant to any party's claims or defenses; (10) it seeks information protected by the attorney-
client privilege and work product doctrine; 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 222     Filed 02/23/24     PageID.2370     Page
31 of 46
EXHIBIT 2 | Page 30

Francis A. Bottini, Jr. 
Anne B. Beste 
November 22, 2023 
Page 5 
 
Accordingly, TTEC will not produce documents in response to this request as currently presented 
but will consider a properly tailored request after the parties have met and conferred to discuss this 
request. 
REQUEST NO. 2: 
All COMMUNICATIONS RELATING TO the PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION and the 
implementation of and compliance with such PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION. 
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 2: 
In addition to the above-listed objections, which are incorporated herein by reference, TTEC 
specifically objects to this request on multiple grounds, including but not limited to the following:  
(1) it is unduly burdensome and overbroad as it is not reasonably limited or discernible in scope; 
(2) it is vague and ambiguous as to the phrase “implementation of and compliance with”; (3) it 
seeks information that is not within TTEC’s possession, custody or control; (4) it seeks 
electronically stored information that is not reasonably accessible by TTEC without undue burden 
and/or cost; and (5) it calls for information that TTEC is not capable of producing (or not 
reasonably able to produce); and (6) it seeks information already in the possession of a party to the 
litigation; (7) it seeks information that is highly confidential, proprietary, that contains trade 
secrets, and/or is subject to a confidentiality agreement or protective order; (8) it seeks information 
protected by the right to privacy under state and/or federal laws; (9) it seeks information that is not 
proportionate to the needs of the case and not relevant to any party's claims or defenses; (10) it 
seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine; 
Accordingly, TTEC will not produce documents in response to this request as currently presented 
but will consider a properly tailored request after the parties have met and conferred to discuss this 
request. 
REQUEST NO. 3: 
DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS sufficient to show all of YOUR policies and 
procedures for recruiting, hiring, onboarding, training, disciplining, and terminating YOUR CALL 
CENTER EMPLOYEES for Bank of America in effect at any time during the RELEVANT TIME 
PERIOD. 
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 3: 
In addition to the above-listed objections, which are incorporated herein by reference, TTEC 
specifically objects to this request on multiple grounds, including but not limited to the following:  
(1) it is unduly burdensome and overbroad as it is not reasonably limited or discernible in scope; 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 222     Filed 02/23/24     PageID.2371     Page
32 of 46
EXHIBIT 2 | Page 31

Francis A. Bottini, Jr. 
Anne B. Beste 
November 22, 2023 
Page 6 
 
(2) it is vague and ambiguous as to the phrase “for Bank of America”; (3) it seeks information that 
is not within TTEC’s possession, custody or control; (4) it seeks electronically stored information 
that is not reasonably accessible by TTEC without undue burden and/or cost; and (5) it calls for 
information that TTEC is not capable of producing (or not reasonably able to produce); and (6) it 
seeks information already in the possession of a party to the litigation; (7) it seeks information that 
is highly confidential, proprietary, that contains trade secrets, and/or is subject to a confidentiality 
agreement or protective order; (8) it seeks information protected by the right to privacy under state 
and/or federal laws; (9) it seeks information that is not proportionate to the needs of the case and 
not relevant to any party's claims or defenses; (10) it seeks information protected by the attorney-
client privilege and work product doctrine; 
Accordingly, TTEC will not produce documents in response to this request as currently presented 
but will consider a properly tailored request after the parties have met and conferred to discuss this 
request. 
REQUEST NO. 4: 
All DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS RELATING TO any decisions, policies, 
instructions, or procedures regarding the alteration, suspension or elimination of any requirements 
related to the education, experience, background checks or training requirements for YOUR CALL 
CENTER EMPLOYEES at any time during the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD. 
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 4: 
In addition to the above-listed objections, which are incorporated herein by reference, TTEC 
specifically objects to this request on multiple grounds, including but not limited to the following:  
(1) it is unduly burdensome and overbroad as it is not reasonably limited or discernible in scope; 
(2) it is vague and ambiguous; (3) it seeks information that is not within TTEC’s possession, 
custody or control; (4) it seeks electronically stored information that is not reasonably accessible 
by TTEC without undue burden and/or cost; and (5) it calls for information that TTEC is not 
capable of producing (or not reasonably able to produce); and (6) it seeks information that is highly 
confidential, proprietary, that contains trade secrets, and/or is subject to a confidentiality 
agreement or protective order; (7) it seeks information that is not proportionate to the needs of the 
case and not relevant to any party's claims or defenses; (8) it seeks information protected by the 
attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine; 
Accordingly, TTEC will not produce documents in response to this request as currently presented 
but will consider a properly tailored request after the parties have met and conferred to discuss this 
request. 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 222     Filed 02/23/24     PageID.2372     Page
33 of 46
EXHIBIT 2 | Page 32

Francis A. Bottini, Jr. 
Anne B. Beste 
November 22, 2023 
Page 7 
 
REQUEST NO. 5: 
DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS sufficient to show all training materials, scripts, 
directives, and other instructions provided to YOUR CALL CENTER EMPLOYEES. 
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 5: 
In addition to the above-listed objections, which are incorporated herein by reference, TTEC 
specifically objects to this request on multiple grounds, including but not limited to the following:  
(1) it is unduly burdensome and overbroad as it is not reasonably limited or discernible in scope; 
(2) it is vague and ambiguous as to the phrase “training materials, scripts, directives, and other 
instructions”; (3) it seeks information that is not within TTEC’s possession, custody or control; (4) 
it seeks electronically stored information that is not reasonably accessible by TTEC without undue 
burden and/or cost; and (5) it calls for information that TTEC is not capable of producing (or not 
reasonably able to produce); and (6) it seeks information already in the possession of a party to the 
litigation; (7) it seeks information that is highly confidential, proprietary, that contains trade 
secrets, and/or is subject to a confidentiality agreement or protective order; (8) it seeks information 
that is not proportionate to the needs of the case and not relevant to any party's claims or defenses; 
(9) it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine; 
Accordingly, TTEC will not produce documents in response to this request as currently presented 
but will consider a properly tailored request after the parties have met and conferred to discuss this 
request. 
REQUEST NO. 6: 
All COMMUNICATIONS (including all tracking forms related to such COMMUNICATIONS) 
between YOU, YOUR CALL CENTER EMPLOYEES or the DEFENDANT, on one hand, and 
any NAMED CLASS REPRESENTATIVE, on the other hand. 
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 6: 
In addition to the above-listed objections, which are incorporated herein by reference, TTEC 
specifically objects to this request on multiple grounds, including but not limited to the following:  
(1) it is unduly burdensome and overbroad as it is not reasonably limited or discernible in scope; 
(2) it is vague and ambiguous as to the phrase “tracking forms”; (3) it seeks information that is not 
within TTEC’s possession, custody or control; (4) it seeks electronically stored information that is 
not reasonably accessible by TTEC without undue burden and/or cost; and (5) it calls for 
information that TTEC is not capable of producing (or not reasonably able to produce); and (6) it 
seeks information already in the possession of a party to the litigation; (7) it seeks information that 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 222     Filed 02/23/24     PageID.2373     Page
34 of 46
EXHIBIT 2 | Page 33

Francis A. Bottini, Jr. 
Anne B. Beste 
November 22, 2023 
Page 8 
 
is highly confidential, proprietary, that contains trade secrets, and/or is subject to a confidentiality 
agreement or protective order; (8) it seeks information protected by the right to privacy under state 
and/or federal laws; (9) it seeks information that is not proportionate to the needs of the case and 
not relevant to any party's claims or defenses; (10) it seeks information protected by the attorney-
client privilege and work product doctrine; 
Accordingly, TTEC will not produce documents in response to this request as currently presented 
but will consider a properly tailored request after the parties have met and conferred to discuss this 
request. 
REQUEST NO. 7: 
Reports and summaries sufficient to show the total number of and average hours worked by YOUR 
CALL CENTER EMPLOYEES RELATING TO EDD CARDHOLDERS on a weekly basis. 
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 7: 
In addition to the above-listed objections, which are incorporated herein by reference, TTEC 
specifically objects to this request on multiple grounds, including but not limited to the following:  
(1) it is unduly burdensome and overbroad as it is not reasonably limited or discernible in scope; 
(2) it is vague and ambiguous; (3) it seeks information that is not within TTEC’s possession, 
custody or control; (4) it seeks electronically stored information that is not reasonably accessible 
by TTEC without undue burden and/or cost; and (5) it calls for information that TTEC is not 
capable of producing (or not reasonably able to produce); and (6) it seeks information already in 
the possession of a party to the litigation; (7) it seeks information that is highly confidential, 
proprietary, that contains trade secrets, and/or is subject to a confidentiality agreement or 
protective order; (8) it seeks information protected by the right to privacy under state and/or federal 
laws; (9) it seeks information that is not proportionate to the needs of the case and not relevant to 
any party's claims or defenses; (10) it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege 
and work product doctrine; 
Accordingly, TTEC will not produce documents in response to this request as currently presented 
but will consider a properly tailored request after the parties have met and conferred to discuss this 
request. 
REQUEST NO. 8: 
Reports and summaries sufficient to show the average tenure of CSRs staffing the CALL 
CENTERS RELATING TO EDD CARDHOLDERS. 
 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 222     Filed 02/23/24     PageID.2374     Page
35 of 46
EXHIBIT 2 | Page 34

Francis A. Bottini, Jr. 
Anne B. Beste 
November 22, 2023 
Page 9 
 
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 8: 
In addition to the above-listed objections, which are incorporated herein by reference, TTEC 
specifically objects to this request on multiple grounds, including but not limited to the following:  
(1) it is unduly burdensome and overbroad as it is not reasonably limited or discernible in scope; 
(2) it is vague and ambiguous; (3) it seeks information that is not within TTEC’s possession, 
custody or control; (4) it seeks electronically stored information that is not reasonably accessible 
by TTEC without undue burden and/or cost; and (5) it calls for information that TTEC is not 
capable of producing (or not reasonably able to produce); and (6) it seeks information that is not 
proportionate to the needs of the case and not relevant to any party's claims or defenses. 
Accordingly, TTEC will not produce documents in response to this request as currently presented 
but will consider a properly tailored request after the parties have met and conferred to discuss this 
request. 
REQUEST NO. 9: 
DOCUMENTS sufficient to show the security measures taken by YOU to prevent theft of 
CARDHOLDERS’ PERSONAL CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION by YOUR EMPLOYEES. 
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 9: 
In addition to the above-listed objections, which are incorporated herein by reference, TTEC 
specifically objects to this request on multiple grounds, including but not limited to the following:  
(1) it is unduly burdensome and overbroad as it is not reasonably limited or discernible in scope; 
(2) it is vague and ambiguous; (3) it seeks information that is not within TTEC’s possession, 
custody or control; (4) it seeks electronically stored information that is not reasonably accessible 
by TTEC without undue burden and/or cost; and (5) it calls for information that TTEC is not 
capable of producing (or not reasonably able to produce); and (6) it seeks information already in 
the possession of a party to the litigation; (7) it seeks information that is highly confidential, 
proprietary, that contains trade secrets, and/or is subject to a confidentiality agreement or 
protective order; (8) it seeks information protected by the right to privacy under state and/or federal 
laws; (9) it seeks information that is not proportionate to the needs of the case and not relevant to 
any party's claims or defenses; (10) it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege 
and work product doctrine; 
Accordingly, TTEC will not produce documents in response to this request as currently presented 
but will consider a properly tailored request after the parties have met and conferred to discuss this 
request. 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 222     Filed 02/23/24     PageID.2375     Page
36 of 46
EXHIBIT 2 | Page 35

Francis A. Bottini, Jr. 
Anne B. Beste 
November 22, 2023 
Page 10 
 
REQUEST NO. 10: 
All DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS related to unauthorized or improper use of 
CARDHOLDER’S PERSONAL CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION by: 
a) YOUR EMPLOYEES or 
b) Third parties. 
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 10: 
In addition to the above-listed objections, which are incorporated herein by reference, TTEC 
specifically objects to this request on multiple grounds, including but not limited to the following:  
(1) it is unduly burdensome and overbroad as it is not reasonably limited or discernible in scope; 
(2) it is vague and ambiguous; (3) it seeks information that is not within TTEC’s possession, 
custody or control; (4) it seeks electronically stored information that is not reasonably accessible 
by TTEC without undue burden and/or cost; and (5) it calls for information that TTEC is not 
capable of producing (or not reasonably able to produce); and (6) it seeks information already in 
the possession of a party to the litigation; (7) it seeks information that is highly confidential, 
proprietary, that contains trade secrets, and/or is subject to a confidentiality agreement or 
protective order; (8) it seeks information protected by the right to privacy under state and/or federal 
laws; (9) it seeks information that is not proportionate to the needs of the case and not relevant to 
any party's claims or defenses; (10) it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege 
and work product doctrine; 
Accordingly, TTEC will not produce documents in response to this request as currently presented 
but will consider a properly tailored request after the parties have met and conferred to discuss this 
request. 
REQUEST NO. 11: 
DOCUMENTS sufficient to show YOUR use of codes, including the code “199,” RELATING TO 
the EDD DEBIT CARDS AND EDD DEBIT CARD ACCOUNTS. 
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 11: 
In addition to the above-listed objections, which are incorporated herein by reference, TTEC 
specifically objects to this request on multiple grounds, including but not limited to the following:  
(1) it is unduly burdensome and overbroad as it is not reasonably limited or discernible in scope; 
(2) it is vague and ambiguous generally and specifically as to the phrase “use of codes, including 
the code “199,”; (3) it seeks electronically stored information that is not reasonably accessible by 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 222     Filed 02/23/24     PageID.2376     Page
37 of 46
EXHIBIT 2 | Page 36

Francis A. Bottini, Jr. 
Anne B. Beste 
November 22, 2023 
Page 11 
 
TTEC without undue burden and/or cost; and (4) it calls for information that TTEC is not capable 
of producing (or not reasonably able to produce); and (5) it seeks information already in the 
possession of a party to the litigation; (6) it seeks information that is highly confidential, 
proprietary, that contains trade secrets, and/or is subject to a confidentiality agreement or 
protective order; (7) it seeks information that is not proportionate to the needs of the case and not 
relevant to any party's claims or defenses; (8) it seeks information protected by the attorney-client 
privilege and work product doctrine; 
Accordingly, TTEC will not produce documents in response to this request as currently presented 
but will consider a properly tailored request after the parties have met and conferred to discuss this 
request. 
REQUEST NO. 12: 
DOCUMENTS sufficient to show the average wait times experienced, on a weekly basis by EDD 
DEBIT CARDHOLDERS. 
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 12: 
In addition to the above-listed objections, which are incorporated herein by reference, TTEC 
specifically objects to this request on multiple grounds, including but not limited to the following:  
(1) it is unduly burdensome and overbroad as it is not reasonably limited or discernible in scope; 
(2) it is vague and ambiguous generally and specifically as to the phrase “average wait times,”; (3) 
it seeks information that is not within TTEC’s possession, custody or control; (4) it seeks 
electronically stored information that is not reasonably accessible by TTEC without undue burden 
and/or cost; and (5) it calls for information that TTEC is not capable of producing (or not 
reasonably able to produce); and (6) it seeks information already in the possession of a party to the 
litigation; (7) it seeks information that is highly confidential, proprietary, that contains trade 
secrets, and/or is subject to a confidentiality agreement or protective order; (8) it seeks information 
that is not proportionate to the needs of the case and not relevant to any party's claims or defenses; 
(9) it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine; 
Accordingly, TTEC will not produce documents in response to this request as currently presented 
but will consider a properly tailored request after the parties have met and conferred to discuss this 
request. 
REQUEST NO. 13: 
DOCUMENTS sufficient to show on a weekly basis the number of EDD DEBIT 
CARDHOLDERS who called YOUR CALL CENTER but failed to successfully communicate 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 222     Filed 02/23/24     PageID.2377     Page
38 of 46
EXHIBIT 2 | Page 37

Francis A. Bottini, Jr. 
Anne B. Beste 
November 22, 2023 
Page 12 
 
with YOUR CSRs, including but not limited to calls that were dropped or otherwise terminated 
based on the volume of calls, excessive wait times, or, the caller hanging up. 
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 13: 
In addition to the above-listed objections, which are incorporated herein by reference, TTEC 
specifically objects to this request on multiple grounds, including but not limited to the following:  
(1) it is unduly burdensome and overbroad as it is not reasonably limited or discernible in scope; 
(2) it is vague and ambiguous; (3) it seeks information that is not within TTEC’s possession, 
custody or control; (4) it seeks electronically stored information that is not reasonably accessible 
by TTEC without undue burden and/or cost; and (5) it calls for information that TTEC is not 
capable of producing (or not reasonably able to produce); and (6) it seeks information already in 
the possession of a party to the litigation; (7) it seeks information that is highly confidential, 
proprietary, that contains trade secrets, and/or is subject to a confidentiality agreement or 
protective order; (8) it seeks information protected by the right to privacy under state and/or federal 
laws; (9) it seeks information that is not proportionate to the needs of the case and not relevant to 
any party's claims or defenses; (10) it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege 
and work product doctrine; 
Accordingly, TTEC will not produce documents in response to this request as currently presented 
but will consider a properly tailored request after the parties have met and conferred to discuss this 
request. 
REQUEST NO. 14: 
DOCUMENTS sufficient to show the volume of resolutions of EDD DEBIT CARDHOLDER 
CLAIMS and CLAIM INVESTIGATIONS, on a weekly basis, including the percentage of denied 
CLAIMS and percentage of CARDHOLDERS COMMUNICATING they were satisfied with the 
resolution and service provided by YOUR EMPLOYEES. 
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 14: 
In addition to the above-listed objections, which are incorporated herein by reference, TTEC 
specifically objects to this request on multiple grounds, including but not limited to the following:  
(1) it is unduly burdensome and overbroad as it is not reasonably limited or discernible in scope; 
(2) it is vague and ambiguous; (3) it seeks information that is not within TTEC’s possession, 
custody or control; (4) it seeks electronically stored information that is not reasonably accessible 
by TTEC without undue burden and/or cost; and (5) it calls for information that TTEC is not 
capable of producing (or not reasonably able to produce); and (6) it seeks information already in 
the possession of a party to the litigation; (7) it seeks information that is highly confidential, 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 222     Filed 02/23/24     PageID.2378     Page
39 of 46
EXHIBIT 2 | Page 38

Francis A. Bottini, Jr. 
Anne B. Beste 
November 22, 2023 
Page 13 
 
proprietary, that contains trade secrets, and/or is subject to a confidentiality agreement or 
protective order; (8) it seeks information protected by the right to privacy under state and/or federal 
laws; (9) it seeks information that is not proportionate to the needs of the case and not relevant to 
any party's claims or defenses; (10) it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege 
and work product doctrine; 
Accordingly, TTEC will not produce documents in response to this request as currently presented 
but will consider a properly tailored request after the parties have met and conferred to discuss this 
request. 
REQUEST NO. 15: 
All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO COMMUNICATIONS between YOUR CALL CENTERS 
and EDD DEBIT CARDHOLDERS RELATING TO: 
a) suicide and depression, 
b) threats of other self-harm or violence, and 
c) the inability to pay for food, shelter, clothing, medication, or other necessities; 
including YOUR decisions, policies, procedures, and instructions RELATING TO those 
COMMUNICATIONS. 
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 15: 
In addition to the above-listed objections, which are incorporated herein by reference, TTEC 
specifically objects to this request on multiple grounds, including but not limited to the following:  
(1) it is unduly burdensome and overbroad as it is not reasonably limited or discernible in scope; 
(2) it is vague and ambiguous; (3) it seeks information that is not within TTEC’s possession, 
custody or control; (4) it seeks electronically stored information that is not reasonably accessible 
by TTEC without undue burden and/or cost; and (5) it calls for information that TTEC is not 
capable of producing (or not reasonably able to produce); and (6) it seeks information already in 
the possession of a party to the litigation; (7) it seeks information that is highly confidential, 
proprietary, that contains trade secrets, and/or is subject to a confidentiality agreement or 
protective order; (8) it seeks information protected by the right to privacy under state and/or federal 
laws; (9) it seeks information that is not proportionate to the needs of the case and not relevant to 
any party's claims or defenses; (10) it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege 
and work product doctrine; 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 222     Filed 02/23/24     PageID.2379     Page
40 of 46
EXHIBIT 2 | Page 39

Francis A. Bottini, Jr. 
Anne B. Beste 
November 22, 2023 
Page 14 
 
Accordingly, TTEC will not produce documents in response to this request as currently presented 
but will consider a properly tailored request after the parties have met and conferred to discuss this 
request. 
REQUEST NO. 16: 
All DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS concerning concerns, complaints, criticisms, and 
suggestions for improvement from YOUR EMPLOYEES concerning: 
a) training RELATING TO CLAIMS, CLAIMS INVESTIGATION and EDD 
DEBIT CARD ACCOUNTS, 
b) the CLAIMS FRAUD FILTER, 
c) FREEZING or BLOCKING of EDD DEBIT CARD ACCOUNTs, and 
d) the closing or denying of CLAIMs submitted by EDD DEBIT 
CARDHOLDERs. 
This Request includes all COMMUNICATIONS made by YOUR EMPLOYEES to internal and 
external ethics hot lines (including audio recordings). 
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 16: 
In addition to the above-listed objections, which are incorporated herein by reference, TTEC 
specifically objects to this request on multiple grounds, including but not limited to the following:  
(1) it is unduly burdensome and overbroad as it is not reasonably limited or discernible in scope; 
(2) it is vague and ambiguous; (3) it seeks information that is not within TTEC’s possession, 
custody or control; (4) it seeks electronically stored information that is not reasonably accessible 
by TTEC without undue burden and/or cost; and (5) it calls for information that TTEC is not 
capable of producing (or not reasonably able to produce); and (6) it seeks information already in 
the possession of a party to the litigation; (7) it seeks information that is highly confidential, 
proprietary, that contains trade secrets, and/or is subject to a confidentiality agreement or 
protective order; (8) it seeks information protected by the right to privacy under state and/or federal 
laws; (9) it seeks information that is not proportionate to the needs of the case and not relevant to 
any party's claims or defenses; (10) it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege 
and work product doctrine; 
Accordingly, TTEC will not produce documents in response to this request as currently presented 
but will consider a properly tailored request after the parties have met and conferred to discuss this 
request. 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 222     Filed 02/23/24     PageID.2380     Page
41 of 46
EXHIBIT 2 | Page 40

Francis A. Bottini, Jr. 
Anne B. Beste 
November 22, 2023 
Page 15 
 
REQUEST NO. 17: 
All DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS concerning YOUR responses to concerns, 
complaints, criticism, and suggestions for improvement received from YOUR EMPLOYEES and 
CSRs RELATING to EDD CARDHOLDER CLAIMS. 
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 17: 
In addition to the above-listed objections, which are incorporated herein by reference, TTEC 
specifically objects to this request on multiple grounds, including but not limited to the following:  
(1) it is unduly burdensome and overbroad as it is not reasonably limited or discernible in scope; 
(2) it is vague and ambiguous; (3) it seeks information that is not within TTEC’s possession, 
custody or control; (4) it seeks electronically stored information that is not reasonably accessible 
by TTEC without undue burden and/or cost; and (5) it calls for information that TTEC is not 
capable of producing (or not reasonably able to produce); and (6) it seeks information already in 
the possession of a party to the litigation; (7) it seeks information that is highly confidential, 
proprietary, that contains trade secrets, and/or is subject to a confidentiality agreement or 
protective order; (8) it seeks information protected by the right to privacy under state and/or federal 
laws; (9) it seeks information that is not proportionate to the needs of the case and not relevant to 
any party's claims or defenses; (10) it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege 
and work product doctrine; 
Accordingly, TTEC will not produce documents in response to this request as currently presented 
but will consider a properly tailored request after the parties have met and conferred to discuss this 
request. 
REQUEST NO. 18: 
All DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS related to concerns, complaints, criticisms, and 
suggestions for improvement from YOUR EXECUTIVE OFFICERS RELATING TO: 
a) EDD DEBIT CARDHOLDERS, 
b) EDD DEBIT CARD ACCOUNTS, 
c) EDD BENEFITS, 
d) CLAIMS INVESTIGATIONS, 
e) FREEZING AND BLOCKING OF EDD DEBIT CARD ACCOUNTS, and 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 222     Filed 02/23/24     PageID.2381     Page
42 of 46
EXHIBIT 2 | Page 41

Francis A. Bottini, Jr. 
Anne B. Beste 
November 22, 2023 
Page 16 
 
f) the closing or denying of CLAIMS submitted by EDD DEBIT 
CARDHOLDERS. 
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 18: 
In addition to the above-listed objections, which are incorporated herein by reference, TTEC 
specifically objects to this request on multiple grounds, including but not limited to the following:  
(1) it is unduly burdensome and overbroad as it is not reasonably limited or discernible in scope; 
(2) it is vague and ambiguous; (3) it seeks information that is not within TTEC’s possession, 
custody or control; (4) it seeks electronically stored information that is not reasonably accessible 
by TTEC without undue burden and/or cost; and (5) it calls for information that TTEC is not 
capable of producing (or not reasonably able to produce); and (6) it seeks information already in 
the possession of a party to the litigation; (7) it seeks information that is highly confidential, 
proprietary, that contains trade secrets, and/or is subject to a confidentiality agreement or 
protective order; (8) it seeks information protected by the right to privacy under state and/or federal 
laws; (9) it seeks information that is not proportionate to the needs of the case and not relevant to 
any party's claims or defenses; (10) it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege 
and work product doctrine; 
Accordingly, TTEC will not produce documents in response to this request as currently presented 
but will consider a properly tailored request after the parties have met and conferred to discuss this 
request. 
REQUEST NO. 19: 
All DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS concerning concerns, complaints, criticisms, and 
suggestions for improvement from DEFENDANT regarding YOUR performance of contracts or 
agreements for DEFENDANT, including YOUR response to same. 
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 9: 
In addition to the above-listed objections, which are incorporated herein by reference, TTEC 
specifically objects to this request on multiple grounds, including but not limited to the following:  
(1) it is unduly burdensome and overbroad as it is not reasonably limited or discernible in scope; 
(2) it is vague and ambiguous; (3) it seeks information that is not within TTEC’s possession, 
custody or control; (4) it seeks information already in the possession of a party to the litigation; 
(5) it seeks information that is highly confidential, proprietary, that contains trade secrets, and/or 
is subject to a confidentiality agreement or protective order; (6) it seeks information that is not 
proportionate to the needs of the case and not relevant to any party's claims or defenses; (7) it seeks 
information protected by the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine; 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 222     Filed 02/23/24     PageID.2382     Page
43 of 46
EXHIBIT 2 | Page 42

Francis A. Bottini, Jr. 
Anne B. Beste 
November 22, 2023 
Page 17 
 
Accordingly, TTEC will not produce documents in response to this request as currently presented 
but will consider a properly tailored request after the parties have met and conferred to discuss this 
request. 
REQUEST NO. 20: 
DOCUMENTS sufficient to show YOUR EMPLOYEES who were responsible for supervising, 
interacting and otherwise COMMUNICATING with DEFENDANT. 
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 9: 
In addition to the above-listed objections, which are incorporated herein by reference, TTEC 
specifically objects to this request on multiple grounds, including but not limited to the following:  
(1) it is unduly burdensome and overbroad as it is not reasonably limited or discernible in scope; 
(2) it is vague and ambiguous generally and specifically as to the phrase “supervising, interacting 
and otherwise communicating”; (3) it seeks information that is not within TTEC’s possession, 
custody or control; (4) it seeks electronically stored information that is not reasonably accessible 
by TTEC without undue burden and/or cost; and (5) it calls for information that TTEC is not 
capable of producing (or not reasonably able to produce); and (6) it seeks information already in 
the possession of a party to the litigation; (7) it seeks information that is highly confidential, 
proprietary, that contains trade secrets, and/or is subject to a confidentiality agreement or 
protective order; (8) it seeks information protected by the right to privacy under state and/or federal 
laws; (9) it seeks information that is not proportionate to the needs of the case and not relevant to 
any party's claims or defenses; (10) it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege 
and work product doctrine; 
Accordingly, TTEC will not produce documents in response to this request as currently presented 
but will consider a properly tailored request after the parties have met and conferred to discuss this 
request. 
REQUEST NO. 21: 
DOCUMENTS sufficient to show DEFENDANT’s key supervisors and decision makers 
responsible for handling tasks related to YOUR contracts and agreements with DEFENDANT. 
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 21: 
In addition to the above-listed objections, which are incorporated herein by reference, TTEC 
specifically objects to this request on multiple grounds, including but not limited to the following:  
(1) it is unduly burdensome and overbroad as it is not reasonably limited or discernible in scope; 
(2) it is vague and ambiguous; (3) it seeks information that is not within TTEC’s possession, 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 222     Filed 02/23/24     PageID.2383     Page
44 of 46
EXHIBIT 2 | Page 43

Francis A. Bottini, Jr. 
Anne B. Beste 
November 22, 2023 
Page 18 
 
custody or control; (4) it calls for information that TTEC is not capable of producing (or not 
reasonably able to produce); and (5) it seeks information already in the possession of a party to the 
litigation; (6) it seeks information that is highly confidential, proprietary, that contains trade 
secrets, and/or is subject to a confidentiality agreement or protective order; (7) it seeks information 
protected by the right to privacy under state and/or federal laws; (8) it seeks information that is not 
proportionate to the needs of the case and not relevant to any party's claims or defenses; (9) it seeks 
information protected by the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine; 
Accordingly, TTEC will not produce documents in response to this request as currently presented 
but will consider a properly tailored request after the parties have met and conferred to discuss this 
request. 
REQUEST NO. 22: 
All DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS RELATING TO the CLAIMS FRAUD FILTER. 
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 22: 
In addition to the above-listed objections, which are incorporated herein by reference, TTEC 
specifically objects to this request on multiple grounds, including but not limited to the following:  
(1) it is unduly burdensome and overbroad as it is not reasonably limited or discernible in scope; 
(2) it is vague and ambiguous; (3) it seeks information that is not within TTEC’s possession, 
custody or control; (4) it seeks electronically stored information that is not reasonably accessible 
by TTEC without undue burden and/or cost; and (5) it calls for information that TTEC is not 
capable of producing (or not reasonably able to produce); and (6) it seeks information already in 
the possession of a party to the litigation; (7) it seeks information that is highly confidential, 
proprietary, that contains trade secrets, and/or is subject to a confidentiality agreement or 
protective order; (8) it seeks information protected by the right to privacy under state and/or federal 
laws; (9) it seeks information that is not proportionate to the needs of the case and not relevant to 
any party's claims or defenses; (10) it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege 
and work product doctrine; 
Accordingly, TTEC will not produce documents in response to this request as currently presented 
but will consider a properly tailored request after the parties have met and conferred to discuss this 
request. 
REQUEST NO. 23: 
All DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS containing the phrase “G Bam” or the phrase 
“Systemic Denial.” 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 222     Filed 02/23/24     PageID.2384     Page
45 of 46
EXHIBIT 2 | Page 44

Francis A. Bottini, Jr. 
Anne B. Beste 
November 22, 2023 
Page 19 
 
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 23: 
In addition to the above-listed objections, which are incorporated herein by reference, TTEC 
specifically objects to this request on multiple grounds, including but not limited to the following:  
(1) it is unduly burdensome and overbroad as it is not reasonably limited or discernible in scope; 
(2) it is vague and ambiguous; (3) it seeks information that is not within TTEC’s possession, 
custody or control; (4) it seeks electronically stored information that is not reasonably accessible 
by TTEC without undue burden and/or cost; and (5) it calls for information that TTEC is not 
capable of producing (or not reasonably able to produce); and (6) it seeks information already in 
the possession of a party to the litigation; (7) it seeks information that is highly confidential, 
proprietary, that contains trade secrets, and/or is subject to a confidentiality agreement or 
protective order; (8) it seeks information protected by the right to privacy under state and/or federal 
laws; (9) it seeks information that is not proportionate to the needs of the case and not relevant to 
any party's claims or defenses; (10) it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege 
and work product doctrine; 
Accordingly, TTEC will not produce documents in response to this request as currently presented 
but will consider a properly tailored request after the parties have met and conferred to discuss this 
request. 
 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
As noted above, I invite you to contact me to further discuss the Subpoena. Additionally, if you 
plan to file papers with any court seeking some sort of judicial relief in connection with this matter, 
TTEC requests the opportunity to meet and confer in advance of any such filing. Thank you. 
 
Sincerely, 
Arthur J. Rooney 
AJR:jww 
 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 222     Filed 02/23/24     PageID.2385     Page
46 of 46
EXHIBIT 2 | Page 45

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.casd.709615.222.0.pdf

Size

2,556,907 bytes

SHA-256

fba8c77a2a528e5786464b35a4871187e8c4fd3fd4d5935f7a4df5eee5537851

Our copy

gov.uscourts.casd.709615.222.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)