Declaration of Laura Brys in Support of Defendant's Opposition — In re BofA Unemployment Litigation (Dkt. 321-1)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California · No. 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB · Doc. 321-1 · 2024-08-23 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

BRYS DECL. ISO OPP. TO INDIV. PLFS’ MOT. TO STAY   
CASE NO. 21-MD-02992-GPC-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 
  
JAMES W. MCGARRY (admitted pro hac vice) 
JMcGarry@goodwinlaw.com 
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP 
100 Northern Avenue 
Boston, MA 02210 
Tel.: +1 617 570 1000 
Fax: +1 617 523 1231 
 
SABRINA M. ROSE-SMITH (pro hac vice) 
SRoseSmith@goodwinlaw.com 
MATTHEW L. RIFFEE (pro hac vice) 
MRiffee@goodwinlaw.com 
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP 
1900 N Street, NW 
Washington, DC 20036 
Tel.: +1 202 346 4000 
Fax: +1 202 346 4444 
 
Attorneys for Defendant 
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. 
 
[ADDITIONAL COUNSEL LISTED IN SIGNATURE BLOCK] 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA  
SAN DIEGO DIVISION 
 
IN RE: BANK OF AMERICA  
CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT 
BENEFITS LITIGATION 
Case No. 21-MD-02992-GPC-MSB 
DECLARATION OF LAURA BRYS 
IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S 
OPPOSITION TO INDIVIDUAL 
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO STAY 
PROCEEDINGS PENDING 
RESOLUTION OF RELATED 
CLASS ACTION CERTIFICATION 
Date:  
September 9, 2024 
Time: 
2:30 P.M.  
Ctrm: 
2D – 2nd Floor 
Judge: 
Hon. Gonzalo P. Curiel 
Filed/Lodged Concurrently with:  
1. Memorandum of Points and 
Authorities in Opposition  
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 321-1     Filed 08/23/24     PageID.4165     Page
1 of 15

 
 
- 2 - 
 
BRYS DECL. ISO OPP. TO INDIV. PLFS’ MOT. TO STAY   
CASE NO. 21-MD-02992-GPC-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 
  
I, Laura Brys, state and declare as follows: 
1. 
I am an attorney licensed to practice before this Court.  
2. 
I am a senior attorney at Goodwin Procter, LLP, attorneys of record for 
Defendant BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. (“BANA”) in this action.  
3. 
I make this declaration in support of Defendant’s Opposition to 
Individual Plaintiffs’ Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Resolution of Related 
Class Action Certification (ECF 311).  I have personal knowledge of the matters set 
forth in this Declaration based on my involvement in this action and based upon my 
review of documents and correspondence related to this action.  If called upon to do 
so, I could and would testify competently to same. 
4. 
As set forth in the following Declaration, Individual Plaintiffs actively 
participated in prosecuting their actions since they were filed in 2021, and never 
raised a stay with the Court or BANA until July 25, 2024. 
The Court’s Case Management Order and Designation of Individual Counsel 
5. 
On July 19, 2021, the parties attended a Status Conference before Judge 
Burns.  Individual Plaintiffs were represented by, among others, Joshua Swigart of 
the Swigart Law Group and Daniel Shay of the Law Office of Daniel G. Shay 
(“Individual Counsel”) during which Individual Counsel argued that they wanted 
their cases to move forward and declined to request that the cases be stayed.    
6. 
At the July 19, 2021 Conference, Mr. Shay specifically told Judge Burns 
that the Individual Plaintiffs “want to settle these cases.  We don’t want to be part of 
a class action.”  ECF 55, at 44:24-25.   
7. 
On July 20, 2021, Judge Burns issued a Case Management Order that 
directed the Class and Individual Plaintiffs to file a “single master consolidated 
complaint,” and that all further claims not included in the master consolidated 
complaint would be stayed.  ECF 48, at 2.  In the same order, Judge Burns appointed 
the Law Office of Daniel G. Shay as Interim Liaison Counsel for the Individual 
Plaintiffs.  Id. at 3.   
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 321-1     Filed 08/23/24     PageID.4166     Page
2 of 15

 
 
- 3 - 
 
BRYS DECL. ISO OPP. TO INDIV. PLFS’ MOT. TO STAY   
CASE NO. 21-MD-02992-GPC-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 
8. 
On July 22, 2021, Individual Counsel moved ex parte to appoint the 
Swigart Law Group as Co-Liaison Counsel for Individual Plaintiffs.  ECF 53.  The 
Court granted this motion on July 28, 2021.  ECF 56. 
Individual Plaintiffs Filed Their Own Actions, Post-Class Action Filing. 
9. 
The first class action complaint to be consolidated into this MDL was 
Yick v. Bank of America, N.A., Case No. 3:21-cv-00376-GPC-MSB, filed in the 
Northern District of California on January 14, 2021.   
10. 
Following the filing of the Yick and other class action complaints, 
Individual Counsel filed the following actions:  
a. 
Meza v. Bank of America, N.A., Case No. 3:21-cv-00484-
GPC-MSB, on behalf of Jennifer Meza, who remains an Individual Plaintiff in this 
MDL; 
b. 
Brotman v. Bank of America, N.A., Case No. 3:21-cv-
00520-GPC-MSB, on behalf of Adam Brotman, who remains an Individual Plaintiff 
in this MDL;  
c. 
Morrell v. Bank of America, N.A., Case No. 3:21-cv-
00542-GPC-MSB, on behalf of Tiffiany Morrell, who remains an Individual Plaintiff 
in this MDL;  
d. 
Payton v. Bank of America, N.A., Case No. 3:21-cv-00644-
GPC-MSB, on behalf of Laura Payton, who remains an Individual Plaintiff in this 
MDL;  
e. 
Talia v. Bank of America, N.A., Case No. 3:21-cv-00676-
GPC-MSB, on behalf of Danny Talia, who remains an Individual Plaintiff in this 
MDL; and  
f. 
Abarr v. Bank of America, N.A., Case No. 3:21-cv-01203-
GPC-MSB, on behalf of 230 plaintiffs, of which 122 remain as Individual Plaintiffs 
in this MDL.  
11. 
The Class and Individual Plaintiffs filed their Master Consolidated 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 321-1     Filed 08/23/24     PageID.4167     Page
3 of 15

 
 
- 4 - 
 
BRYS DECL. ISO OPP. TO INDIV. PLFS’ MOT. TO STAY   
CASE NO. 21-MD-02992-GPC-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 
Complaint pursuant to Judge Burns’ Case Management Order on August 17, 2021.  
ECF 72.   
12. 
Notwithstanding Judge Burns’ Order indicating that claims not included 
in the master consolidated complaint would be stayed, Individual Counsel continued 
to file complaints related to the MDL.  Specifically, on October 13, 2021, Individual 
Counsel filed a complaint in Abila v. Bank of America, N.A., Case No. 3:21-cv-
01766-GPC-MSB, on behalf of 244 plaintiffs whose claims are currently stayed 
pending resolution of the MDL.   
BANA Has Expended Tremendous Resources on Discovery. 
13. 
To date, BANA has produced more than 3,700 documents related to the 
Individual Plaintiffs, totaling more than 14,000 pages.  Some of these documents 
were produced in response to specific requests made by Mr. Swigart for additional 
documents in advance of depositions, rather than in response to discovery served by 
Class Counsel.   
14. 
In this MDL, BANA has spent approximately $7.9 million on vendor 
costs alone in order to collect, review, and produce documents and associated 
privilege logs, including documents related to Individual Plaintiffs’ files and 
requested specifically by Mr. Swigart.  
15. 
This cost does not include the thousands of attorney hours spent on 
discovery in this matter, including hours spent on the Individual Plaintiffs to collect, 
review, and produce documents, prepare and serve written discovery and review 
responses, litigate discovery disputes, and prepare for depositions—several of which 
were cancelled at the last minute, after BANA had spent significant attorney time 
preparing for them.   
16. 
In its effort to comply with discovery requests from both Class Counsel 
and Individual Counsel, BANA has reviewed over one million documents, and has 
produced over 277,000 documents.   
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 321-1     Filed 08/23/24     PageID.4168     Page
4 of 15

 
 
- 5 - 
 
BRYS DECL. ISO OPP. TO INDIV. PLFS’ MOT. TO STAY   
CASE NO. 21-MD-02992-GPC-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 
Individual Counsel Has Actively Participated in the Litigation. 
17. 
Since their appointment as Co-Liaison Counsel, Individual Counsel 
have remained involved in this case, both in motions practice and in the extensive 
discovery conducted.  
18. 
For example, Mr. Swigart, along with other attorneys from the Swigart 
Law Group, attended and participated in the September 29, 2021 Early Neutral 
Evaluation (“ENE”) conference.  Pursuant to certain Individual Plaintiffs’ 
participation in the ENE conference, Mr. Swigart received a production of more than 
700 pages of BANA’s records and documents pertaining to those Individual 
Plaintiffs, and engaged with counsel for BANA in requesting additional information 
about the files BANA had produced.     
19. 
On June 13, 2023, the Class and Individual Plaintiffs filed their First 
Amended Master Consolidated Complaint.  ECF 136.  At least 82 of the Individual 
Plaintiffs amended their allegations in the First Amended Master Consolidated 
Complaint.   
20. 
On September 17, 2023, Individual Counsel filed the Individual 
Plaintiffs’ Opposition to BANA’s Partial Motion to Dismiss the First Amended 
Master Consolidated Complaint.  ECF 171.  Mr. Swigart was the only attorney whose 
signature block was included on this filing.   
Individual Counsel Has Been Actively Engaged in Discovery. 
21. 
Individual Counsel have been active participants in the discovery 
process over the last fourteen months.   
22. 
Since June 5, 2023, Individual Counsel has sent at least 18 meet and 
confer letters to counsel for BANA.  This number does not include the dozens of 
informal emails counsel have exchanged regarding Individual Plaintiffs’ discovery.      
23. 
Since June 5, 2023, Individual Counsel has met and conferred with 
counsel for BANA on at least 24 occasions, both by telephone and video conference, 
to discuss various issues related to discovery regarding the Individual Plaintiffs in 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 321-1     Filed 08/23/24     PageID.4169     Page
5 of 15

 
 
- 6 - 
 
BRYS DECL. ISO OPP. TO INDIV. PLFS’ MOT. TO STAY   
CASE NO. 21-MD-02992-GPC-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 
this case.   
24. 
Since June 5, 2023, Mr. Swigart has personally attended at least 21 Case 
Management Conferences (“CMCs”) or Informal Discovery Conferences (“IDCs”) 
before Magistrate Judge Berg.  A different attorney from the Swigart Law Group 
attended at least one additional CMC.  
Individual Counsel Has Requested the Production of Documents and BANA’s 
Assistance with Identifying Produced Documents. 
25. 
On June 26, 2023, Class Counsel propounded Plaintiffs’ First Set of 
Requests for Production (“RFPs”) to BANA.   
26. 
On August 22, 2023, Mr. Swigart contacted me via email and requested 
that BANA produce each Plaintiffs’ “complete file, consistent with the discovery 
served through class counsel.”  A true and correct copy of the email Mr. Swigart sent 
me is attached as Exhibit A.   
27. 
On December 22, 2023, counsel for BANA served Class Counsel and 
Individual Counsel via email with BANA’s Notice of Deposition to Plaintiffs, 
including two Individual Plaintiffs represented by Individual Counsel.  In response, 
on December 29, 2023, Mr. Swigart emailed counsel for BANA and noted: “we need 
their respective entire files . . . at least 14 days before their scheduled deposition date.  
Please confirm your team is working on this.”  A true and correct copy of the email 
Mr. Swigart sent me is attached as Exhibit B.     
28. 
In January 2024, Mr. Swigart and I discussed over the phone the 
significant time and expense required to produce any recordings of calls between the 
Individual Plaintiffs and BANA employees/agents.  I proposed, and Mr. Swigart 
agreed, that BANA would collect and produce those call recordings for each 
Individual Plaintiff prior to their deposition.  To date, BANA has, consistent with this 
agreement, produced the call recordings for each of the deposed Individual Plaintiffs 
prior to their deposition.   
29. 
On February 1, 2024, Mr. Swigart sent a letter via email to counsel for 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 321-1     Filed 08/23/24     PageID.4170     Page
6 of 15

 
 
- 7 - 
 
BRYS DECL. ISO OPP. TO INDIV. PLFS’ MOT. TO STAY   
CASE NO. 21-MD-02992-GPC-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 
BANA reporting that he and his firm had “sort[ed] through the approximately 4,000 
documents served on us.”  The letter also requested that certain categories of 
documents be produced relating to certain Individual Plaintiffs, but also noted that 
“it is possible that their documents are mixed in with the hundreds of thousands of 
documents produced by Bank of America, but we cannot locate them.”  A true and 
correct copy of the letter Mr. Swigart sent me is attached as Exhibit C.   
30. 
On February 2, 2024, BANA completed substantial production of 
documents relating to the Individual Plaintiffs’ claims, including production of each 
Plaintiffs’ account history, transaction history, claims documents, and call log.   
31. 
On February 8, 2024, the parties met and conferred via Zoom regarding 
various outstanding issues related to ongoing discovery in this case.  Following this 
meet and confer, Mr. Swigart provided counsel for BANA via email an Excel file 
purporting to represent his review of BANA’s document production and 
identification of documents related to certain Individual Plaintiffs’ claims that had 
not been produced.  Upon investigation of this spreadsheet, counsel for BANA 
confirmed that many of the documents identified as “missing” either had in fact been 
produced or did not exist.   
32. 
Further, during the February 8, 2024 meet and confer, Mr. Swigart 
expressed some concern about his ability to receive and review documents produced 
by BANA to Class Counsel.  Counsel for BANA reminded Mr. Swigart that the 
Parties had agreed that BANA would produce all documents to Class Counsel, who 
would then coordinate the distribution of produced documents among and between 
the various plaintiffs’ law firms involved in this MDL.  Nonetheless, as a matter of 
courtesy and in the interest of cooperation, BANA began producing certain 
Individual Plaintiff documents directly to Individual Counsel as well as to Class 
Counsel.   
33. 
Between March 6 and April 16, 2024, notwithstanding BANA’s efforts 
to collect and produce documents (at significant expense) relevant to the claims of 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 321-1     Filed 08/23/24     PageID.4171     Page
7 of 15

 
 
- 8 - 
 
BRYS DECL. ISO OPP. TO INDIV. PLFS’ MOT. TO STAY   
CASE NO. 21-MD-02992-GPC-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 
all 241 Individual Plaintiffs included in the First Amended Master Consolidated 
Complaint that BANA was able to identify, Mr. Swigart filed notices of voluntary 
dismissal as to 108 of those Individual Plaintiffs.  The Court subsequently ordered 
the dismissal of all 108 Individual Plaintiffs.  See ECF 240, 254, 265.  Prior to the 
filing of the First Amended Master Consolidated Complaint, Mr. Swigart had filed a 
notice of voluntary dismissal for one other Individual Plaintiff, whose dismissal was 
subsequently ordered by this Court.  See ECF 125. 
34. 
On March 11, 2024, in response to Mr. Swigart’s expressed concerns 
about being unable to locate his clients’ documents in BANA’s productions, counsel 
for BANA provided Mr. Swigart with a document identifying all of the 2,102 
documents produced thus far by BANA pertaining specifically to the remaining, non-
dismissed, Individual Plaintiffs.  For each document, this spreadsheet identified the 
Individual Plaintiff to whom the document related, the document’s Bates range, and 
the date on which the document was produced by BANA.  A true and correct copy 
of the spreadsheet that BANA provided to Mr. Swigart is attached as Exhibit D.   
Individual Plaintiffs Have Produced Documents and Served Responses to 
Written Discovery Requests from BANA. 
35. 
On September 19, 2023, BANA propounded to the Class Representative 
and Individual Plaintiffs its First Set of Requests for Production to Plaintiffs 
(“RFPs”), its First Set of Interrogatories Directed at Plaintiffs (“ROGs”), and its First 
Set of Requests for Admission Directed at Plaintiffs (“RFAs”).   
36. 
On October 18, 2023, Class Counsel, on behalf of the Individual 
Plaintiffs, asked counsel for BANA for an extension of the deadline for Individual 
Plaintiffs to respond to BANA’s discovery requests because Class Counsel had 
inadvertently failed to distribute the discovery BANA propounded to Individual 
Counsel.  BANA offered an extension through November 19, 2023. 
37. 
On November 16, 2023, Mr. Swigart requested via email a further 
extension of the deadline for Individual Plaintiffs to respond to BANA’s discovery 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 321-1     Filed 08/23/24     PageID.4172     Page
8 of 15

 
 
- 9 - 
 
BRYS DECL. ISO OPP. TO INDIV. PLFS’ MOT. TO STAY   
CASE NO. 21-MD-02992-GPC-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 
requests.  BANA agreed to extend the deadline to December 18, 2023.  On January 
11, 2024, counsel for BANA granted the Individual Plaintiffs via letter yet another 
extension on their deadline to respond to BANA’s discovery requests, to January 19, 
2024.   
38. 
Individual Plaintiffs represented by Individual Counsel began serving 
responses to BANA’s RFPs, ROGs and RFAs on November 21, 2023.  Between that 
date and February 26, 2024, at least 135 Individual Plaintiffs served initial responses 
to BANA’s discovery requests.  Many Individual Plaintiffs subsequently amended 
their answers in response to deficiencies identified by BANA.     
Individual Counsel Has Prepared Deponents for Testimony and Has Attended 
and Participated in Depositions. 
39. 
On February 12, 2024, Mr. Swigart and I both attended an IDC before 
Magistrate Judge Berg.  At that IDC, Judge Berg ruled that BANA would be entitled 
to take ten Plaintiff depositions prior to the filing of Plaintiffs’ class certification 
motion, which was presently due on March 15, 2024.  Judge Berg issued this ruling 
in response to concerns expressed by Class Counsel that having to prepare for and 
attend Individual Plaintiff depositions would divert time and resources away from 
Class Counsel’s preparation of the class certification motion.  Judge Berg further 
ordered that subsequent depositions would not commence until at least two weeks 
after the then-present class certification motion deadline.  
40. 
On March 7, 2024, Mr. Swigart, Mr. Shay, and Ilana Platkiewicz of the 
Swigart Law Group attended the deposition of Individual Plaintiff Elizabeth Giddens 
in San Bernadino, California.  Mr. Swigart noted objections on the record to questions 
asked by the deposing attorney and testimony indicated that he had met with Ms. 
Giddens prior to that date to prepare her for the deposition.  Karin Swope and Vasti 
Montiel attended the deposition remotely on behalf of Class Plaintiffs but did not 
lodge any objections on the record, ask Ms. Giddens any questions, or otherwise 
participate in the deposition.   
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 321-1     Filed 08/23/24     PageID.4173     Page
9 of 15

 
 
- 10 - 
 
BRYS DECL. ISO OPP. TO INDIV. PLFS’ MOT. TO STAY   
CASE NO. 21-MD-02992-GPC-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 
41. 
On April 1, 2024, Mr. Swigart and I both attended an IDC before 
Magistrate Judge Berg.  At that IDC, Judge Berg again ruled that BANA would be 
entitled to take ten Plaintiff depositions prior to the filing of Plaintiffs’ class 
certification motion, and that BANA would be entitled to take additional Plaintiff 
depositions after the motion was filed.   
42. 
On April 30, 2024, Mr. Swigart, Mr. Shay, and Ms. Platkiewicz attended 
the deposition of Individual Plaintiff Jennifer Meza in El Centro, California.  Mr. 
Swigart noted objections on the record to questions asked by the deposing attorney 
and testimony indicated that he had met with Ms. Meza prior to that date to prepare 
her for the deposition.  The deposition was conducted in El Centro as a courtesy to 
Ms. Meza, after Mr. Swigart advised that Ms. Meza was unable to travel.   
43. 
On May 2, 2024, Mr. Shay attended the deposition of Individual 
Plaintiff Juanita Isles in Sacramento, California.  Mr. Swigart and Ms. Platkiewicz 
attended the deposition remotely.  Mr. Shay noted objections on the record to 
questions asked by the deposing attorney and testimony indicated that Mr. Swigart, 
Ms. Platkiewicz, and Mr. Shay had met with Ms. Isles prior to that date to prepare 
her for the deposition.  Ms. Swope attended the deposition remotely on behalf of 
Class Plaintiffs but did not lodge any objections on the record, ask Ms. Isles any 
questions, or otherwise participate in the deposition. 
44. 
On May 3, 2024, Mr. Shay attended the deposition of Individual 
Plaintiff Miguel Salazar in Yuba City, California.  Ms. Platkiewicz attended the 
deposition remotely.  Mr. Shay noted objections on the record to questions asked by 
the deposing attorney and testimony indicated that he had met with Mr. Salazar prior 
to that date to prepare for his deposition.  Ms. Swope attended the deposition remotely 
on behalf of Class Plaintiffs but did not lodge any objections on the record, ask Mr. 
Salazar any questions, or otherwise participate in the deposition. 
45. 
On May 7, 2024, Mr. Swigart, Mr. Shay, and Ms. Platkiewicz attended 
the deposition of Individual Plaintiff Tina Pomeroy in San Diego, California.  Ms. 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 321-1     Filed 08/23/24     PageID.4174     Page
10 of 15

 
 
- 11 - 
 
BRYS DECL. ISO OPP. TO INDIV. PLFS’ MOT. TO STAY   
CASE NO. 21-MD-02992-GPC-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 
Platkiewicz noted objections on the record to questions asked by the deposing 
attorney, and Ms. Pomeroy testified that she met with “her attorneys” prior to that 
date to prepare for her deposition.  Ms. Swope attended the deposition remotely on 
behalf of Class Plaintiffs but did not lodge any objections on the record, ask Ms. 
Pomeroy any questions, or otherwise participate in the deposition 
Individual Counsel Caused BANA to Prepare a 30(b)(6) Deponent for 
Examination by Individual Counsel. 
46. 
On March 19, 2024, Mr. Swigart notified BANA via letter that he 
intended to depose a Rule 30(b)(6) witness as to the files of the Individual Plaintiffs 
to be deposed by BANA.  A true and correct copy of the letter Mr. Swigart sent me 
is attached as Exhibit E.   
47. 
In response to this request, counsel for BANA identified a witness with 
respect to at least two Individual Plaintiffs’ files, and spent many hours preparing the 
witness for deposition.  To date, Individual Counsel has yet to serve BANA with a 
notice for a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition in this case. 
Individual Counsel Has Subpoenaed Documents from Non-Parties in 
Connection with Individual Plaintiffs’ Claims. 
48. 
On February 5, 2024, Individual Counsel began serving subpoenas to 
produce documents on behalf of Individual Plaintiffs to their respective telephone 
service providers.   
49. 
The subpoenas were all signed by Mr. Swigart and listed the Swigart 
Law Group’s San Diego office as the place of compliance for the subpoenas.  To 
date, Individual Plaintiffs have served at least 147 of these subpoenas.  A true and 
correct copy of a representative subpoena to a telephone service provider that 
Individual Counsel provided to BANA via email is attached here as Exhibit F.  
Individual Counsel Has Declined Opportunities to Engage in Further Discovery 
On Behalf of Individual Plaintiffs. 
50. 
On February 8, 2024, BANA produced Robert Chestnut for a Rule 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 321-1     Filed 08/23/24     PageID.4175     Page
11 of 15

 
 
- 12 - 
 
BRYS DECL. ISO OPP. TO INDIV. PLFS’ MOT. TO STAY   
CASE NO. 21-MD-02992-GPC-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 
30(b)(6) deposition.  Mr. Swigart, Ms. Platkiewicz, and Mr. Shay attended the 
deposition remotely and did not ask Mr. Chestnut any questions on the record.   
51. 
On February 14, 2024, BANA produced William Matthew Martin for a 
Rule 30(b)(6) deposition.  Mr. Swigart attended the deposition via Zoom and did not 
ask Mr. Martin any questions on the record.   
52. 
On February 16, 2024, BANA produced Michael Letson for a Rule 
30(b)(6) deposition.  Mr. Swigart and Ms. Platkiewicz attended the deposition 
remotely and did not ask Mr. Letson any questions on the record.   
53. 
On February 22, 2024, BANA produced Willaim Golden for a Rule 
30(b)(6) deposition.  Mr. Swigart, Ms. Platkiewicz, and Mr. Shay attended the 
deposition remotely and did not ask Mr. Golden any questions on the record.   
54. 
On February 23, 2024, BANA produced Jennifer Lennon for a Rule 
30(b)(6) deposition.  Mr. Swigart and Mr. Shay attended the deposition remotely and 
did not ask Ms. Lennon any questions on the record. 
Individual Counsel Initiated the Present Motion to Avoid Further Discovery 
Obligations. 
55. 
As described above, Individual Counsel has participated in both 
requesting and responding to discovery for more than a year without seeking a stay 
from the Court, or indicating to BANA that a stay would be sought.   
56. 
On July 11, 2024, BANA served a Notice of Deposition to the 
Remaining Individual Plaintiffs (the “Notice”) via email with an accompanying 
letter, requesting that Mr. Swigart provide, by July 26, 2024, proposed dates for the 
Individual Plaintiffs for their depositions, commencing on September 16, 2024 and 
ending on September 27, 2024.  The Notice set the deposition location for San Diego, 
California, which is the judicial district for the Individual Plaintiffs’ Second 
Amended Master Consolidated Complaint, where most of the Individual Plaintiffs 
originally filed suit, and where Individual Counsel’s offices are located.  The Notice 
further proposed a date range for the depositions, which was the practice of the parties 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 321-1     Filed 08/23/24     PageID.4176     Page
12 of 15

 
 
- 13 - 
 
BRYS DECL. ISO OPP. TO INDIV. PLFS’ MOT. TO STAY   
CASE NO. 21-MD-02992-GPC-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 
in this case for depositions.  Mr. Swigart subsequently informed counsel for BANA 
that he believed the Notice was defective. 
57. 
On July 25, 2024, BANA and Mr. Swigart attended a CMC with 
Magistrate Judge Berg.  During the CMC, Mr. Swigart told Judge Berg that the 
parties were still meeting and conferring about the Notice.  Mr. Swigart also told 
Judge Berg that Individual Counsel was considering filing this Motion. 
58. 
Prior to this date, Individual Counsel had not raised the possibility of 
staying the Individual Plaintiffs’ cases since Judge Burns addressed the question of 
whether the Class and Individual cases would proceed together at the July 19, 2021 
Case Management Conference, more than three years earlier.  See supra ⁋⁋ 5–6.   
59. 
On August 8, 2024, BANA, Mr. Swigart, and Class Counsel attended a 
CMC with Magistrate Judge Berg.  During the CMC, Mr. Swigart again told Judge 
Berg that his intention was to file this Motion.  Judge Berg informally ordered that 
the Motion was to be on file within a week, i.e., no later than August 13, 2024.   
60. 
On August 9, 2024, BANA served an Amended Notice of Deposition to 
the remaining 128 Individual Plaintiffs.  In response to broad concerns expressed by 
Mr. Swigart about the Individual Plaintiffs’ ability to appear for in-person 
depositions in San Diego, BANA compromised by noticing each deposition to take 
place at a central location within the California federal judicial district where each 
Individual Plaintiff lives.  Counsel for BANA reviewed the most recent address it 
had for each Individual Plaintiff and noticed their deposition in the closest of San 
Diego, Los Angeles, San Francisco, or Bakersfield.   
61. 
On August 14, 2024, Ms. Platkiewicz emailed counsel for BANA with 
a list of seven Individual Plaintiffs who would be available for depositions in Los 
Angeles during the week of September 16, 2024.   
62. 
On August 16, 2024, BANA and Mr. Swigart submitted letter briefing 
to Magistrate Judge Berg on the manner of Individual Plaintiff depositions to address 
whether Individual Plaintiff depositions should proceed in-person or remotely.   
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 321-1     Filed 08/23/24     PageID.4177     Page
13 of 15

- 14 -
BRYS DECL. ISO OPP. TO INDIV. PLFS’ MOT. TO STAY  
CASE NO. 21-MD-02992-GPC-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 
63.
On August 20, 2024, BANA, Mr. Swigart, and Class Counsel attended
an IDC with Magistrate Judge Berg on the manner of Individual Plaintiff depositions, 
at which Mr. Swigart argued that—should the Motion be denied—all upcoming 
Individual Plaintiff depositions should be conducted remotely.   
64.
At the August 20, 2024 IDC, Magistrate Judge Berg tentatively ruled
that the Individual Plaintiffs have not made a good faith showing of burden for any 
Individual Plaintiff, and that BANA would be entitled to schedule and take the 
depositions of ten Individual Plaintiffs in person pending the Court’s ruling on this 
Motion.   
65.
On August 20, 2024, less than an hour after the IDC concluded, Mr.
Swigart called me and inquired when BANA would like the depositions to 
commence.  Mr. Swigart also offered to immediately identify three additional 
Individual Plaintiffs who would be available for depositions in Los Angeles during 
the week of September 16, 2024.  
I declare under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. 
Executed on this 23 day of August, 2024. 
By: 
s/ Laura G. Brys 
LAURA G. BRYS 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 321-1     Filed 08/23/24     PageID.4178     Page
14 of 15

- 15 -
BRYS DECL. ISO OPP. TO INDIV. PLFS’ MOT. TO STAY  
CASE NO. 21-MD-02992-GPC-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 
SIGNATURE CERTIFICATION 
Pursuant to Section 2(f)(4) of the Electronic Case Filing Administrative 
Policies and Procedures Manual, I hereby certify that the content of this document is 
acceptable to Laura Brys, and that I have obtained Ms. Brys’s electronic signature in 
the filing of this document. 
Dated:  
August 23, 2024 
s/ Laura G. Brys 
LAURA G. BRYS 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 321-1     Filed 08/23/24     PageID.4179     Page
15 of 15

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.casd.709615.321.1.pdf

Size

252,745 bytes

SHA-256

23aeb283d97cc7ae1d06f45f5ff30359ed3bc54b58a23f8637d219d57d269b54

Our copy

gov.uscourts.casd.709615.321.1.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)