Court filing
Exhibit 3 — In re Bank of America California Unemployment Benefits Litigation (Dkt. 324-6, S.D. Cal. No. 3:21-md-02992)
Filed August 29, 2024 in In re Bank of America California Unemployment Benefits Litigation; one of 1415 filings from this case.
Record facts
| Court | U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California |
|---|---|
| Filed | 2024-08-29 |
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California · No. 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB · Doc. 324-6 · 2024-08-29 · Docket on CourtListener
Full text
Exhibit 3 Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 324-6 Filed 08/29/24 PageID.6690 Page 1 of 67 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA IN RE BANK OF AMERICA CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS LITIGATION Case No. 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB EXPERT REPORT OF JAY MINNUCCI August 29, 2024 REDACTED PUBLIC VERSION Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 324-6 Filed 08/29/24 PageID.6691 Page 2 of 67 i TABLE OF CONTENTS I. ASSIGNMENT .................................................................................................................1 II. SUMMARY OF EXPERT QUALIFICATIONS .............................................................2 III. SUMMARY OF OPINIONS ............................................................................................5 IV. FACTS AND DATA CONSIDERED ..............................................................................8 V. HOURLY RATE ..............................................................................................................8 VI. BACKGROUND ..............................................................................................................8 A. Bank of America’s Prepaid Call Center Operations ............................................8 B. Call Center Industry Performance Standards ......................................................13 C. Call Center Industry Operational Standards .......................................................15 VII. STATEMENT OF OPINIONS AND BASIS FOR OPINIONS ....................................17 A. Bank Subjected EDD Debit Cardholders Seeking Assistance with Unauthorized-Transaction Claims to Unprecedentedly Long Wait Times that Fell Far Below Industry Performance Standards .............................17 B. The Bank’s Practice of Understaffing Its Claims Call Center in the Face of Foreseeable Call Volume Surges Was Inconsistent with Industry Standard Practice ..................................................................................23 C. The Substandard Performance Levels in the Bank’s Claims Call Center from September 13, 2020 through November 21, 2020 Reflected the Bank’s Broader Systemic Failure to Operate Its Prepaid Call Centers Consistent with Industry Standards ..................................34 D. The Bank’s Deliberate Understaffing Choice Harmed Cardholders While Saving the Bank Money ...........................................................................46 VIII. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................................50 Appendix A: Curriculum Vitae ...................................................................................................51 Appendix B: Prior Publications (March 2014 to Present) .........................................................53 Appendix C: Prior Testimony (January 2020 to Present) ..........................................................55 Appendix D: Materials List .......................................................................................................56 Appendix E: Survey Results, The 2021 US Contact Center Decision Makers’ Guide .............60 Appendix F: Claims Call Center Data 2020-2021 .....................................................................61 Appendix G: Fraud Tier 2 Call Center Data 2020-2021 ............................................................63 Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 324-6 Filed 08/29/24 PageID.6692 Page 3 of 67 1 I. ASSIGNMENT 1. I have been retained as an expert witness in this matter by Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy LLP, and Altshuler Berzon LLP (“Counsel”), co-lead counsel for the Class Plaintiffs. 2. I understand from Counsel that Class Plaintiffs are seeking certification of five classes, three of which are relevant to this report: (1) a “Claim Denial” class, defined as all Bank of America EDD debit cardholders who notified the Bank that an unauthorized transaction had occurred on their Bank of America EDD debit card account (“Claim”) at an automated teller machine (“ATM”), and whose Claim the Bank denied or closed at any time from September 28, 2020, through June 8, 2021, based solely on Indicator 1 of the Bank’s Claim Fraud Filter (“CFF”); (2) a “Credit Rescission” class, defined as all Bank of America EDD debit cardholders who received permanent credit from the Bank in connection with their Claim, which credit the Bank rescinded at any time from September 28, 2020 through June 8, 2021, based solely on Indicator 1 of the Bank’s CFF; and (3) a “Customer Service” class, defined as all members of the Claim Denial Class and/or Credit Rescission Class who telephoned the Bank’s customer service telephone number for its EDD debit cardholders at any time between September 13, 2020 through November 21, 2020, and whose telephone call was routed to the Bank’s Claims call center. Counsel have asked me to review and analyze certain documents and data produced by the Bank and testimony provided by the Bank’s Rule 30(b)(6) designees on matters related to the Customer Service Class’s claims. Specifically, Counsel have asked me to determine the following: a. The Bank’s Claims call center performance metrics during 2020 and 2021, as measured using industry standard metrics; b. Whether the Bank’s Claims call center performance metrics fell below industry standards, and if so, to what extent and during what period; Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 324-6 Filed 08/29/24 PageID.6693 Page 4 of 67 2 c. Whether the operational processes and technology the Bank utilized in its Claims call center in 2020 and 2021 fell below industry standards, norms, and best practices; d. Whether there were reasonable alternative actions the Bank could have taken consistent with industry standard practices to avoid or mitigate the adverse impact on EDD debit cardholders who telephoned the Bank’s customer service telephone number for its EDD debit cardholders at any time between September 13, 2020 through November 21, 2020, and whose telephone call was routed to the Bank’s Claims call center; and e. The effects on EDD debit cardholders of the Bank’s performance failures in its Claims call center between September 13, 2020 through November 21, 2020. II. SUMMARY OF EXPERT QUALIFICATIONS 3. I am the founder and owner of Service Agility, Inc. (“Service Agility”), an S-Corp domiciled in Pennsylvania. Service Agility was founded in 2008 and provides consulting, training, and related services to the call center industry. 4. I received a Bachelor of Business Administration from Temple University in 1984, graduating magna cum laude. 5. My entire professional career—more than four decades—has been in the call center industry, working for and advising in-house departments and third-party vendors that handle inbound and outbound customer service calls, and the corporate managers that oversee those departments and vendors. I spent 17 years in various leadership positions in a call center and have served as a consultant, author, speaker, and trainer for more than the last two decades. Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 324-6 Filed 08/29/24 PageID.6694 Page 5 of 67 3 6. In October 1983, I began working in the 800-seat call center serving the AARP Group Health Insurance Program, where I held a variety of supervisory and management roles, in both the call center and related back-office departments. 7. In 1995, I was promoted to Director and Senior Director roles at that call center, where I established policies and practices to maximize call center performance while minimizing staffing expenses. Some of my core responsibilities over the next five years in those positions included: a. Forecasting and budgeting oversight, including developing staffing expense estimates and monitoring actual spend vs. projections. b. Meeting our key performance metric of service level, which is a measurement of the percentage of calls answered within a certain number of seconds (e.g., 70% of calls answered within 30 seconds), while minimizing staffing expenses. c. Designing and developing the organization’s first Workforce Management Team. In a call center, the Workforce Management (“WFM”) team is responsible for forecasting incoming call volumes and associated average handling times (the amount of time required to complete a call from the time it is answered), and using those projections to calculate the number of staff needed to meet the organization’s targeted service level objectives. d. Overseeing proper maintenance and support for key applications and systems, including overseeing telephone IT support positions (which perform technology related functions that are essential to satisfying call center performance metrics, such as designing and maintaining phone Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 324-6 Filed 08/29/24 PageID.6695 Page 6 of 67 4 systems, Interactive Voice Response (IVR) systems, outbound calling, and call monitoring). 8. Following my 17 years of work in a call center, I began work as a call center consultant, first as Vice President of Consulting from 2000 to 2008 at the International Customer Management Institute (“ICMI”), where I provided call center consulting services to the Federal Reserve Bank, Discovery Financial, Charles Schwab, Wells Fargo, and dozens of other clients. During that time, I grew the firm’s consulting revenue from $0 to over $3 million per year. In 2008, I founded my own company, Service Agility, which has provided consulting services to over 100 clients operating call center services, including MetLife, Nationwide Insurance, Guardian Life, LGE Community Credit Union, Thrift Savings Plan, United Healthcare, Allstate, and UBS Group. Through my work at both ICMI and Service Agility, I have, among other things: advised clients on best practices in selecting and managing an outsourcing provider; overseen the drafting, negotiation, and revision of General Service Agreements (GSAs) and Statements of Work (SOWs) involving dozens of call centers; provided guidance on determining proper staffing levels, including for call center agent positions, as well as other support positions; created forecasts and scheduling tools to help determine staffing needs; built quality assurance programs to help clients optimize call handling processes and results; educated clients on recruitment, training and employee retention strategies; and counseled executive teams on setting objectives and monitoring performance in call centers. 9. In addition to my consulting work, I speak at industry events and I have published several articles in leading trade publications, focusing on best practices for the management of call centers. More detail on my background is provided in my Curriculum Vitae in Appendix A. Details of my published works in the past ten years are included in Appendix B. Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 324-6 Filed 08/29/24 PageID.6696 Page 7 of 67 5 10. I have designed and delivered training courses for call center managers around the globe. Through those courses, I estimate that I have trained well over one thousand call center managers. 11. I have also worked as an expert witness in several cases involving call center operations, technology, service contracts, and related performance standards. A list of the cases in which I provided testimony under oath in the past four years appears in Appendix C. III. SUMMARY OF OPINIONS 12. The Bank’s data shows seen in the call center industry. For example, the average speed to answer (“ASA”) is an industry-standard metric that reflects the average amount of time a customer is kept waiting on hold before their call is initially answered, a metric that is typically measured in seconds. The average ASA reported in 2020 across 214 call centers surveyed by ContactBabel was 75 seconds (1.25 minutes), which is consistent with (but on the higher end) of my understanding of the industry standard ASA generally.1 By contrast, between September 13, 2020 and November 21, 2020, industry average. The performance of the Bank’s Claims call center 1 The U.S. Contact Center Decision-Makers’ Guide is a report published by ContactBabel annually studying the “performance, operations, technology and HR aspects of US contact center operations;” the 2020 survey included data from 214 U.S.-based call centers, including 29 from the Finance industry and 28 from the Outsourcing/Telemarketing industry. Ex. 112 (The 2021 US Contact Decision-Makers’ Guide, 13th Edition, ContactBabel) at 13, 46. In this report, “Ex.” refers to exhibits attached to the Declaration of Connie K. Chan in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification (“Chan Decl.”), which are also listed in Plaintiffs’ concurrently filed Index of Exhibits. Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 324-6 Filed 08/29/24 PageID.6697 Page 8 of 67 6 during this ten-week period in the Fall of 2020 in my 41 years in the industry.2 13. Virtually all EDD debit cardholders who telephoned the Bank between September 13, 2020 and November 21, 2020 and had their calls routed to the Bank’s Claims call center (which I understand includes all EDD debit cardholders who informed the Main call center that they were calling either (a) to submit an unauthorized transaction claim, (b) to inquire about or seek reconsideration of a claim that the Bank had automatically denied based on the results of its Claim Fraud Filter, or (c) to inquire about or seek reconsideration of the Bank’s rescission of previously issued permanent credit based on the retroactive application of its Claim Fraud Filter) thus In their effort to get the Bank’s Claims call center to answer their calls, . 14. The very long wait times to which EDD debit cardholders were subjected The average abandonment rate in 2020 across call centers surveyed by ContactBabel was 6.1%.3 By contrast, . Because wait time before abandonment is not included in the ASA data, ASA understates the 2 To date, the only call center I have seen provide similarly inadequate service over two+ months is 3 See Ex. 112 (2021 Decision-Maker’s Guide) at 46. Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 324-6 Filed 08/29/24 PageID.6698 Page 9 of 67 7 actual amount of time spent on the phone by the many EDD debit cardholders who had to call and wait multiple times before connecting with a CSR. 15. 16. Although the Customer Service class as defined by plaintiffs includes only those EDD debit cardholders who called the Bank and were routed to the Claims call center between September 13, 2020 and November 21, 2020, 17. The Bank’s consistent conduct in understaffing its Claims call center and not using standard technology while causing significant harm to EDD debit cardholders. Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 324-6 Filed 08/29/24 PageID.6699 Page 10 of 67 8 IV. FACTS AND DATA CONSIDERED 18. In preparing this report, I have relied on my general knowledge, training, experience, and other expertise accumulated during my 41 years as an executive and consultant in the call center industry. In addition, during the course of my analysis, I have relied upon documents and information produced in discovery in this case as well as publicly available documents and information. I have relied upon the materials cited in this report and those materials cited in Appendix D. 19. My work on this matter is ongoing, and I may review additional materials or conduct further analysis. I reserve the right to update, refine, or revise my opinions as appropriate, including should additional information become available to me. V. HOURLY RATE 20. I am being compensated for my work on this matter at a rate of $375 per hour. The compensation for my work in this matter is not contingent upon the nature of my findings or on the outcome of this litigation. VI. BACKGROUND A. Bank of America’s Prepaid Call Center Operations 21. In the 2020-2021 timeframe covered by this report, the Prepaid call centers at Bank of America served .4 4 Ex. 113 at -643387-88. Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 324-6 Filed 08/29/24 PageID.6700 Page 11 of 67 9 22. From April 2020 to June 2021, the Bank’s customer service operations for its prepaid debit cardholders .5 23. .6 .7 .8 .9 .10 .11 24. .12 5 Ex. 114 (BANA’s Responses & Objections to Plaintiffs’ Fifth Set of Interrogatories (“5th Rogs”), No. 34). 6 Ex. 18 (Rule 30(b)(6) Depo. of William Golden (“Golden Tr.”)) 100:2-9. 7 Ex. 18 (Golden Tr.) 100:16-21. 8 See Ex. 115 at -2453. 9 Ex. 114 (5th Rogs, No. 34), 14:26-15:4. 10 See Ex. 116 at -153673-74. 11 Ex. 18 (Golden Tr.) 32:5-21. 12 Ex. 114 (5th Rogs, No. 34), 15:5-14. Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 324-6 Filed 08/29/24 PageID.6701 Page 12 of 67 10 25. .13 .14 26. .15 .16 27. .17 13 Ex. 114 (5th Rogs, No. 34), 15:11-22. 14 See id.; Ex. 116 at -153673-74; Ex. 14 (Rule 30(b)(6) Depo. of Shane Daniels (“Daniels Tr.”)) 84:23-86:24. 15 See Ex. 18 (Golden Tr.) 32:5-21, 100:2-21, 168:5-17. 16 See ibid. 17 Ex. 114 (5th Rogs, No. 34), 15:23-16:12. Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 324-6 Filed 08/29/24 PageID.6702 Page 13 of 67 11 .18 28. .19 29. I understand that the Bank .20 , it is reasonable to estimate that the percentage of total Claims calls attributable to EDD debit cardholders would be approximately 56% in 2020. 18 Id. 19 . Compare Ex. 117 ). 20 Ex. 18 (Golden Tr.) 57:19-25. Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 324-6 Filed 08/29/24 PageID.6703 Page 14 of 67 12 30. At all relevant time periods, the Bank .21 .22 .23 .24 .25 .26 ,27 .28 31. The Bank’s telephone system . Some of the calls 21 Ex. 18 (Golden Tr.) 58:13-60:5. 22 Ex. 18 (Golden Tr.) 47:16-22. 23 See Ex. 118 at -172242; Ex. 119 at -60237; Ex. 18 (Golden Tr.) 47:4-15. 24 See Ex. 18 (Golden Tr.) 48:2-9; Ex. 119 at -60237. 25 See Ex. 126 at -90040. 26 Compare, e.g., Ex. 120 (246363) at May – English tab, Cell B8 (showing 57,424 EDD Main calls offered to TTEC on May 4, 2020), with Ex. 121 at -356316 27 See Ex. 122 at -171905. 28 Ex. 18 (Golden Tr.) 59:13-60:13. Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 324-6 Filed 08/29/24 PageID.6704 Page 15 of 67 13 .29 The Bank had . B. Call Center Industry Performance Standards 32. Call centers operate in what is referred to in the industry as a “real-time” environment, meaning that phone calls must be answered shortly after being queued for an agent. It is well known in the industry that failure to answer incoming calls shortly after they are queued results in high rates of call abandonment (i.e., where the caller hangs up before the call is answered), resulting in high levels of customer dissatisfaction. 33. Call centers are heavily reliant on data to manage operational performance. Since the emergence of call centers in the 1970s, phone equipment has been developed to track and log nearly every event that occurs during a call center call (e.g., the specific welcome message played, the selection made by the caller on the main menu, the time the call was queued to an agent, etc.). By logging these events, a phone system can generate massive amounts of data related to both group and individual CSR performance, which is reviewed by managers. 34. There are standard call center performance metrics that nearly every call center measures. These include the incoming volume of calls (also referred to as offered calls), the number of calls handled (also referred to as answered calls), the number and percentage of abandoned calls, and the speed with which calls are answered. The Bank collected and tracked this data for its Prepaid call centers.30 29 See Ex. 123 at -13135, section 21.2. 30 See, e.g., Ex. 124 at -719115); Ex. 125 at -719116. Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 324-6 Filed 08/29/24 PageID.6705 Page 16 of 67 14 35. Two of the most common metrics for evaluating call center performance are average speed of answer (ASA) and abandonment rate.31 The ASA is the arithmetic mean of the number of seconds each answered call remained on hold before the caller was connected to a live CSR, while the abandonment rate is the percentage of callers who hang up or are otherwise disconnected after their call enters the hold queue but before their call is answered.32 These are standard measurements that call center vendors regularly report to their clients, often multiple times per day. The Bank .33 36. Table 2 below shows the average ASA and abandonment rate over a nine-year period for 214 call centers that completed an annual survey conducted by ContactBabel (complete results regarding performance metrics of these centers are provided in Appendix E).34 Table 2: Average ASA and Abandonment Rates for US Call Centers, 2012-2022 37. As shown in Table 2, the average ASA across these 214 call centers in 2020 was 75 seconds (1.25 minutes). The average abandonment rate in 2020 was 6.1%. Although this survey reported ASA and abandonment rates as an annual average, the most common interval for reporting ASA and abandonment rate performance is a month. Based on my experience and 31 See Susan Hash, Metrics Roundup, CONTACT CENTER PIPELINE (Oct. 2019), https://www.contactcenterpipeline.com/Article/contact-center-metrics-roundup (identifying abandonment rate and response time as among the most-used call center performance metrics). 32 Id.; see also Ex. 18 (Golden Tr.) 32:22-33:11. 33 See, e.g., Ex. 124 at -719115; Ex. 125 at -719116; Ex. 18 (Golden Tr.) 60:24-61:14. 34 See Ex. 112 (2021 Decision-Makers’ Guide) at 46. Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 324-6 Filed 08/29/24 PageID.6706 Page 17 of 67 15 familiarity with performance standards in the industry, an ASA of 1.25 minutes and an abandonment rate of 6.1% is consistent with industry standards for acceptable average performance levels across a single month, although it is on the higher end of what is considered acceptable. 38. The vast majority of call center vendors operate under contracts that specify performance targets for both ASA and abandonment rate. ,35 which is a common industry target for abandonment. .36 Because ASA and abandonment rate are among the most frequently reported call answer metrics in the Prepaid call centers, those metrics are used throughout this report to measure call answer performance. C. Call Center Industry Operational Standards 39. Call center performance is affected by numerous variables that could drive surges and declines in call volume. Call centers have a variety of standard industry practices available to help forecast changes in call volume and to prepare for and respond to unanticipated events, and to ensure they maintain satisfactory call center performance in the face of changing circumstances. 40. For example, call centers often employ skilled analysts that, with the assistance of forecasting software, predict call volume and staffing requirements from the monthly level down 35 See e.g., Ex. 126 at -90046 ; Ex. 127 at -13092 ; Ex. 128 at -12882-83 and Ex. 130). 36 See ibid. Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 324-6 Filed 08/29/24 PageID.6707 Page 18 of 67 16 to fifteen-minute time intervals.37 It is not uncommon for call volumes to surge dramatically in response to external events or other changed circumstances.38 Whenever decisions are being considered that could impact incoming call volumes and/or the average time it takes to process a transaction, it is a standard practice to first consult these analysts to determine the likely impact of such a decision on staffing requirements. This advance planning enables the client overseeing the call center to make whatever staffing changes are necessary in advance of the implementation of the decision so customer wait times are not negatively impacted.39 If a planned company decision or policy change is expected to drive an increase in call volume, it is industry-standard practice to increase staffing levels as needed to maintain satisfactory call center performance levels, and to implement those staffing changes before implementing the company decision that is anticipated to drive up call volume. 41. When call center operations are outsourced, it is standard industry practice for the client and vendor to document the process for establishing staffing levels. 40 37 See Lori Bocklund, Support Technology without an Analyst Is Like a Car without a Driver, CONTACT CENTER PIPELINE (May 2021), https://www.contactcenterpipeline.com/Article/support- technology-without-an-analyst-is-like-a-car-without-a-driver (detailing the role of skilled, trained analysts in using contact center technologies to optimize staffing). 38 Ex. 131 (The 2023 US Contact Decision-Makers’ Guide, 15th Edition, ContactBabel) at 31 (“Understanding how the business will change some months in advance – perhaps for seasonal reasons, or with the launch of a new product – will certainly impact on resourcing, and close communication and integration between resource planning and day-to-day WFM is desirable.”). 39 See Ex. 131 (2023 Decision-Makers’ Guide) at 30 (“The modern contact center not only requires the basics (having enough people to answer interactions in a reasonable amount of time), but also more sophisticated functionality such as the ability to forecast and schedule agents in near-real time and handle virtual contact centers, mobile resources and home- working resources.”). 40 See Ex. 126 at -90040, section 3.4; Ex. 127 at -13086, section 3.4; Ex. 132 at -13097, section 3.5. Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 324-6 Filed 08/29/24 PageID.6708 Page 19 of 67 17 . VII. STATEMENT OF OPINIONS AND BASIS FOR OPINIONS A. The Bank Subjected EDD Debit Cardholders Seeking Assistance with Unauthorized-Transaction Claims to Unprecedentedly Long Wait Times that Fell Far Below Industry Performance Standards. 42. .41 .42 43. During 2020, . As depicted in Appendix F, . Later in the year, 41 See Ex. 118 at -172242. 42 The Bank’s designee testified . See Ex. 18 (Golden Tr.) 99:11-100:1. See also workflow at Ex. 118 at - 172243. Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 324-6 Filed 08/29/24 PageID.6709 Page 20 of 67 18 . 44. While these numbers represent averages, Combined with the Banks’ data industry standards.43 45. Comparing performance in the . 46. The average ASA in 2020 among the 214 call centers surveyed by ContactBabel was 75 seconds (1.25 minutes), which the data shows is on the high end of what is typically considered an acceptable ASA and likely reflects the pandemic circumstances. 43 See Ex. 124 at -719115. Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 324-6 Filed 08/29/24 PageID.6710 Page 21 of 67 19 .44 This means that cardholders who called the Bank . The 2020 performance of the Bank’s Claims call center is by far the worst I have seen across a full year in my 41 years in the industry, . Table 3: Average Speed to Answer Comparison, September 13 – November 21, 2020 44 The weighted average , based on data from Ex. 124. Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 324-6 Filed 08/29/24 PageID.6711 Page 22 of 67 20 Figure 1: 47. . Abandonment rate is another commonly reported metric reflecting call center performance. ,45 and in 2020 the average abandonment rate among the 214 surveyed companies was 6.1%. In my experience these figures are consistent with industry norms. . In short, than at companies participating in the 2020 ContactBabel survey. While this is already far outside the industry norm, 45 See Ex. 126 at -90046. Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 324-6 Filed 08/29/24 PageID.6712 Page 23 of 67 21 These are extraordinarily high levels of abandonment that any competent call center operator would be expected to undertake enormous efforts to avoid. 48. Another common performance metric, related to abandonment rate, is average abandon time (also known as “abandon delay”). This metric measures how long on average a caller who ultimately abandons the call waited on hold before hanging up. .46 .47 49. . ASA data only accounts for the time spent waiting on a call that ultimately connects and does not include this time that callers wait before abandoned or disconnected calls. As such, ASA understates the total wait time . 46 Because call centers strive to keep abandonment rate as low as possible and generally under 5%, average abandon time is a less frequently reported metric because, in most call centers, it reflects the experience of a very small number of callers. As such, the ContactBabel survey did not include this metric. 47 Average abandon time weighted on abandoned calls as provided in Ex. 124. Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 324-6 Filed 08/29/24 PageID.6713 Page 24 of 67 22 Table 4: Figure 2: Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 324-6 Filed 08/29/24 PageID.6714 Page 25 of 67 23 50. To summarize, EDD debit cardholders who telephoned the Bank at surveyed companies. B. The Bank’s Practice of Understaffing Its Claims Call Center in the Face of Foreseeable Call Volume Surges Was Inconsistent with Industry Standard Practices. 51. Understaffing was the root cause of the poor service in the Claims call center from April 26, 2020 to June 13, 2020 and again from September 13, 2020 to November 21, 2020, and the Bank’s documents and testimony . Long wait times and high abandonment rates are entirely avoidable, even in the face of call volume surges, if a call center properly forecasts call volume and staffs its call centers accordingly. The 2020 ContactBabel survey and my experience with clients grappling with similar pandemic-related issues show that many call centers were able to provide adequate services to their customers within weeks of the onset of the pandemic. 52. Wait times are a function of call volume, average handle time, and call center staffing. When call volume increases are projected, call center staffing needs to be correspondingly increased in order to maintain adequate levels of service. .48 Such a practice is well outside of industry-standard 48 See Ex. 18 (Golden Tr.) 66:8-68:6. Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 324-6 Filed 08/29/24 PageID.6715 Page 26 of 67 24 operating procedures, certain to result in sub-standard performance, and not adopted by competent call center operators. 53. .49 . 54. The Bank’s designated witnesses have testified that the Bank’s standard practice was to .50 . 55. The Bank’s admitted practice of is well outside of standard operating procedures, because are known to be the cause of performance results that are widely viewed in the industry as 49 See Ex. 18 (Golden Tr.) 69:5-20. 50 Ex. 18 (Golden Tr.) 66:8-68:6. Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 324-6 Filed 08/29/24 PageID.6716 Page 27 of 67 25 unacceptable. There is, in fact, an entire field of specialization within the call center industry known as Workforce Management (WFM) dedicated to forecasting volumes and calculating staffing needs in advance.51 WFM teams employ skilled analysts using forecasting and scheduling software for the purpose of being appropriately staffed at all times.52 Documents produced by the Bank in this litigation show . . 56. As early as April 2020, .53 .54 . 57. The method used by the Bank’s 51 See Ex. 112 (2021 Decision-Makers’ Guide) at 47-49 (describing the importance of forecasting to call center operations and the many inputs that can contribute to more accurate staffing forecasts). 52 Of the call centers surveyed by ContactBabel, 90 percent of large call centers (more than 200 agents) and 67 percent of Finance call centers used specialized workforce management forecasting and scheduling software. See Ex. 112 (2021 Decision-Makers’ Guide) at 54-55. As virtually all call centers at this size engage in forecasting, other call centers are likely using Excel or other in-house tools. 53 See, e.g., Ex. 133 at -60339, tab labeled “ ,” labeled “ .” 54 See, e.g., Ex. 133 at -60339, tab labeled “ ,” . Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 324-6 Filed 08/29/24 PageID.6717 Page 28 of 67 26 . Most call centers depend on a multitude of factors (e.g., business growth rate, seasonality factors, event timing, etc.) to project future volume. This process is not only complex, but it requires that all of these factors align with expectations to produce a reliable forecast. Here, by contrast, the Bank was able .55 The R squared value is a measure of how well one data set ( ) explains variance in another ( ). The R squared value can be used to compare any two sets of data, with readings ranging from a minimum of 0 (meaning no correlation) to a maximum of 1.0 (perfectly correlated). Over my career, I have run these types of calculations for dozens of call centers, and I have never encountered this high of a correlation from a single factor. For call center forecasting, an R2 of .7 will deliver monthly forecasts with error rates typically below 10%, meeting the target accuracy rate used most often in the industry. . 55 See, e.g., Ex. 133 at -60339, tab labeled “ ,” .” Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 324-6 Filed 08/29/24 PageID.6718 Page 29 of 67 27 58. .56 To ignore a forecast with proven reliability is completely outside of normal operating procedure for a call center. 59. In the Fall of 2020, in addition to , the Bank also .57 60. In other words, a key driver of the 56 See supra ¶¶53-55. 57 Ex. 18 (Golden Tr.) 75:14-76:2; 124:11-125:1. Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 324-6 Filed 08/29/24 PageID.6719 Page 30 of 67 28 .”58 The Bank’s witness acknowledged .59 61. Deliberately subjecting customers to intentionally prolonged wait times is unheard of in the call center industry. In my 41 years in the industry, I have never heard of a call center deliberately taking such actions to increase wait times and impede the provision of customer service. This is especially true where the affected customer population is seeking a critical service, such as (in this case) public benefits recipients seeking customer service to help them recover money that has been stolen from their account. 62. I have consulted for approximately a dozen clients that answer calls that I would consider to be of a similar level of importance to the calls directed to the Bank’s Claims call center, ranging from suicide hotlines (at the highest level of importance) to other critical customer service roles such as physical/mental health care advisors and utility companies. In my experience, such companies and service providers recognize they have particularly vulnerable customers and take care to balance their legitimate business concerns against the significant harms that could result from inadequate customer service. In my experience, such companies and service providers take their responsibilities to these vulnerable customers seriously, prioritizing quick speeds of answer and high-quality customer service interactions above other legitimate call center or corporate objectives. During my career, I have never heard—and cannot imagine hearing—any supervisor or executive in one of those call centers suggesting that 58 See, e.g., Ex. 77 at -118438 ( ”); Ex. 134 at -106093-94 ( .”). 59 Ex. 18 (Golden Tr.) 85:25-87:2. Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 324-6 Filed 08/29/24 PageID.6720 Page 31 of 67 29 . 63. . 64. The Bank’s implementation of the Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 324-6 Filed 08/29/24 PageID.6721 Page 32 of 67 30 . Table 5: : Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 324-6 Filed 08/29/24 PageID.6722 Page 33 of 67 31 Figure 3: : 65. As Table 5 and Figure 3 demonstrate, . Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 324-6 Filed 08/29/24 PageID.6723 Page 34 of 67 32 66. Not only did the Bank cause these . 67. For decades, telephone systems ( ) have offered an Estimated Wait Time (EWT) application that would provide callers in queue an estimate of how long before their call would be answered. This application allows callers to make better decisions concerning whether to wait on hold, and if they choose to wait, they might at least be able to get some tasks done before the time the call should be answered. Despite the availability of EWT technology, . 68. In addition, for several decades, many phone systems have also offered virtual queuing. This application provides each caller the EWT, and then offers to hold a caller’s place in queue and to call back when it is the caller’s turn, thereby allowing the caller to attend to other matters until the system initiates the scheduled callback.60 This feature is now native to many phone systems, but even those systems without it can add it on from a third-party vendor, making 60 See Jason Barro, Rahul Sethi, Alison Leibovitz, and Blair Markell, “Please Don’t Hold”: A Better Banking Call Center Experience, BAIN & CO.: INSIGHTS (Feb. 16, 2023), https://www.bain.com/insights/please-dont-hold-better-banking-call-center-experience-snap- chart/ (“[B]anks can boost satisfaction during disputes by giving customers the option to receive a callback rather than holding. Customers who chose a call back gave a Net Promoter Score of 28 points, compared with a Net Promoter Score of –3 from those who didn’t have a choice.”). Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 324-6 Filed 08/29/24 PageID.6724 Page 35 of 67 33 the feature available to any call center willing to purchase it. .61 69. It is difficult to overstate just how poor the Bank’s Claims call center performance was in 2020 compared to typical call center performance, even after factoring in the pandemic. With no other service channel available to address Claims calls, and no other option but to remain on hold waiting for a CSR with no idea how long the remaining wait time would be, callers seeking assistance with their unauthorized-transaction claims were forced to endure the exceptionally long waits experienced in 2020. Despite speed-to-answer metrics being cited as one of the three most important metrics by 36% of call centers,62 the Bank took the opposite approach and imposed long wait times on its EDD debit cardholders, 63 The Bank’s documents reflect that a .64 In my 41 years of experience in the industry, I have never seen a call center managed with such total disregard for the customer’s experience and need for service. 61 See Ex. 18 (Golden Tr.) 97:5-98:19. 62 See Ex. 112 (2021 Decision-Makers’ Guide) at 45. 63 See Ex. 77 at -118438 ( ”). 64 See Ex. 134 at -106094. To the extent that the Bank’s primary purpose in understaffing the Claims call center was to deter fraudulent claims, it is not clear from the Bank’s documents or testimony . Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 324-6 Filed 08/29/24 PageID.6725 Page 36 of 67 34 C. The Substandard Performance Levels in the Bank’s Claims Call Center from September 13, 2020 through November 21, 2020 Reflected the Bank’s Broader Systemic Failure to Operate Its Prepaid Call Centers Consistent with Industry Standards. 70. Although the Customer Service Class is limited to EDD debit cardholders who called the Bank and were routed through the Main call center to the Claims call center between September 13, 2020 and November 21, 2020, the substandard performance level in the Claims call center during this period was not an isolated occurrence for the Bank. Rather, it is representative of systemic failures by the Bank to provide call-center customer service to its EDD debit cardholders that was consistent with industry standards. . In my experience, the hold times to which the Bank subjected EDD debit cardholders are virtually unprecedented in the call center industry. The Bank also engaged in a variety of other reckless and irresponsible call center practices that are far outside the norms of industry standard practices. Failure to Plan for Disasters Leading to Excessive Disconnected Calls 71. The Bank failed to engage in reasonable planning for its Prepaid call centers for potential staffing-intensive events like the pandemic. As a result of those failures, during the early months of the pandemic, callers to the Bank’s Prepaid call centers were more likely to be disconnected or dropped than to actually get through to a CSR in the Main call center (which, as previously discussed, was a necessary step before a caller could speak with a CSR in the Bank’s Claims or Fraud call centers). 72. The Bank was Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 324-6 Filed 08/29/24 PageID.6726 Page 37 of 67 35 .65 That provisioning involved determining how many phone lines are needed and then obtaining them from the phone company. Calculating the correct number of these lines requires, among other factors, a forecast of the busiest phone hour expected in the future. . By mid-April, .66 Another report from the Bank showed that .67 It is not clear how long the Bank continued to generate , but this significant gap generated disastrously high levels of disconnects. 73. In late March/early April 2020, .68 , though, even in non- pandemic circumstances, which may be why the 69 The Bank’s 65 See e.g., Ex. 135 at -382184, sections 5.5.1 to 5.5.4. 66 See Ex. 136 at -352986. 67 See Ex. 137 at -288640. 68 See Ex. 137 at -288641, item 3. 69 Ibid. Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 324-6 Filed 08/29/24 PageID.6727 Page 38 of 67 36 . 74. Facing a significant number of disconnects and an unknown timeframe to provision additional phone lines, .70 .71 A second issue was the .72 .73 Eventually, .74 70 Ibid at -288640, item 1. 71 See Ex. 151 at -103078. A “ ”— . 72 Ibid. 73 See Ex. 137 at -288637. 74 See Ex. 151. Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 324-6 Filed 08/29/24 PageID.6728 Page 39 of 67 37 75. In place of the ”75 which in the industry is more commonly referred to as call diverting or call blocking, and which many callers perceive as being hung up on. ,76 . 76. By mid-April 2020, . While no call center wants to invoke a disconnect message, prudent disaster recovery planning measures include the potential use of such a message. Knowing this, AT&T has for decades provided call center operators an option to set up such a message in advance, in the AT&T network cloud, to be deployed immediately and with minimal effort through an online portal or a call to AT&T. This capability is well known to industry professionals and is utilized by many call center operators using the AT&T network. In fact, .77 75 See ibid at -103076. 76 See Ex. 138 at -424944. 77 See, e.g., Ex. 139 at -718999. Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 324-6 Filed 08/29/24 PageID.6729 Page 40 of 67 38 .78 .79 77. despite the Bank’s contractual promise, made when securing the EDD’s business, that “no call” would be “transferred to voicemail or automatically disconnected from the queue.”80 A genuine commitment to an objective of “no disconnects” would have required the Bank to analyze potential volume surge scenarios, to invest in enough phone lines to handle the increased traffic projected in these scenarios, and to have back-up plans ready to implement quickly if call volume were to expand beyond what was projected. . 78. This lack of 78 See, e.g., Ex. 140 at -21114 and Ex. 139 at -718999. 79 See Ex. 138 at -424947. 80 See Ex. 22 at 185, requirement 203. Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 324-6 Filed 08/29/24 PageID.6730 Page 41 of 67 39 81 . Understaffing Leading to Excessive Wait Times in the Fraud Call Center 79. Although the Customer Service Class is limited to EDD debit cardholders who called the Bank and were routed to the Claims call center between September 13, 2020 and November 21, 2020, . 80. The Bank’s . 81. . 82. 81 See Ex. 18 (Golden Tr.) 334:22-335:23. Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 324-6 Filed 08/29/24 PageID.6731 Page 42 of 67 40 . 83. Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 324-6 Filed 08/29/24 PageID.6732 Page 43 of 67 41 . Figure 6: 84. The principal cause of the Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 324-6 Filed 08/29/24 PageID.6733 Page 44 of 67 42 : 85. Just as in the Claims call center, . Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 324-6 Filed 08/29/24 PageID.6734 Page 45 of 67 43 86. ,82 83 . 87. Comparing 2020 performance in the call centers to the performance of other call centers during this pandemic year helps quantify how truly poor the Bank’s results were. Callers to is by far the worst I have seen across a full year in my 41 years in the industry. Lax Security Protocols in the Transition to Work-from-Home 88. Call centers often have access to and utilize personal and confidential customer information to complete transactions. Phone representatives see this information on screen and hear it in discussions with callers. Call center systems use this information across various applications, such as customer databases, IVR systems, and call recording equipment. Maintaining security over this information is vitally important, and many industries have documented standards to be followed by call centers to provide the appropriate level of security. In the financial services industry, the Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard (PCI DSS) 82 See Appendix G, . 83 See Appendix G, . Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 324-6 Filed 08/29/24 PageID.6735 Page 46 of 67 44 defines security controls to protect payment card data throughout the transaction lifecycle,84 and the Bank was required by contract with the CA EDD to “be certified as PCI DSS compliant.”85 Version 3.2.1 of the PCI DSS, updated in May of 2018, was the version in place when the pandemic began in March 2020.86 Section 12.7 of the standards requires the screening of personnel, and lists examples of the types of screening, including employment history, credit history and reference checks. Contrary to the PCI DSS, . 89. With the onset of the pandemic, .87 Given the increased risk of security breaches, it should have been all the more important for the Bank to perform other checks that remained available, such as employment and credit checks. But the . 90. .88 The 84 See Information Supplement: Protecting Telephone Based Payment Card Data, Version 3.0, Protecting Telephone Based Payments Special Interest Group of the PCI Security Standards Council at 1, https://listings.pcisecuritystandards.org/documents/Protecting_Telephone_Based_Payment_Card _Data_v3-0_nov_2018.pdf. 85 See Ex. 22 at 250, requirement 394. 86 Available at www.pcisecuritystandards.org. 87 See Ex. 93 at -517115. 88 See id. Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 324-6 Filed 08/29/24 PageID.6736 Page 47 of 67 45 Bank ,89 . 91. At the same time the Bank . 92. Those call centers already using or testing WFH were able to identify concerns with maintaining the confidentiality of information. As a result, most call centers utilizing WFH instituted rules such as i) requiring that calls be handled from a hard walled office with a door that could be closed for privacy, ii) restricting cameras from the WFH work space, and iii) ensuring staff followed a “clean desk” work policy where no paper or writing instruments were allowed in the work area. Policies such as these have become standard WFH requirements in the call center industry and are routinely documented in vendor contracts. 93. The Bank 89 See Ex. 18 (Golden Tr.) 289:10-290:7. Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 324-6 Filed 08/29/24 PageID.6737 Page 48 of 67 46 .90 When asked, .91 Keeping other .92 Despite claims that .93 In my experience, based on reviewing well . In my opinion, . D. The Bank’s Deliberate Understaffing Choice Harmed Cardholders While Saving the Bank Money. 94. The Bank’s EDD debit cardholders . The share of cardholders calling the Claims call center who are members of Plaintiffs’ Customer Service class and assert an injury from the Bank’s conduct 90 See e.g., Ex. 123; Ex. 152; Ex. 126; Ex. 135. 91 See Ex. 18 (Golden Tr.) 286:19-287:19. 92 See Ex. 18 (Golden Tr.) 285:3-289:2. 93 See Ex. 18 (Golden Tr.) 285:3-289:9. Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 324-6 Filed 08/29/24 PageID.6738 Page 49 of 67 47 ).94 This data is ,95 . 95. Given no . 96. The Bank’s .96 Under this structure, the largest block of payable time is workload (the time agents spend processing calls). The second largest block of payable time, for call centers providing industry-standard service, is agent idle time (time CSRs are available and waiting for the next call to arrive). . 94 See, e.g., Ex. 144 at -205620 ( ). 95 See, e.g., Ex. 152 at -12841-42, sections 21.2 and 21.7, and Ex. 123 at -13135-36, sections 21.2 and 21.7. 96 See e,g, Ex. 128 at -90043 and Ex. 138 at -13090 defining a Paid Production Hour as Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 324-6 Filed 08/29/24 PageID.6739 Page 50 of 67 48 97. First, .97 98. Multiplying true caller demand by average handle time provides the total workload hours that would have been charged to service these callers with industry-standard performance levels. Those hours could be multiplied by the hourly rate paid to CSRs to obtain a . 99. Second, . This can be calculated on a classwide basis, using the industry standard measure of the Erlang-C formula. The Erlang-C formula is used in a variety of circumstances where demand or traffic varies over time (for example, restrooms in a stadium), but is most commonly employed by call centers to estimate staffing needs. The necessary inputs for performing this calculation 97 See Ex. 112 (2021 Decision-Makers’ Guide) at 46. Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 324-6 Filed 08/29/24 PageID.6740 Page 51 of 67 49 .98 The requirement to build in (and ultimately pay for) agent idle time in order to achieve contracted-for and industry-standard ASA is a mathematical fact in call centers. Nonetheless, performance in the .99 . 100. The amount of necessary idle time can be calculated by applying the industry- standard Erlang-C formula to half-hourly distinct call volume and handle time distributions (together, call intensity) for an average day for each week. Based on call intensity, the Erlang-C formula can be used to calculate the number of staff required to deliver an industry-standard ASA for the interval. The difference between the total staffed hours and the workload (again, the time agents spend processing calls) is the agent idle time. Summing the interval agent idle times for the day and multiplying the total daily idle time by the number of work days in the week will provide a total amount of required wait hours for the week. Multiplying the wait hours by the hourly rate will provide . 98 See Rahul Awati, Erlang C, TechTarget (accessed Aug. 22, 2024), https://www.techtarget.com/searchunifiedcommunications/definition/Erlang-C (“Erlang C is a traffic modeling formula, primarily used in call center scheduling to calculate delays and to predict waiting times for callers. . . . It is widely considered a standard calculation for managing call centers.”). 99 See Ex. 124 . Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 324-6 Filed 08/29/24 PageID.6741 Page 52 of 67 50 VIII. CONCLUSION 101. The Bank’s , was inconsistent with industry standards and caused substandard performance in its Claims call center. was so substandard that it subjected cardholders to wait times rarely, if ever, seen in the call center industry. Executed on August 29, 2024, at Collegeville, Pennsylvania. _______________________________ Jay Minnucci Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 324-6 Filed 08/29/24 PageID.6742 Page 53 of 67 51 Appendix A: Curriculum Vitae Jay Minnucci President, Service Agility, jaym@serviceagility.com (267) 733-8778 Summary Jay Minnucci is the President and Founder of Service Agility, a consulting and training company dedicated to improving customer service and contact center operations. In this role, he provides strategic and tactical guidance across all industries for enterprises that seek to optimize customer interactions. His client list ranges from small start-up operations to large Fortune 500 corporations. He is well-known throughout the industry as an accomplished consultant, trainer, speaker and author on all subjects relevant to contact center best practices. Experience April 2008 – Present: Owner of Service Agility, Inc. March 2000 – April 2008: Vice President of Consulting, International Customer Management Institute (ICMI). Built the consulting division from the ground up, leading a staff of 12. Furthered the ICMI brand through various speaking, training and writing engagements. October 1983 – March 2000: Various management and executive positions in the contact center supporting the AARP Group Health Insurance Program. This operation was run by Prudential Insurance from 1983 to 1996, when The Hartford took over. Education BBA from Temple University, May 1984, graduated Magna Cum Laude Consulting Experience Jay leads up to 20 consulting/training assignments a year in the United States and abroad, including past projects in China, Australia, England, Canada, The Czech Republic, Portugal, Malaysia, Singapore and Dubai. Some of the clients that Jay has worked with include: Federal Reserve Bank Gartner Group Duke Energy Hyatt Discover Financial Kaiser Permanente BMW Charles Schwab Canon Michigan BCBS Wells Fargo American Diabetes Assoc Government of Australia Allstate UBS Vodafone Thrift Savings Plan United Healthcare Speaking Engagements Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 324-6 Filed 08/29/24 PageID.6743 Page 54 of 67 52 Past speaking engagements include the following: • Annual Call Center Exhibit (ACCE) 2003 – 2008 • China Call Center Conference 2007 • Middle East Contact Center Forum 2013 • Help Desk Institute 2007, 2009, and 2011 • Contact Center Association Conference 2011 – 2013 • Contact Centre Association of Singapore Symposium – 2013 • J.D. Power Customer Service Conference 2013 and 2015 • NM Credit Union Association 2015, 2018, 2019 and 2022 • Avail Technologies Customer-Centric Services Summit, 2024 Training Jay has provided training in both public and private venues on topics that include the following: • Crafting a Contact Center Strategy • Contact Center Management Principles • Enhancing Efficiency • Workforce Management Principles • Metrics and Objectives • Managing a Small Contact Center Writing Jay is a member of the editorial board for the industry journal Contact Center Pipeline. From 2010 to 2018, he wrote a popular monthly column for the Pipeline. He has been published in many other journals as well, including Call Center Magazine, Customer Management Insight, Foresight, Contact center Management Review, Business Communications Review, and the International Journal of Contact centers. He has written numerous articles for Service Agility's and ICMI’s websites, and was a contributor to the latest edition of Contact Center Management on Fast Forward, by Brad Cleveland. Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 324-6 Filed 08/29/24 PageID.6744 Page 55 of 67 53 Appendix B: Prior Publications (March 2014 to Present) All of the articles listed below were published in Contact Center Pipeline, an industry publication: “A Second Chance”, March 2024 “Revisiting Schedule Adherence,” July 2019 “Taking a Deep Dive into FCR,” November 2018 “Survey Erosion,” July 2018 “Re-Gifting for 2018,” December 2017 “Consultative WFM,” November 2017 “What the Frontline Supervisor Survey Says,” October 2017 “The SBR Balancing Act,” September 2017 “Technology Worth Following,” August 2017 “Cost Efficient 2018,” July 2017 “Selling and Promoting the Contact Center,” June 2017 “Nailing Priorities,” May 2017 “Optimizing the Exceptions,” April 2017 “Valuing the Agent,” March 2017 “Balancing the Contact Center Brain,” February 2017 “Looking Ahead to 2020,” January 2017 “Re-Gifting for 2017,” December 2016 “A Culture of Trust,” November 2016 “The Moment of Truth,” October 2016 “First Step: Showing Up,” September 2016 “Getting Closer to the Customer,” August 2016 “The Work Environment 2016,” July 2016 “Five Ways to Improve Engagement,” June 2016 “When Dysfunction Strikes,” May 2016 “Conversing or Transacting?,” April 2016 “The Profession of Contact Center Management,” March 2016 “The Phone System App,” February 2016 “Accountability in the Center,” January 2016 “Re-Gifting for 2016,” December 2015 Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 324-6 Filed 08/29/24 PageID.6745 Page 56 of 67 54 “Welcome To Our Contact Center!,” November 2015 “Coaching: The Radical Next Steps,” October 2015 “Speech Rec…or…Speech Wreck?,” September 2015 “Four Ways to Expand the Value of Quality Monitoring,” August 2015 “Outbound Calling in Today's Contact Center,” July 2015 “Prepping for Next Year's Budget,” June 2015 “Setting Service Level Objectives,” May 2015 “Top Performer Modeling,” April 2015 “Some Love for ANI,” March 2015 “To NPS or Not NPS,” February 2015 “The (Near) Death of Workforce Management,” January 2015 “Re-Gifting for 2015,” December 2014 “Organizational Structure: Survey Highlights,” November 2014 “The Here and Now,” October 2014 “Agent Attrition: Time for a Change,” September 2014 “Long Term Cost Management,” August 2014 “Video in the Contact Center,” July 2014 “The Outsourcing Decision,” June 2014 “Speech Analytics and Quality Monitoring,” May 2014 “Proactive Do's and Don'ts,” April 2014 “Training Frontline Leaders,” March 2014 Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 324-6 Filed 08/29/24 PageID.6746 Page 57 of 67 55 Appendix C: Prior Testimony (January 2020 to Present) Alorica v. Sam’s Club, JAMS, JAMS Reference No. 1200056432 • Deposed, May 7, 2021. • Testified, September 7, 2021. RDI v. Dentalplans.com, 17th Judicial Circuit of the County of Broward, Florida, Case No. CACE 18-29136 • Deposed, October 21, 2021. Genesys v. Talkdesk, United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Case No. 1:19-cv-00695-TWP-DML • Deposed, June 3, 2021. • Testified February 28, 2023 Skyview Capital and Continuum Global Services v. Conduent, Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, Case No. 650761/2020 • Deposed, May 25, 2023 Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 324-6 Filed 08/29/24 PageID.6747 Page 58 of 67 56 Appendix D: Materials List In addition to sources cited in the Report and accompanying Exhibits, I considered the following in developing my opinions: Declarations and Deposition Transcripts and Accompanying Exhibits Declaration of William Golden, April 20, 2021 Deposition of William Golden, February 22, 2024 Deposition of Shane Daniels, February 6, 2024 Call Center Industry Documents and Other External Sources Avaya Call Management System Database Items and Calculations, Release 18, July 2016 The 2021 U.S. Contact Center Decision-Makers Guide, ContactBabel, 13th Edition, 2021 The 2023 U.S. Contact Center Decision-Makers Guide, ContactBabel, 15th Edition, 2023 Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard, Requirements and Security Assessment Procedures, Version 3.2.1, May 2018 Protecting Telephone-Based Payment Card Data, PCI Security Standards Council, Version 3.0, November 2018 https://investor.bankofamerica.com/profile as of February 26 2024 https://www.bankofamerica.com/deposits/rebate-cards/commercial-prepaid-card/ as of February 26 2024 Support Technology without an Analyst Is Like a Car without a Driver, Lori Bocklund, CONTACT CENTER PIPELINE (May 2021) Metrics Roundup, Susan Hash, CONTACT CENTER PIPELINE (Oct. 2019) cc-Modeler Lite, Erlang-C calculator by KoolToolz Pleadings and Other Case Documents First Amended Master Consolidated Complaint, June 13, 2023 Consent Order in the Matter of: Bank of America, N.A., Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, File No. 2022-CFPB-0004, July 14, 2022 Bank of America’s Responses and Objections to Plaintiff Yick’s Fifth Set of Interrogatories, February 2, 2024 Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 324-6 Filed 08/29/24 PageID.6748 Page 59 of 67 57 Documents Produced by Defendant (1 of 3) BANA_EDD_MDL-00001502 BANA_EDD_MDL-00001935 BANA_EDD_MDL-00002018 BANA_EDD_MDL-00012792 BANA_EDD_MDL-00012793 BANA_EDD_MDL-00012797 BANA_EDD_MDL-00012800 BANA_EDD_MDL-00012803 BANA_EDD_MDL-00012816 BANA_EDD_MDL-00012875 BANA_EDD_MDL-00013074 BANA_EDD_MDL-00013082 BANA_EDD_MDL-00013086 BANA_EDD_MDL-00013096 BANA_EDD_MDL-00013110 BANA_EDD_MDL-00013111 BANA_EDD_MDL-00013174 BANA_EDD_MDL-00019264 BANA_EDD_MDL-00019266 BANA_EDD_MDL-00019362 BANA_EDD_MDL-00019373 BANA_EDD_MDL-00019476 BANA_EDD_MDL-00019555 BANA_EDD_MDL-00021102 BANA_EDD_MDL-00025811 BANA_EDD_MDL-00027536 BANA_EDD_MDL-00028134 BANA_EDD_MDL-00038694 BANA_EDD_MDL-00056667 BANA_EDD_MDL-00056832 BANA_EDD_MDL-00057091 BANA_EDD_MDL-00060229 BANA_EDD_MDL-00060339 BANA_EDD_MDL-00060417 BANA_EDD_MDL-00061383 BANA_EDD_MDL-00061582 BANA_EDD_MDL-00062838 BANA_EDD_MDL-00065924 BANA_EDD_MDL-00065985 BANA_EDD_MDL-00066408 BANA_EDD_MDL-00067169 BANA_EDD_MDL-00067224 BANA_EDD_MDL-00067590 BANA_EDD_MDL-00067592 BANA_EDD_MDL-00068789 BANA_EDD_MDL-00068790 BANA_EDD_MDL-00068834 BANA_EDD_MDL-00069576 BANA_EDD_MDL-00076747 BANA_EDD_MDL-00090023 BANA_EDD_MDL-00090034 BANA_EDD_MDL-00090040 BANA_EDD_MDL-00090498 BANA_EDD_MDL-00090577 BANA_EDD_MDL-00090657 BANA_EDD_MDL-00091919 BANA_EDD_MDL-00091923 BANA_EDD_MDL-00092646 BANA_EDD_MDL-00093262 BANA_EDD_MDL-00093422 BANA_EDD_MDL-00094056 BANA_EDD_MDL-00095514 BANA_EDD_MDL-00100634 BANA_EDD_MDL-00101725 BANA_EDD_MDL-00102812 BANA_EDD_MDL-00103075 BANA_EDD_MDL-00103150 BANA_EDD_MDL-00103312 BANA_EDD_MDL-00104599 BANA_EDD_MDL-00105110 BANA_EDD_MDL-00105477 BANA_EDD_MDL-00106092 BANA_EDD_MDL-00106236 BANA_EDD_MDL-00106487 BANA_EDD_MDL-00107706 BANA_EDD_MDL-00108517 BANA_EDD_MDL-00109298 BANA_EDD_MDL-00115804 BANA_EDD_MDL-00118438 BANA_EDD_MDL-00118460 BANA_EDD_MDL-00126413 BANA_EDD_MDL-00126428 BANA_EDD_MDL-00126635 BANA_EDD_MDL-00127312 BANA_EDD_MDL-00127367 BANA_EDD_MDL-00127457 BANA_EDD_MDL-00127480 BANA_EDD_MDL-00127980 BANA_EDD_MDL-00127988 BANA_EDD_MDL-00130192 BANA_EDD_MDL-00130232 BANA_EDD_MDL-00140261 BANA_EDD_MDL-00140417 Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 324-6 Filed 08/29/24 PageID.6749 Page 60 of 67 58 Documents Produced by Defendant (2 of 3) BANA_EDD_MDL-00140419 BANA_EDD_MDL-00140627 BANA_EDD_MDL-00140691 BANA_EDD_MDL-00141482 BANA_EDD_MDL-00141458 BANA_EDD_MDL-00141618 BANA_EDD_MDL-00141919 BANA_EDD_MDL-00142001 BANA_EDD_MDL-00142490 BANA_EDD_MDL-00142764 BANA_EDD_MDL-00143155 BANA_EDD_MDL-00145888 BANA_EDD_MDL-00148891 BANA_EDD_MDL-00155082 BANA_EDD_MDL-00162954 BANA_EDD_MDL-00163453 BANA_EDD_MDL-00171905 BANA_EDD_MDL-00172236 BANA_EDD_MDL-00172538 BANA_EDD_MDL-00172855 BANA_EDD_MDL-00173603 BANA_EDD_MDL-00173993 BANA_EDD_MDL-00175335 BANA_EDD_MDL-00177361 BANA_EDD_MDL-00182381 BANA_EDD_MDL-00187216 BANA_EDD_MDL-00187433 BANA_EDD_MDL-00188414 BANA_EDD_MDL-00188572 BANA_EDD_MDL-00191003 BANA_EDD_MDL-00198653 BANA_EDD_MDL-00199253 BANA_EDD_MDL-00200185 BANA_EDD_MDL-00206316 BANA_EDD_MDL-00210000 BANA_EDD_MDL-00217469 BANA_EDD_MDL-00217549 BANA_EDD_MDL-00218450 BANA_EDD_MDL-00225648 BANA_EDD_MDL-00234529 BANA_EDD_MDL-00235537 BANA_EDD_MDL-00235706 BANA_EDD_MDL-00235714 BANA_EDD_MDL-00236111 BANA_EDD_MDL-00236846 BANA_EDD_MDL-00236848 BANA_EDD_MDL-00236865 BANA_EDD_MDL-00240054 BANA_EDD_MDL-00243363 BANA_EDD_MDL-00246363 BANA_EDD_MDL-00261052 BANA_EDD_MDL-00261375 BANA_EDD_MDL-00261795 BANA_EDD_MDL-00261884 BANA_EDD_MDL-00262582 BANA_EDD_MDL-00263582 BANA_EDD_MDL-00263806 BANA_EDD_MDL-00288598 BANA_EDD_MDL-00288637 BANA_EDD_MDL-00288640 BANA_EDD_MDL-00290235 BANA_EDD_MDL-00293070 BANA_EDD_MDL-00314421 BANA_EDD_MDL-00315852 BANA_EDD_MDL-00352749 BANA_EDD_MDL-00352985 BANA_EDD_MDL-00355584 BANA_EDD_MDL-00356316 BANA_EDD_MDL-00358108 BANA_EDD_MDL-00359360 BANA_EDD_MDL-00359361 BANA_EDD_MDL-00359362 BANA_EDD_MDL-00359363 BANA_EDD_MDL-00359364 BANA_EDD_MDL-00359365 BANA_EDD_MDL-00368111 BANA_EDD_MDL-00372269 BANA_EDD_MDL-00373514 BANA_EDD_MDL-00374770 BANA_EDD_MDL-00375717 BANA_EDD_MDL-00376191 BANA_EDD_MDL-00377118 BANA_EDD_MDL-00379986 BANA_EDD_MDL-00379991 BANA_EDD_MDL-00382181 BANA_EDD_MDL-00383694 BANA_EDD_MDL-00405979 BANA_EDD_MDL-00424944 BANA_EDD_MDL-00436069 BANA_EDD_MDL-00438429 BANA_EDD_MDL-00455530 BANA_EDD_MDL-00455608 BANA_EDD_MDL-00455649 Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 324-6 Filed 08/29/24 PageID.6750 Page 61 of 67 59 Documents Produced by Defendant (3 of 3) BANA_EDD_MDL-00482670 BANA_EDD_MDL-00491397 BANA_EDD_MDL-00491410 BANA_EDD_MDL-00498025 BANA_EDD_MDL-00503278 BANA_EDD_MDL-00510120 BANA_EDD_MDL-00517105 BANA_EDD_MDL-00522406 BANA_EDD_MDL-00548592 BANA_EDD_MDL-00549619 BANA_EDD_MDL-00589505 BANA_EDD_MDL-00616368 BANA_EDD_MDL-00616664 BANA_EDD_MDL-00618616 BANA_EDD_MDL-00639950 BANA_EDD_MDL-00640402 BANA_EDD_MDL-00641997 BANA_EDD_MDL-00643469 BANA_EDD_MDL-00648284 BANA_EDD_MDL-00657359 BANA_EDD_MDL-00657367 BANA_EDD_MDL-00657370 BANA_EDD_MDL-00659985 BANA_EDD_MDL-00662478 BANA_EDD_MDL-00669718 BANA_EDD_MDL-00678495 BANA_EDD_MDL-00681274 BANA_EDD_MDL-00681616 BANA_EDD_MDL-00694815 BANA_EDD_MDL-00694825 BANA_EDD_MDL-00694835 BANA_EDD_MDL-00694845 BANA_EDD_MDL-00694847 BANA_EDD_MDL-00694848 BANA_EDD_MDL-00694849 BANA_EDD_MDL-00697114 BANA_EDD_MDL-00697318 BANA_EDD_MDL-00712063 BANA_EDD_MDL-00718992 BANA_EDD_MDL-00719114 BANA_EDD_MDL-00719115 BANA_EDD_MDL-00719116 BANA_EDD_MDL-00643363 BANA_EDD_MDL-00002286 BANA_EDD_MDL-00153667 BANA_EDD_MDL-00061799 BANA_EDD_MDL-00107356 BANA_EDD_MDL-00205620 BANA_EDD_MDL-00859710 Also, the excel file titled “TTEC Servicing and Fraud Call Metrics 2020-2021” (no Bates No.) Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 324-6 Filed 08/29/24 PageID.6751 Page 62 of 67 60 Appendix E: Survey Results, The 2021 US Contact Center Decision Makers’ Guide, Page 46 Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 324-6 Filed 08/29/24 PageID.6752 Page 63 of 67 61 Appendix F: Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 324-6 Filed 08/29/24 PageID.6753 Page 64 of 67 62 Appendix F: Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 324-6 Filed 08/29/24 PageID.6754 Page 65 of 67 63 Appendix G: Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 324-6 Filed 08/29/24 PageID.6755 Page 66 of 67 64 Appendix G: Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 324-6 Filed 08/29/24 PageID.6756 Page 67 of 67
File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.casd.709615.324.6.pdf
- Size
- 836,247 bytes
- SHA-256
- 2143e889db0b2611804112a1c924a5db59bfd6e52dd4adeb1a720f6018797e11
- Original
- PACER (login required)