Exhibit 34 — In re Bank of America California Unemployment Benefits Litigation (Dkt. 350-35, S.D. Cal. No. 3:21-md-02992)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California · No. 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB · Doc. 350-35 · 2024-10-24 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

EXHIBIT 34 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 350-35     Filed 10/24/24     PageID.11319 
Page 1 of 6

PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO
BANA’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES 
Case No. 3:21-md-02992-LAB-MSB 
1 
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
Joshua B. Swigart (SBN: 225557) 
Josh@SwigartLawGroup.com 
SWIGART LAW GROUP, APC 
2221 Camino del Rio S, Ste 308 
San Diego, CA  92108 
Telephone: (866) 219-3343 
Facsimile: (866) 219-8344 
Liasson Counsel for Internal Plaintiffs 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 
IN RE BANK OF AMERICA 
CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT 
BENEFITS LITIGATION 
Case No. 3:21-md-02992-LAB-MSB 
PLAINTIFF QUOC HUYNH’S 
OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO 
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.’S FIRST 
SET OF INTERROGATORIES, 
REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS AND 
REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS 
This Document Relates to All Actions 
Judge: 
Hon. Larry Alan Burns 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 350-35     Filed 10/24/24     PageID.11320 
Page 2 of 6

 
PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO  
BANA’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES 
Case No. 3:21-md-02992-LAB-MSB 
11 
 
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
burdensome to the extent that it seeks information that is more readily accessible to 
or already in the possession, custody, or control of Defendant, including because to 
the extent any portion of these Requests are relevant, the information requested has 
been or may be incorporated into the payment schedules required by the 
CFPB/OCC Remediation Plan. Plaintiff further objects to this Interrogatory 
because Defendant and Plaintiff’s experts have superior knowledge as to best 
practices for identifying unauthorized transactions as suspicious.  
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Plaintiff responds 
as follows:  Plaintiff notified the Defendant that the transaction at issue in this 
matter was unauthorized. Plaintiff also refers Defendant to the documents in 
Defendant’s possession and control, Plaintiffs’ First Amended Master 
Consolidated Complaint, the Preliminary Injunction in this case and the facts and 
evidence supporting the Preliminary Injunction, the Consumer Financial Protection 
Bureau Consent Order of July 14, 2022, and Plaintiffs’ document production. 
INTERROGATORY NO. 7: 
State the principal facts RELATING TO whether YOUR PERSONAL 
INFORMATION was compromised, including whether YOUR PERSONAL 
INFORMATION, wallet, CARD, or cellphone were ever stolen, and whether YOU 
were notified by a THIRD PARTY (e.g. government agency, employer, merchant, 
website) that YOUR PERSONAL INFORMATION may have been compromised. 
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 7: 
Plaintiff incorporates by reference the Preliminary Statement and General 
Objections. 
Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory as vague and ambiguous to the extent it 
asks “whether YOUR PERSONAL INFORMATION was compromised” and on 
the ground that it is overbroad, not proportional to the needs of this case, and 
ambiguous as to the included time period. Plaintiff further objects to this 
Interrogatory on the ground that it requests information regarding cell phones, 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 350-35     Filed 10/24/24     PageID.11321 
Page 3 of 6

 
PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO  
BANA’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES 
Case No. 3:21-md-02992-LAB-MSB 
12 
 
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
wallets and notifications by a THIRD PARTY about potential compromises of 
Plaintiff’s PERSONAL INFORMATION that is unrelated to the claims made by 
Plaintiff and it is therefore overbroad and not proportional to the needs of this case. 
Plaintiff further objects to this Interrogatory as compound and counting as multiple 
distinct interrogatories.   
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Plaintiff responds 
as follows:   
Plaintiff’s personal information was obtained without authorization with 
respect to the transaction at issue. Plaintiff received an EDD Debit Card with a 
magnetic stripe (but no EMV chip) to access benefits. Through the course of his 
relationship with Bank of America Plaintiff suffered at least one unauthorized 
transaction on Plaintiff’s account.  Each unauthorized transaction was timely 
reported to Bank of America.  
Plaintiff applied for benefits, and he was supposed to receive a card that was 
mailed out to his home address. He never received his card as it was stolen. 
Plaintiff reported it to Bank of America around the end of September. Bank of 
America said that they would mail out a new card to him and the manager said he 
would give Plaintiff provisional credit the next day. According to Bank of America 
his account was closed by EDD but that was not true. Plaintiff spoke to EDD, and 
they showed his account was open and Bank of America had closed it on October 
10. Plaintiff did not receive credit until 110 days after he reported the fraud. 
INTERROGATORY NO. 8: 
State the principal facts RELATED TO all YOUR CLAIMS, including the 
date of the CLAIM, the manner in which the CLAIM was submitted or 
communicated to BANA, IDENTIFYING all TRANSACTIONS included in the 
CLAIM, the interest YOU believe YOU are entitled to and the basis for that belief, 
IDENTIFYING the PERSON YOU believe made the transaction, whether YOU 
knew a TRANSACTION subject to a CLAIM was authorized by YOU or by 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 350-35     Filed 10/24/24     PageID.11322 
Page 4 of 6

 
PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO  
BANA’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES 
Case No. 3:21-md-02992-LAB-MSB 
103 
 
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
Dated:  December 1, 2023 
SWIGART LAW GROUP, APC 
 
By:   /s/ Joshua B. Swigart 
 
 
JOSHUA B. SWIGART 
 
 
 
Liasson Counsel for Individual Plaintiffs  
 
 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 350-35     Filed 10/24/24     PageID.11323 
Page 5 of 6

In re Bank of America California Unemployment Benefits Litigation 
Case No. 3:21-md-02992-LBS-MSB 
VERIFICATION 
 
I, ________________________, declare: 
I am one of the individual Plaintiffs in the above-entitled action, and I have been 
authorized to make this verification. 
I have read the foregoing responses to: 
1. RESPONSE TO BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.’S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS 
FOR ADMISSIONS 
2. RESPONSE TO BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.’S FIRST SET OF 
INTERROGATORIES 
I know the contents thereof; the same is true of my own knowledge, except as to those 
matters which are therein stated on information and belief, and, as to those matters, I believe 
them to be true. 
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the 
foregoing is true and correct. 
Executed in the State of California on _______________. 
 
 
________________________ 
 
 
 
 
Zoho Sign Document ID: 2B9B108F-OGUC4A1QXWXM9LA-PGRH8PORKJJKDQGB9JK7JO_YB6M
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 350-35     Filed 10/24/24     PageID.11324 
Page 6 of 6
Q Chris Huynh02
Nov 07 2023 23:37 PST

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.casd.709615.350.35.pdf

Size

267,490 bytes

SHA-256

6e069d24cac239e499f059e1f2cb79c36d1656418f18c1f7fa03ed75ebefcf5b

Our copy

gov.uscourts.casd.709615.350.35.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)