Pandemic Darlings The pandemic economy, in original documents
Home Court filings Bofa Ca Unemployment In re: Bank of America California Unemployment Benefits Litigation — S.D. Cal., No. 21-md-02992 Exhibit 53 — In re Bank of America California Unemployment Benefits Litigation (Dkt. 350-54, S.D. Cal. No. 3:21-md-02992)

Court filing

Exhibit 53 — In re Bank of America California Unemployment Benefits Litigation (Dkt. 350-54, S.D. Cal. No. 3:21-md-02992)

Filed October 24, 2024 in In re Bank of America California Unemployment Benefits Litigation; one of 1415 filings from this case.

Record facts

CourtU.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
Filed2024-10-24

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California · No. 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB · Doc. 350-54 · 2024-10-24 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

EXHIBIT 53 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 350-54     Filed 10/24/24     PageID.11371 
Page 1 of 6

 
 
PLAINTIFF STEPHANIE SMITH’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
JOSEPH W. COTCHETT (SBN 36324) 
jcotchett@cpmlegal.com 
BRIAN DANITZ (SBN 247403) 
bdanitz@cpmlegal.com 
KARIN B. SWOPE (Pro Hac Vice) 
kswope@cpmlegal.com 
ANDREW F. KIRTLEY (SBN 328023) 
akirtley@cpmlegal.com 
COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, 
LLP 
840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200 
Burlingame, CA 94010 
Telephone: (650) 697-6000 
Fax: (650) 697-0577 
MICHAEL RUBIN (SBN 80618) 
mrubin@altber.com 
STACEY M. LEYTON (SBN 203827) 
sleyton@altber.com 
MATTHEW MURRAY (SBN 271461) 
mmurray@altber.com 
CONNIE K. CHAN (SBN 284230) 
cchan@altber.com 
ALTSHULER BERZON LLP 
177 Post Street, Suite 300 
San Francisco, CA 94108 
Telephone: (415) 421-7151 
Fax: (415) 362-8064 
 
Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class  
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 STEPHANIE SMITH’S 
OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO 
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.’S FIRST 
SET OF INTERROGATORIES 
 
 
This Document Relates to All Actions 
Judge: 
Hon. Larry Alan Burns 
 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 350-54     Filed 10/24/24     PageID.11372 
Page 2 of 6

 
PLAINTIFF STEPHANIE SMITH’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO  
BANA’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES 
Case No. 3:21-md-02992-LAB-MSB 
9 
 
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
Accordingly, Plaintiff will limit their response to the period from January 1, 
2020, to present.  
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Plaintiff responds 
as follows: Plaintiff did not authorize a third party to access their account in 
connection with the transactions at issue in this case.  
INTERROGATORY NO. 5: 
If you allege that any TRANSACTIONS on YOUR ACCOUNT were 
unauthorized or made in error, state the principal facts RELATING TO each 
distinct TRANSACTION that YOU allege was unauthorized or made in error, 
including IDENTIFYING the TRANSACTION, the type of error (including 
whether the error was an “error” under EFTA Regulation E (15 U.S.C. § 1693 et 
seq.) and if so, which type of error), any fees YOU allege were improperly 
assessed RELATING TO the TRANSACTION (including the amount of the fee(s) 
and the date(s) of assessment), and the basis for YOUR belief that each 
TRANSACTION was an error. 
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 5: 
Plaintiff incorporates by reference the Preliminary Statement and General 
Objections. 
Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory as unduly 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 as compound and counting as 
multiple distinct interrogatories.  Plaintiff also objects that it calls for a legal 
conclusion, premature disclosure of expert opinions and conclusions and it is 
overbroad in that it requests information that is subject to the attorney-client and 
attorney work-product privilege. 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 350-54     Filed 10/24/24     PageID.11373 
Page 3 of 6

 
PLAINTIFF STEPHANIE SMITH’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO  
BANA’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES 
Case No. 3:21-md-02992-LAB-MSB 
10 
 
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
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Plaintiff responds as 
follows: Plaintiff did not authorize a third party to access their account in connection 
with the transactions at issue in this case.  Plaintiff received her EDD Debit Card in 
or about June 2020 and activated it on Bank of America’s website the same day that 
she received it. 
Immediately after activating the Card, she locked the Card in a safe inside her 
home, and she did not subsequently take the Card out of the safe or use it in any way.  
Her only activity on her EDD Debit Card Account thereafter was to use Bank of 
America’s website to transfer funds from her EDD Debit Card Account to her 
personal consumer bank account (also with Bank of America).  She never used the 
Card at an ATM, for an online purchase, at a retail store, or for any other transaction. 
She also never disclosed her Card number or PIN to anyone and never authorized 
anyone to use her Card.  Despite all this, an unknown person or persons used the 
Cardholder Information associated with her EDD Debit Card and/or Account to 
make three unauthorized transactions with DoorDash in San Francisco, California. 
The first unauthorized transaction occurred on or about November 23, 2020, with a 
charge of 90.89. The second unauthorized transaction occurred on or about 
November 27, 2020, with a charge of 44.31. The third unauthorized transaction 
occurred on or about November 30, 2020, with a charge of $90.64.  These 
unauthorized transactions totaled $225.84. 
 
INTERROGATORY NO. 6: 
State the principal facts RELATING TO why YOU believe that BANA 
should have identified the allegedly unauthorized TRANSACTIONS as suspicious, 
including IDENTIFYING the allegedly unauthorized TRANSACTIONS YOU 
claim BANA should have identified as suspicions, the facts that form the basis for 
YOUR belief, such as the location of the merchant and YOUR location on that 
date, and whether BANA did in fact identify the TRANSACTION as suspicious. 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 350-54     Filed 10/24/24     PageID.11374 
Page 4 of 6

 
PLAINTIFF STEPHANIE SMITH’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO  
BANA’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES 
Case No. 3:21-md-02992-LAB-MSB 
33 
 
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:  October 19, 2023 
ALTSHULER BERZON LLP 
 
 
By:   /s/ Michael Rubin  
 
 
MICHAEL RUBIN  
STACEY M. LEYTON  
MATTHEW MURRAY  
CONNIE K. CHAN 
 
Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs and the 
Proposed Class 
 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 350-54     Filed 10/24/24     PageID.11375 
Page 5 of 6

Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 350-54     Filed 10/24/24     PageID.11376 
Page 6 of 6

File and source

File
gov.uscourts.casd.709615.350.54.pdf
Size
426,426 bytes
SHA-256
008d9e415de3bd90822866454491b009d2f6603a03f99b340e6671de9e42c7a3
Our copy
gov.uscourts.casd.709615.350.54.pdf
Original
PACER (login required)
  1. Exhibit 54 — In re Bank of America California Unemployment Benefits Litigation (Dkt. 350-55, S.D. Cal. No. 3:21-md-02992)same docket · 2024-10-24
  2. Expert Declaration of Pamela Joseph (Exhibit 4) — In re Bank of America California Unemployment Benefits Litigation (Dkt. 350-5, S.D. Cal. No. 3:21-md-02992)same docket · 2024-10-24
  3. Expert Declaration of Stephen Hindle (Exhibit 5) — In re Bank of America California Unemployment Benefits Litigation (Dkt. 350-6, S.D. Cal. No. 3:21-md-02992)same docket · 2024-10-24
  4. Exhibit 63 — In re Bank of America California Unemployment Benefits Litigation (Dkt. 350-64, S.D. Cal. No. 3:21-md-02992)same docket · 2024-10-24
  5. Exhibit 39 — In re Bank of America California Unemployment Benefits Litigation (Dkt. 350-40, S.D. Cal. No. 3:21-md-02992)same docket · 2024-10-24
  6. Exhibit 65 — In re Bank of America California Unemployment Benefits Litigation (Dkt. 350-66, S.D. Cal. No. 3:21-md-02992)same docket · 2024-10-24
  7. Expert Declaration of Russell Cronan (Exhibit 3) — In re Bank of America California Unemployment Benefits Litigation (Dkt. 350-4, S.D. Cal. No. 3:21-md-02992)same docket · 2024-10-24
  8. Declaration of Michael J. Letson in Support of Defendants Memorandum — In re BofA Unemployment Litigation (Dkt. 350-7)same docket · 2024-10-24
  9. Exhibit 37 — In re Bank of America California Unemployment Benefits Litigation (Dkt. 350-38, S.D. Cal. No. 3:21-md-02992)same case · 2024-10-24
  10. Exhibit 74 — In re Bank of America California Unemployment Benefits Litigation (Dkt. 350-75, S.D. Cal. No. 3:21-md-02992)same case · 2024-10-24
  11. Exhibit 34 — In re Bank of America California Unemployment Benefits Litigation (Dkt. 350-35, S.D. Cal. No. 3:21-md-02992)same case · 2024-10-24
  12. Exhibit 75 — In re Bank of America California Unemployment Benefits Litigation (Dkt. 350-76, S.D. Cal. No. 3:21-md-02992)same case · 2024-10-24
  13. Expert Declaration of Teresa A. Pesce (Exhibit 2) — In re Bank of America California Unemployment Benefits Litigation (Dkt. 350-3, S.D. Cal. No. 3:21-md-02992)same case · 2024-10-24
  14. Exhibit 76 — In re Bank of America California Unemployment Benefits Litigation (Dkt. 350-77, S.D. Cal. No. 3:21-md-02992)same case · 2024-10-24
  15. Export Report of Victor Stango (Exhibit 1) — In re Bank of America California Unemployment Benefits Litigation (Dkt. 350-2, S.D. Cal. No. 3:21-md-02992)same case · 2024-10-24
  16. Exhibit 17 — In re Bank of America California Unemployment Benefits Litigation (Dkt. 350-18, S.D. Cal. No. 3:21-md-02992)same case · 2024-10-24
  17. Exhibit 79 — In re Bank of America California Unemployment Benefits Litigation (Dkt. 350-80, S.D. Cal. No. 3:21-md-02992)same docket · 2024-10-24
  18. Exhibit 16 — In re Bank of America California Unemployment Benefits Litigation (Dkt. 350-17, S.D. Cal. No. 3:21-md-02992)same docket · 2024-10-24
  19. Exhibit 15 — In re Bank of America California Unemployment Benefits Litigation (Dkt. 350-16, S.D. Cal. No. 3:21-md-02992)same docket · 2024-10-24
  20. Exhibit 14 — In re Bank of America California Unemployment Benefits Litigation (Dkt. 350-15, S.D. Cal. No. 3:21-md-02992)same docket · 2024-10-24

Part of: In re: Bank of America California Unemployment Benefits Litigation — S.D. Cal., No. 21-md-02992 · U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California · Pandemic unemployment insurance · Lender and platform litigation · Exhibits and declarations · 2024 · Court filings

Back to top