Exhibit 74 — In re Bank of America California Unemployment Benefits Litigation (Dkt. 350-75, 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. 350-75 · 2024-10-24 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

EXHIBIT 74 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 350-75     Filed 10/24/24     PageID.11469 
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 EVETT JOHNSON’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 350-75     Filed 10/24/24     PageID.11470 
Page 2 of 6

 
PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO  
BANA’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES 
Case No. 3:21-md-02992-LAB-MSB 
17 
 
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
that it requests information for the time period from August 1, 2016, to present 
which is not relevant to the claims in this action or proportional to the needs of the 
litigation. In addition, this Interrogatory is overbroad as it calls for premature 
disclosure of expert opinions and conclusions and information subject to the 
attorney client and attorney work product privileges. Plaintiff further objects to this 
Interrogatory on the grounds that it requests information that is equally available to 
and/or in the possession of Defendant.   
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Plaintiff responds 
as follows: The Bank was well aware, long before issuing an EDD Debit Card to 
Plaintiff, that EMV chips were the industry standard, that limiting security 
measures to a magnetic stripe was insufficient to protect the PII and other account 
information of the cardholder, and that Plaintiff was a member of a class of 
particularly vulnerable individuals to which the Bank owed a duty to protect from 
fraudulent account transactions using readily available technology that was already 
widely in use by the Bank. 
INTERROGATORY NO. 12: 
If YOU contend that YOUR ACCOUNT was improperly frozen or blocked, 
then state the principal facts RELATING TO each instance YOU believe YOUR 
ACCOUNT was improperly frozen or blocked, including the time period(s) of 
each instance, whether the ACCOUNT was frozen or blocked, why YOU believe 
the freeze or block was improper, how YOU learned of the freeze or block, the 
amount of funds YOU were unable to access, and the amount of funds that were 
not deposited because of the freeze or block. 
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 12: 
Plaintiff incorporates by reference the Preliminary Statement and General 
Objections. 
Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory as compound and counting as multiple 
distinct interrogatories. Plaintiff also objects to this Interrogatory as unduly 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 350-75     Filed 10/24/24     PageID.11471 
Page 3 of 6

 
PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO  
BANA’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES 
Case No. 3:21-md-02992-LAB-MSB 
18 
 
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 the Interrogatory calls for information within 
Defendant’s own possession, custody, or control, and well known to or readily 
obtainable by 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 it requests information that is 
not relevant to this litigation, including how Plaintiff learned of the freeze or block.  
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Plaintiff responds 
as follows:   
Plaintiff would receive deposits in her account, and she would go to the bank 
around midnight to withdraw her funds. One night, she went did not go until the 
following morning. She went to withdraw funds, but she noticed the money was 
gone. She called Bank of America, and she was told that there was a withdrawal in 
another state at a branch. Plaintiff had no clue who withdrew the funds. Plaintiff 
was also told someone was attempting to access her account. Plaintiff lost about 
$1,200.00 (one thousand two hundred dollars) that she did not authorize to be used. 
Plaintiff’s account was locked in November, and she did not get funds in 
December. 
Plaintiff’s account was frozen from November of 2020 until April of 2021. 
Bank of America froze client’s account after she opened up the claim. Plaintiff 
ended up not using the card and she started receiving paper checks. 
INTERROGATORY NO. 13: 
State the principal facts RELATING TO all steps YOU took to remove any 
improper freeze or block on YOUR ACCOUNT, including whether YOU 
contacted BANA or EDD, when and how YOU contacted BANA or EDD, and 
what information YOU provided BANA or EDD to verify YOUR identity. 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 350-75     Filed 10/24/24     PageID.11472 
Page 4 of 6

 
PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO  
BANA’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES 
Case No. 3:21-md-02992-LAB-MSB 
29 
 
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
as follows:  
Plaintiff has been part of a class action lawsuit before with Facebook but she 
did not qualify. 
 
 
Dated:  December 18, 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 350-75     Filed 10/24/24     PageID.11473 
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-GF4TIYUFJAXYJROYUCTRE7EPOKQRYNYK_MBCBJPBJK8
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 350-75     Filed 10/24/24     PageID.11474 
Page 6 of 6
Evett_jjohnson
Nov 02 2023 21:51 PDT

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.casd.709615.350.75.pdf

Size

274,695 bytes

SHA-256

8f1b1459ba2e68c5cf29e1e96f7465f94bb31142b46eafb53e35b2ef57ec83ea

Our copy

gov.uscourts.casd.709615.350.75.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)