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 76 — In re Bank of America California Unemployment Benefits Litigation (Dkt. 350-77, S.D. Cal. No. 3:21-md-02992)

Court filing

Exhibit 76 — In re Bank of America California Unemployment Benefits Litigation (Dkt. 350-77, 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. 350-77 · 2024-10-24 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

EXHIBIT 76 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 350-77     Filed 10/24/24     PageID.11481 
Page 1 of 6

 
 
PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS AND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO  
BANA’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND ADMISSIONS 
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 
 
Liaison Counsel for Individual 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 SEANTE GLASSFLOWERS’ 
OBJECTIONS AND SUPPLEMENTAL 
RESPONSES TO BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.’S 
FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND 
ADMISSIONS 
 
 
 
This Document Relates to All Actions 
Judge: Hon. Gonzalo P. Curiel 
 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 350-77     Filed 10/24/24     PageID.11482 
Page 2 of 6

 
PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS AND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO  
BANA’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND ADMISSIONS 
Case No. 3:21-md-02992-LAB-MSB 
6 
 
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
Plaintiff responds as follows: Plaintiff is willing to meet and confer with Defendant with respect 
to this Interrogatory. 
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 1: 
Plaintiff incorporates by reference the Preliminary Statement and General Objections. 
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 
does not recall the dates of her EDD benefits, but she recalls that she began receiving benefits 
from the start of the COVID-19 Pandemic until the end of the COVID-19 Pandemic when she 
had to return to work (around 2022). She worked as an independent contractor for Instawork as a 
Chef. She made between $24,000.000-$48,000.00 the six months prior to applying for EDD 
benefits. She received unemployment benefits.  
INTERROGATORY NO. 3: 
 
State the principal facts RELATING TO whether YOU have ever requested or attempted 
to request to receive EDD BENEFITS by check during the time period from August 1, 2016 to 
the present, or asked for information about requesting EDD BENEFITS by check, including 
when the request was made, whether the request was successful, the steps YOU took to make the 
request if it was unsuccessful, and the time period(s) during which YOU received EDD 
BENEFITS by check.  
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 3: 
Plaintiff incorporates by reference the Preliminary Statement and General Objections. 
 
Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it requests information regarding the 
“time period from August 1, 2016 to the present” as overly broad and not proportional to the 
needs of the case. Plaintiff further objects to this Interrogatory as compound and counting as 
multiple distinct interrogatories. Plaintiff further objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it 
seeks information that is equally available to Defendant or is in Defendant’s possession, custody, 
or control. Accordingly, Plaintiff will provide information relating to whether Plaintiff requested 
to receive EDD BENEFITS by check from January 1, 2020 to present. 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 350-77     Filed 10/24/24     PageID.11483 
Page 3 of 6

 
PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS AND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO  
BANA’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND ADMISSIONS 
Case No. 3:21-md-02992-LAB-MSB 
7 
 
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 request payment by check as all EDD benefits administered by Bank of America 
were required to be sent electronically. 
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 3: 
Plaintiff incorporates by reference the Preliminary Statement and General Objections. 
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Plaintiff responds as follows: Plaintiff 
recalls EDD advising her via phone that she would be receiving her benefits by paper check once 
her account was found to be compromised and they were investigating. However, she does not 
recall the date of that phone call. In addition, she was told that she would be receiving all future 
payments by check until her benefits ended.  
INTERROGATORY no. 4: 
State the principal facts RELATING TO whether YOU, or PERSONS acting on YOUR 
behalf, have ever authorized another PERSON to access or make TRANSACTIONS on YOUR 
ACCOUNT (including YOUR CARD), including IDENTIFYING that PERSON, the date(s) 
authority was given to that PERSON, the duration of their authority (i.e., whether that authority 
was ever revoked), the reason YOU gave that PERSON authority to use YOUR CARD, the 
intended purchase and/or purchase amount by the PERSON using YOUR CARD, and whether 
YOU disclosed YOUR pin to any other PERSON identified in response to this Interrogatory. 
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 4: 
Plaintiff incorporates by reference the Preliminary Statement and General Objections. 
 
Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory as vague and ambiguous to the extent it asks for the 
principal facts “RELATING TO” whether YOU, or a PERSON acting on YOUR behalf, have 
ever “authorized” another person to “access . . . YOUR ACCOUNT.” Plaintiff also objects to 
this Interrogatory as compound and counting as multiple distinct interrogatories. Plaintiff further 
objects to this Interrogatory as overly broad and unduly burdensome because it is not limited as 
to time and to the extent it seeks information that is neither relevant to any claim or defense in 
this action, nor proportional to the needs of this case. 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 350-77     Filed 10/24/24     PageID.11484 
Page 4 of 6

 
PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS AND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO  
BANA’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND ADMISSIONS 
Case No. 3:21-md-02992-LAB-MSB 
26 
 
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 denies knowing his personal information was compromised by a third party since 
January 2019.  
 
 
 
 
Dated:  July 17, 2024 
SWIGART LAW GROUP, APC 
 
By:  
 /s/ Joshua B. Swigart  
 
JOSHUA B. SWIGART 
 
 
 
Liaison Counsel for Individual Plaintiffs  
 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 350-77     Filed 10/24/24     PageID.11485 
Page 5 of 6

In re Bank of America California Unemployment Benefits Litigation 
Case No. 3:21-md-02992-LAB-MSB 
VERIFICATION 
I, 
chef SeanteGlassFlower,.sdeclare: 
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. SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.'S 
FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND ADMISSIONS 
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 
Jul 15 2024 17:28 PDT 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 350-77     Filed 10/24/24     PageID.11486 
Page 6 of 6

File and source

File
gov.uscourts.casd.709615.350.77.pdf
Size
360,674 bytes
SHA-256
8ad90a8cb5dbb4fcdc756920f77820173f53d1bea47b99f1b5e2a7d0f2ef0a23
Our copy
gov.uscourts.casd.709615.350.77.pdf
Original
PACER (login required)
Back to top