Response in Opposition re 369 Ex Parte Motion for Leave — In re BofA Unemployment Litigation (Dkt. 370)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California · No. 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB · Doc. 370 · 2024-11-19 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

DEF.’S OPP. TO PLS.’ APP. TO FILE 30-PAGE REPLY  
CASE NO. 21-MD-02992-GPC-MSB 
 
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 
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 
JAMES W. MCGARRY (pro hac vice) 
JMcGarry@goodwinlaw.com 
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP 
100 Northern Avenue 
Boston, MA  02210 
Tel.: +1 617 570 1000 
Fax: +1 617 523 1231 
 
SABRINA M. ROSE-SMITH (pro hac vice) 
SRoseSmith@goodwinlaw.com 
MATTHEW L. RIFFEE (pro hac vice) 
MRiffee@goodwinlaw.com 
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP 
1900 N Street, NW 
Washington, DC 20036 
Tel.: +1 202 346 4000 
Fax: +1 202 346 4444 
Attorneys for Defendant  
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. 
 
[ADDITIONAL COUNSEL LISTED IN SIGNATURE BLOCK] 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA  
SAN DIEGO DIVISION 
IN RE: BANK OF AMERICA 
CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT 
BENEFITS LITIGATION 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Case No. 3:21-MD-02992-GPC-MSB 
DEFENDANT BANK OF 
AMERICA, N.A.’S OPPOSITION 
TO PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE 
APPLICATION TO FILE A 30-
PAGE REPLY  
 
   
 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 370     Filed 11/19/24     PageID.13772     Page
1 of 6

 
 
 
 
1 
DEF.’S OPP. TO PLS.’ APP. TO FILE 30-PAGE REPLY 
CASE NO. 21-MD-02992-GPC-MSB 
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 
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 
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 
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 
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 
 
Nearly four weeks after receipt of Defendant Bank of America, N.A.’s 
(“BANA”) Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification, nine months after 
the parties negotiated page limits for class certification briefing, and two days before 
the due date, Plaintiffs ask the Court to increase the size of their already oversized 
reply brief by 50% and file a 30-page reply brief.  Good cause does not exist to triple 
the size of a reply brief as permitted under the Local Rules.  Plaintiffs’ eleventh hour 
ex parte application should be denied. 
I. 
Background 
Local Civil Rule 7.1(h) limits reply briefs to ten pages.  Upon a showing of 
good cause demonstrating the need for additional pages, the court has discretion 
expand the limits.  See, e.g., Fleming v. Coverstone, No. 08CV355 WQH (NLS), 
2009 WL 764887 at *2 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2009) (permitting an 11-page reply where 
necessary to address defendant’s response). 
Nine months ago, in February 2024, the parties negotiated expanded page 
limits for class certification briefing.  Specifically, BANA proposed page limits of 
35-35-15 for the Motion, Opposition and Reply, respectively, but ultimately agreed 
to compromise at page limits of 45-45-20, for a total of 110 pages of briefing in 
connection with class certification.  Declaration of Laura G. Brys (“Brys Decl.”) ¶ 4.  
Five months later, after obtaining additional extensions of the case schedule, 
Plaintiffs followed up on the parties’ February agreement with a proposed joint 
motion.  Id. ¶ 5.  On July 25, 2024, the parties jointly moved for the current negotiated 
page limits, ECF 306, which the Court entered, ECF 309, (the “Ordered Limits”). 
 
Pursuant to the Ordered Limits, Plaintiffs filed a 45-page Motion on August 
29.  ECF 324.  The Motion was accompanied by four expert reports totaling 265 
pages, in addition to 153 exhibits totaling 2,151 pages.  ECF 342-4 to 342-163.  In 
response, BANA worked diligently to comply with the agreed-upon and Court-
ordered schedule, as well as the Ordered Limits, and filed its 45-page Opposition on 
October 24, 2024.  ECF 360.  Like Plaintiffs’ Motion, BANA’s Opposition was 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 370     Filed 11/19/24     PageID.13773     Page
2 of 6

 
 
 
 
2 
DEF.’S OPP. TO PLS.’ APP. TO FILE 30-PAGE REPLY 
CASE NO. 21-MD-02992-GPC-MSB 
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 
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 
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 
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 
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 
accompanied by ancillary documents, including 124 exhibits, among them expert 
reports that responded to the reports filed by Plaintiffs.  ECF 360-3 to 360-124. 
Four days later, on October 28, 2024, Plaintiffs asked BANA to stipulate to a 
two-week extension for Plaintiffs’ Reply.  Brys Decl. ¶ 6.  BANA responded the next 
day, requesting a copy of the proposed motion and Plaintiffs’ grounds for requesting 
an extension, given that the briefing schedule had already been subject to negotiation 
and ordered by the Court.  Id. ¶ 7.  Plaintiffs never provided either the requested 
motion or grounds for an extension.  Id.  Instead, three weeks later, and less than 
three days before the deadline for their Reply, Plaintiffs asked BANA to stipulate to 
a 50% increase of their page limits for their Reply, for a total of 30 pages.  ECF 369-
1 ¶ 3. 
II. 
Plaintiffs’ Application Should Be Denied. 
There is no good cause for Plaintiffs to file a Reply in excess of the Ordered 
Limits.  In lieu of explaining why any particular argument in BANA’s Opposition 
was unforeseen or why any piece of evidence in support thereof was unexpected, thus 
requiring additional pages beyond what the parties negotiated and the Court ordered, 
Plaintiffs support their request with a barebones recital of the filing:  BANA filed a 
45-page Opposition (as agreed by the parties and ordered by the Court), 122 exhibits 
(Plaintiffs filed 153) and five expert reports (which responded to Plaintiffs’ own four 
experts, whose reports totaled 60 more pages than BANA’s five reports).  ECF 369 
at 1, ECF 36-1 ¶ 6.  The filing of a 45-page Opposition – to which the parties already 
agreed – does not constitute good cause for a 30-page Reply.  See, e.g., Siegler v. 
Sorrento Therapeutics, Inc., 2019 WL 4261054, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 9, 2019) 
(denying ex parte motion for leave to file excess pages in forthcoming brief where 
plaintiff “failed to explain in sufficient detail why this is necessary” and where 
“[g]ranting this request would double the page length of her reply”); see also Traylor 
Bros. v. San Diego Unified Port Dist., 2012 WL 1019966, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 
2012); Laryngeal Mask Co. Ltd. v. Ambu A/S, No. 07CV1988-DMS (NLS), 2009 WL 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 370     Filed 11/19/24     PageID.13774     Page
3 of 6

 
 
 
 
3 
DEF.’S OPP. TO PLS.’ APP. TO FILE 30-PAGE REPLY 
CASE NO. 21-MD-02992-GPC-MSB 
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 
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 
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 
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 
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 
10672405, at *1 (S.D. Cal. July 17, 2009). 
Plaintiffs’ application should also be denied because Plaintiffs’ request comes 
too late.  In July 2024, when the parties filed their joint motion for additional pages, 
and in August 2024, when Plaintiffs filed their 45-page Motion, 153 exhibits, and 
four expert reports, Plaintiffs were clearly aware of the issues and the likely evidence 
BANA would submit in response.  Likewise, Plaintiffs have now had BANA’s 
application for nearly four weeks, and their application cites no support for allowing 
a 50% increase to the already double-the-presumptive-limit page limitations on their 
Reply two days before the due date. 
Because there is no good cause to grant Plaintiffs’ belated request to file a 30-
page Reply, the Application should be denied.1 
 
Dated:  November 19, 2024 
Respectfully submitted, 
 
 
 
By: s/ Laura G. Brys__________________ 
 
 JAMES W. MCGARRY (pro hac vice) 
JMcGarry@goodwinlaw.com 
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP 
100 Northern Avenue 
Boston, MA  02210 
Tel.: +1 617 570 1000 
Fax: +1 617 523 1231 
 
THOMAS M. HEFFERON (pro hac vice) 
THefferon@goodwinlaw.com 
SABRINA M. ROSE-SMITH (pro hac vice) 
SRoseSmith@goodwinlaw.com 
MATTHEW L. RIFFEE (pro hac vice) 
MRiffee@goodwinlaw.com 
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP 
1900 N St. NW  
Washington, DC 20036  
Tel: +1 202 346 4000  
Fax: +1 202 346 4444 
 
LAURA G. BRYS (SBN 242100) 
LBrys@goodwinlaw.com 
 
1 BANA opposes Plaintiffs’ application and believes that 110 pages of briefing is 
more than sufficient to address class certification.  However, if the Court grants 
Plaintiffs’ ten additional pages for their Reply, BANA reserves the right to seek leave 
to file a sur-reply, not to exceed ten pages, after review of Plaintiffs’ filing. 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 370     Filed 11/19/24     PageID.13775     Page
4 of 6

 
 
 
 
4 
DEF.’S OPP. TO PLS.’ APP. TO FILE 30-PAGE REPLY 
CASE NO. 21-MD-02992-GPC-MSB 
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 
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 
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 
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 
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 
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP 
601 S Figueroa St., Suite 4100 
Los Angeles, CA 90017 
Tel.: +1 213 426 2500 
Fax: +1 617 346 4444 
 
YVONNE W. CHAN (pro hac vice) 
YChan@jonesday.com 
JONES DAY 
100 High Street 
Boston, MA  02110 
Tel.: +1 617 960 3939 
Fax: +1 617 449 6999 
 
JANICE P. BROWN (SBN 114433) 
jbrown@myersnave.com 
MATTHEW B. NAZARETH (SBN 278405) 
mnazareth@myersnave.com 
MEYERS NAVE 
600 B Street, Suite 1650 
San Diego, CA 92101 
Attorneys for Defendant 
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. 
 
 
 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 370     Filed 11/19/24     PageID.13776     Page
5 of 6

 
 
 
 
5 
DEF.’S OPP. TO PLS.’ APP. TO FILE 30-PAGE REPLY 
CASE NO. 21-MD-02992-GPC-MSB 
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 
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 
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 
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 
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 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
I hereby certify that I electronically filed the foregoing with the clerk of the 
court for the United States District Court for the Southern District of California by 
using the CM/ECF system on November 19, 2024.  I further certify that all 
participants in the case are registered CM/ECF users and that service will be 
accomplished by the CM/ECF system. I certify under penalty of perjury that the 
foregoing is true and correct. 
 
 
Executed: 
November 19, 2024  
s/ Laura G. Brys 
 
 
 
 
 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 370     Filed 11/19/24     PageID.13777     Page
6 of 6

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.casd.709615.370.0.pdf

Size

176,646 bytes

SHA-256

ce29b3157c3fefd0a9b1a9a8f100ca1350528fec69951dca5998068fbc0faff7

Our copy

gov.uscourts.casd.709615.370.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)