Reply to Response to Motion re 453 Motion for Protective Order — In re BofA Unemployment Litigation (Dkt. 472)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California · No. 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB · Doc. 472 · 2025-05-02 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

REPLY ISO DEFENDANT’S MOT. FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER  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 
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 
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 
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. 21-MD-02992-GPC-MSB 
REPLY IN SUPPORT OF 
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR A 
PROTECTIVE ORDER 
  
Ctrm:   
 2D – 2nd Floor    
Judge:  
 Hon. Gonzalo P. Curiel 
 
FILED PROVISIONALLY UNDER SEAL 
PURSUANT TO STIPULATED PROTECTIVE 
ORDER 
 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 472     Filed 05/02/25     PageID.28746     Page
1 of 16

 
 
 
i 
 
REPLY ISO DEFENDANT’S MOT. FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER  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 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................. 2 
I. 
There Is No Basis For Deposing Mr. Moynihan. ............................................ 2 
II. 
There Is No Basis For Deposing Mr. Montag ................................................. 7 
CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 10 
 
 
 
 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 472     Filed 05/02/25     PageID.28747     Page
2 of 16

 
 
 
ii 
 
REPLY ISO DEFENDANT’S MOT. FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER  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 
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 
 
Page(s) 
Cases 
Affinity Labs of Tex. v. Apple, Inc., 
2011 WL 1753982 (N.D. Cal. May 9, 2011) ................................................... 5, 6 
Cochran v. Brinkmann Corp., 
2009 WL 10668460 (N.D. Ga. 2009) ................................................................... 8 
Davis v. Pinterest, Inc., 
2021 WL 11117688 (N.D. Cal. May 27, 2021) ................................................... 7 
In re Google Litig., 
2011 WL 4985279 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2011) ...................................................... 1 
Greer v. Cnty. Of San Diego, 
2022 WL 2134601 (S.D. Cal. June 14, 2022) ...................................................... 1 
Harris v. Computer Assocs. Int’l, Inc., 
204 F.R.D. 44 (E.D.N.Y. 2001)........................................................................ 4, 8 
Jet Blast, Inc. v. Blue Lake Serv., LLC, 
2025 WL 254066 (N.D. Fla. Jan. 21, 2025) ..................................................... 4, 5 
Keatley v. Union P. Railroad Co., 
2024 WL 4906135 (D. Neb. Nov. 27, 2024) ........................................................ 4 
Kormylo v. Forever Resorts, 
LLC, 2015 WL 5311484 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 11, 2015) ............................................ 8 
Patagonia, Inc. v. Anheuser Busch, LLC, 
2020 WL 12048987 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 23, 2020) ................................................. 10 
Schmitz v. Asman, 
2023 WL 3224474 (E.D. Cal. May 3, 2023) ........................................................ 8 
Court Rules 
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(b) ...................................................................... 8 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 472     Filed 05/02/25     PageID.28748     Page
3 of 16

 
 
 
1 
 
REPLY ISO DEFENDANT’S MOT. FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER  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 
Plaintiffs’ opposition to BANA’s Motion for Protective Order (“Motion” or 
“Mot.”) does not seriously engage with BANA’s Motion, and simply fails on the law 
and the facts.   
On the law, Plaintiffs all but ignore the law governing apex depositions, 
instead citing general discovery principles to suggest that BANA bears the burden to 
show that these depositions should not proceed. Plaintiffs’ Memorandum of Points 
and Authorities in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for a Protective Order 
(“Opposition” or “Opp.”) 4. That is wrong. As BANA explained at length (Mot. 8-
9), it is Plaintiffs that must show (1) that Messrs. Moynihan and Montag have “unique 
first-hand, non-repetitive knowledge of the facts at issue in the case,” and (2) that 
Plaintiffs have “exhausted other less intrusive discovery methods.” In re Google 
Litig., 2011 WL 4985279, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2011); see also Greer v. Cnty. Of 
San Diego, 2022 WL 2134601, at *3 (S.D. Cal. June 14, 2022) (making clear that 
Plaintiffs bear the burden). Plaintiffs also repeatedly argue that these depositions 
should proceed because other BANA employees might have communicated relevant 
information to Messrs. Moynihan and Montag. That argument fails under any 
conception of the apex doctrine. Information that the executives received from others 
is by definition information that is not unique, first-hand, or non-repetitive, and it 
therefore provides no basis for proceeding with these depositions.    
Plaintiffs fare no better on the facts. To start, Plaintiffs’ suggestion that “the 
Bank relies solely on Moynihan and Montag’s executive status” is simply not 
credible. Opp. 4. Beyond that, the crux of Plaintiffs’ argument is that Mr. Moynihan 
(or Mr. Montag, at Mr. Moynihan’s direction) is the most likely candidate to have 
 
. The evidence shows that Cathy Bessant, 
 
 
. Yet Plaintiffs never 
even sought to depose Ms. Bessant. See infra at 3. Instead, Plaintiffs prefer to 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 472     Filed 05/02/25     PageID.28749     Page
4 of 16

 
 
 
2 
 
REPLY ISO DEFENDANT’S MOT. FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER  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 
speculate that Mr. Moynihan 
 
. 
That comes nowhere near satisfying Plaintiffs’ burden—particularly because BANA 
has direct testimony from Mr. Ahmad (the person Plaintiffs claim Mr. Moynihan 
spoke with) that 
 
. Mot. 7, 16.  
Against this backdrop, Plaintiffs’ speculation about what might have been 
discussed with Messrs. Moynihan and Montag is plainly lacking. Plaintiffs’ 
remaining arguments fare no better, as their cited evidence suggests at most that 
Messrs. Moynihan and Montag had information that was irrelevant, repetitive, or 
both. That should be the end of the fishing expedition, which Plaintiffs long ago 
confessed stems not from fact, but a desire to push settlement via executive 
discovery. Despite the extensive record available, Plaintiffs still have provided 
absolutely no basis for pushing ahead with yet another round of intrusive discovery 
in the hopes that this time it might turn up something relevant, all evidence to the 
contrary. BANA therefore respectfully requests that the Court grant its Motion.      
ARGUMENT 
I. 
There Is No Basis For Deposing Mr. Moynihan. 
Plaintiffs’ request to depose Mr. Moynihan turns primarily on their assertions 
that he was “a key driver” of the development of the fraud filter and the 
“decisionmaker who gave approval for the implementation of the fraud filter.” Opp. 
7, 12-15. Both statements are wrong. Plaintiffs juxtapose (at 7, 12-15) a string of 
communications from September 27-28, 2020—none of which include Mr. 
Moynihan—to argue that Mr. Moynihan approved the fraud filter, but none of 
Plaintiffs’ exhibits support their assumption. The evidence confirms the opposite: 
Mr. Moynihan was not involved in the development or approval of the fraud filter.    
BANA presented direct evidence that Mr. Moynihan was not involved in the 
decision to approve the fraud filter. Faiz Ahmad, 
 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 472     Filed 05/02/25     PageID.28750     Page
5 of 16

Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 472     Filed 05/02/25     PageID.28751     Page
6 of 16

Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 472     Filed 05/02/25     PageID.28752     Page
7 of 16

 
 
 
5 
 
REPLY ISO DEFENDANT’S MOT. FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER  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 
wholly speculative statement 
 
. See Mot. 20-21 
 
).3 Even if a conversation did take place between Messrs. Montag and 
Moynihan, that still does nothing to establish their unique knowledge about the fraud 
filter, or that they directed, approved, or ratified its use with ill-intent.    
Directives to Reduce Fraud Loss (Opp. 8-11): Plaintiffs argue that 
 
. But 
there is simply no evidence this was the case, and Mr. Moynihan’s own testimony 
would not shed any light on whether 
 
 even if it were true (and it is not).  
Riffee Decl. Ex. 5, Ahmad Tr. at 93:25-94:9.  Nor would 
 
, be relevant to Plaintiffs’ punitive damages claims. 
Plaintiffs otherwise rely entirely on communications from other BANA 
executives discussing 
 
. See Opp. 8-11; Mot. 11-15. Plaintiffs cannot justify an apex deposition 
based on information provided entirely by other witnesses. See Jet Blast, 2025 WL 
254066, at *3. Moreover, the fact that Mr. Moynihan may have received information 
about 
 cannot satisfy Plaintiffs’ “burden to show that [Mr. Moynihan] 
had ‘unique’ and ‘non-repetitive knowledge’ regarding any relevant topic.” Affinity 
Labs of Tex. v. Apple, Inc., 2011 WL 1753982, at *16 (N.D. Cal. May 9, 2011).    
Plaintiffs cite, for example, emails suggesting that 
 
. Opp. 9 (discussing 
Danitz Ex. 7). Likewise, Plaintiffs point to an email from Paul Simpson to 
Ms. Bessant noting 
 
. Opp. 
9-10 (discussing Danitz Ex. 8). Even if that information was communicated to Mr. 
Moynihan, it merely underscores that he has no unique knowledge of the information 
 
3 Plaintiffs never sought to depose Mr. Firpi. Mot. 14; Riffee Decl. ¶ 22. 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 472     Filed 05/02/25     PageID.28753     Page
8 of 16

 
 
 
6 
 
REPLY ISO DEFENDANT’S MOT. FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER  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 
that may have been presented (much less the fraud filter). In other words, the only 
evidence Plaintiffs can muster is communications from others with information that 
may or may not have been communicated to Mr. Moynihan. Mot. 12-13.  
Ongoing Monitoring of CFF Policies (Opp. 15-16): Plaintiffs argue that 
Mr. Moynihan 
 Opp. 15. Again, their 
evidence consists almost entirely of communication to Mr. Moynihan with 
information regarding 
, and his receipt of information from others is 
plainly insufficient to support an apex deposition.  See supra at 5; see also Mot. 11. 
The only evidence Plaintiffs identify regarding Mr. Moynihan’s views is irrelevant 
to their punitive damages claim. Plaintiffs point to a single statement that was 
purportedly communicated from Mr. Moynihan—namely, that 
 
 Opp. 15 (quoting Danitz Ex. 19). But 
Mr. Moynihan’s 
 
 let alone whether Mr. Moynihan implemented BANA’s 
policies with the ill-intent needed to support a claim for punitive damages.  
Communications with the Board (Opp. 16-17): Plaintiffs next suggest that 
even if Mr. Moynihan only conveyed updates from others to BANA’s Board of 
Directors, he nevertheless “had ultimate decision-making authority and his 
knowledge is imputable to the Bank and of paramount relevance.” Opp. 16. It is 
always the case that a company’s CEO reports to its Board of Directors. See Mot. 12, 
24. If Plaintiffs’ bald speculation that someone might have said something relevant 
at a Board meeting were sufficient to depose a chief executive, the apex doctrine 
would evaporate. Cf. Affinity Labs, 2011 WL 1753982, at *16 (“Courts have 
repeatedly denied apex depositions even on a showing that the executive made public 
statements on relevant issues.”). That is particularly true here as Plaintiffs have all of 
the relevant 
. Mot. 12 & n.8.    
Awareness of Customer Complaints (Opp. 17): Grasping at straws, Plaintiffs 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 472     Filed 05/02/25     PageID.28754     Page
9 of 16

 
 
 
7 
 
REPLY ISO DEFENDANT’S MOT. FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER  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 
note that Mr. Moynihan received 
 
, and that because Mr. “Moynihan is the only person who 
can speak to what he knew and what, if anything he did in response to these,” 
Plaintiffs should be permitted to subject him to a wide-ranging deposition. Opp. 8, 
17. As BANA explained, there is no evidence that Mr. Moynihan took any action or 
had any role in 
 
. Mot. 15. And Plaintiffs make no attempt 
to address why this apex deposition “is warranted by the fact that he 
 
, when 
courts have previously held the opposite. Davis v. Pinterest, Inc., 2021 WL 
11117688, at *1 (N.D. Cal. May 27, 2021) (cited at Mot. 15).   
Call Center and EMV Chip Knowledge (Opp. 17-19): Finally, Plaintiffs 
suggest that Mr. Moynihan has “personal knowledge about matters relevant to the 
claims of the proposed Customer Service and EMV Chip classes.” Opp. 17. Once 
again, their argument rests on statements by other employees suggesting that they 
would provide updates to Mr. Moynihan. The only action Plaintiffs identify that 
might have involved Mr. Moynihan himself is 
 
 Opp. 18 
(discussing Danitz Ex. 13). As discussed above, 
 
, see supra at n.1, and there is no indication that 
Mr. Moynihan was involved in this decision. Even if Mr. Moynihan were involved, 
 does not show that he has any unique, non-
repetitive knowledge regarding 
—particularly because the remainder of 
Plaintiffs’ evidence shows that other BANA employees had direct involvement. 
II. 
There Is No Basis For Deposing Mr. Montag. 
Plaintiffs’ arguments with respect to Mr. Montag fail for the same reasons as 
their arguments for Mr. Moynihan. Plaintiffs have not identified any unique 
information possessed by Mr. Montag that would separately justify his deposition, 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 472     Filed 05/02/25     PageID.28755     Page
10 of 16

 
 
 
8 
 
REPLY ISO DEFENDANT’S MOT. FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER  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 
much less the deposition of two apex witnesses.4   
First, Plaintiffs cannot obtain an apex deposition because Mr. Montag 
 
 Opp. 19 (discussing Danitz Ex. 50, Ahmad Tr. at 131:7-14). At most that 
would show he possessed whatever information Mr. Ahmad communicated to him. 
Absent a showing that Mr. Montag can “contribute … more” than Mr. Ahmad, there 
is no basis to take Mr. Montag’s deposition in addition to Mr. Ahmad’s deposition. 
Harris, 204 F.R.D. at 46. Mr. Montag’s testimony will not “add to the testimony of 
other witnesses whose knowledge of the facts at issue is both more granular and more 
relevant than” his is likely to be. Kormylo v. Forever Resorts, LLC, 2015 WL 
5311484, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 11, 2015) (precluding apex deposition). 
Next, as discussed above, Plaintiffs speculate that a deposition will reveal non-
repetitive information from either a 
 
 
. Opp. 19. But there is no evidence to support that. See Mot. 12-
14, 16-18; supra at 4-5. If Mr. Moynihan and Mr. Montag did meet to discuss 
 
 there is nothing at all in the record to substantiate 
Plaintiffs’ contention that 
 
 
4 If the Court is inclined to permit the deposition of any apex executive (and it should 
not), the Court should limit its approval to a single one- or two-hour deposition of a 
seni
orting line from and direct oversight of 
the 
 (which clearly was not Mr. Moynihan 
– se
sition should be solely about Plaintiffs’ 
claims for punitive damages. Under Plaintiffs’ own theory, any unique knowledge 
BANA’s apex executives have on the relevant topics would be shared between them, 
and there is no reason to allow burdensome depositions to proceed with respect to 
both executives—particularly when the basis for those depositions is so speculative 
and unsupported (or refuted) by the record (Mot. 12-14, 16-18; supra at 3-7). See 
Cochran v. Brinkmann Corp., 2009 WL 10668460, at *1, 3 (N.D. Ga. 2009) (limiting 
apex deposition “to those topics for which [the executive] can give unique, personal 
testimony”). Moreover, since Plaintiffs only seek apex depositions for the limited 
purpose of punitive damages, which only would be relevant if Plaintiffs can first 
prove liability and entitlement to compensatory damages, any deposition that may be 
permitted should be limited in scope and time, and can be deferred at least until after 
the Court considers dispositive motions. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(b); Schmitz v. Asman, 
2023 WL 3224474, at *3 (E.D. Cal. May 3, 2023) (staying “discovery on issues 
solely pertaining to punitive damages . . . pending resolution of dispositive motions”). 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 472     Filed 05/02/25     PageID.28756     Page
11 of 16

Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 472     Filed 05/02/25     PageID.28757     Page
12 of 16

 
 
 
10 
 
REPLY ISO DEFENDANT’S MOT. FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER  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 
Directives to Reduce Fraud Losses (Opp. 20-21): According to Plaintiffs, 
Mr. Montag was 
 
 Opp. 21. An apex deposition is not available merely 
because an executive was “involved in the discussions” regarding a general topic area 
relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims. Plaintiffs still must show that Mr. Montag had unique 
information that could not be obtained through the BANA executives that Plaintiffs 
deposed (or had the opportunity to depose). See Patagonia, Inc. v. Anheuser Busch, 
LLC, 2020 WL 12048987, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 23, 2020) (granting protective order 
on topic that was “the subject of deposition testimony by others more 
knowledgeable”). All the evidence points in the opposite direction—namely, that Mr. 
Montag was provided information by other employees. See supra at 7-8; Mot. 12-13.   
Plaintiffs further speculate that Mr. Montag 
 
 Opp. 20, but 
Mr. Ahmad testified that 
 
Riffee Ex. 5, Ahmad Tr. 109:10-111:10. Regardless, 
 
 
 (Opp. 20)—let alone intent to cause harm. See also Mot. 20. 
Call Center Understaffing (Opp. 22-23): Plaintiffs argue that Mr. Montag 
should be deposed because he was not 
 
. If Plaintiffs propose to support their punitive 
damages claim because Mr. Montag 
 
, then their theory for punitive damages is not 
just wrong but frivolous. And, as is plain from the face of the document Plaintiffs 
cite, Mr. Montag 
, further undermining Plaintiffs’ 
claims that 
 were made with ill intent. Mot. 19-20. 
CONCLUSION 
For the foregoing reasons, BANA respectfully requests that the Court grant 
BANA’s request for a protective order. 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 472     Filed 05/02/25     PageID.28758     Page
13 of 16

 
 
 
11 
 
REPLY ISO DEFENDANT’S MOT. FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER  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 
 
Dated:   May 2, 2025 
Respectfully submitted, 
 
By: s/ MATTHEW L. RIFFEE 
 
MATTHEW L. RIFFEE (pro hac vice) 
MRiffee@goodwinlaw.com 
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 
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 
LAURA G. BRYS (SBN 242100) 
LBrys@goodwinlaw.com 
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP 
601 S Figueroa St., Suite 4100 
Los Angeles, CA 90017 
Tel.: +1 213 426 2500 
Fax: +1 617 346 4444 
VALERIE A. HAGGANS (pro hac vice) 
VHaggans@goodwinlaw.com 
LINDSAY E. HOYLE (pro hac vice) 
LHoyle@goodwinlaw.com 
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP 
620 Eighth Avenue 
New York, NY 10018 
Tel: +1 212 813-8800 
Fax: +1 212 355-3333 
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 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 472     Filed 05/02/25     PageID.28759     Page
14 of 16

 
 
 
12 
 
REPLY ISO DEFENDANT’S MOT. FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER  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 
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 472     Filed 05/02/25     PageID.28760     Page
15 of 16

 
 
 
13 
 
REPLY ISO DEFENDANT’S MOT. FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER  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 
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 May 2, 2025.  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: 
May 2, 2025 
 
s/ Matthew L. Riffee 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 472     Filed 05/02/25     PageID.28761     Page
16 of 16

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.casd.709615.472.0.pdf

Size

738,325 bytes

SHA-256

8b7dcb3fa27c0d3a6684376f5544767ef3632fe39a98685140358b2d5dae5cb7

Our copy

gov.uscourts.casd.709615.472.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)