Declaration re 472 Reply to Response to Motion by Defendant Bank of America, N.A. — In re BofA Unemployment Litigation (Dkt. 473)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California · No. 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB · Doc. 473 · 2025-05-02 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

HOYLE DECL. ISO MOT. FOR 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 
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. 
 
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 
DECLARATION OF LINDSAY E. 
HOYLE IN SUPPORT OF 
DEFENDANT’S REPLY IN 
SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR 
A PROTECTIVE ORDER 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 473     Filed 05/02/25     PageID.28762     Page
1 of 5

 
1 
HOYLE DECL. ISO MOT. FOR 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 
I, Lindsay E. Hoyle, state and declare as follows: 
1. 
I am Counsel with the law firm of Goodwin Procter LLP, and counsel 
of record for Defendant Bank of America, N.A. (“BANA”) in the above-captioned 
lawsuit.   
2. 
I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth in this declaration, and 
if called upon to do so, I could and would competently testify thereto. 
3. 
I make this declaration in support of BANA’s Reply in Support of Its 
Motion for a Protective Order (the “Reply”). 
I. 
 
 
Referenced in Plaintiffs’ Opposition to BANA’s Motion for a Protective 
Order. 
4. 
Emails produced in this matter discuss 
 
 
 
5. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
.   
6. 
BANA’s Privilege Logs 6 and 17, produced to Plaintiffs in January and 
July 2024, respectively, identify 
 
 
 
 
  
 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 473     Filed 05/02/25     PageID.28763     Page
2 of 5

 
2 
HOYLE DECL. ISO MOT. FOR 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 
 
 
 
 
II. 
Judge Berg Upheld BANA’s Privilege Claims Concerning 
 
. 
7. 
Plaintiffs previously challenged BANA’s privilege withholding of the 
, and Judge Berg ruled that BANA’s privilege 
claim was valid, and that the documents were properly withheld.   
8. 
On February 6, 2025, after meeting and conferring, the parties notified 
Judge Berg of their dispute and Plaintiffs’ intent to move to compel production of the 
.   
9. 
On February 19, 2025, the Parties submitted their informal letter briefs 
to Judge Berg, and BANA submitted multiple iterations of the 
 
 
, for the court’s in camera review.  
BANA also submitted its privilege log entries for the various iterations of the 
 challenged by Plaintiffs. 
10. 
On February 26, 2025, Judge Berg issued a tentative ruling upholding 
BANA’s assertion of privilege over the 
 on 
the basis of Attorney-Client Privilege. 
11. 
Plaintiffs did not challenge or appeal Judge Berg’s ruling. 
III. 
Depositions Sought or Taken by Plaintiffs in This Matter. 
12. 
As described in the Riffee Declaration submitted on April 11, 2025 in 
support of BANA’s Motion for a Protective Order (ECF 454), Plaintiffs have taken 
15 depositions in this case, including six depositions taken in response to Plaintiffs’ 
Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice, and nine individual fact depositions. 
13. 
Plaintiffs did not notice or otherwise take the deposition of other current 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 473     Filed 05/02/25     PageID.28764     Page
3 of 5

 
3 
HOYLE DECL. ISO MOT. FOR 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 
or former BANA employees, and specifically did not notice or otherwise take the 
deposition of BANA’s former 
 
, Cathy Bessant.  
IV. 
Exhibits  
14. 
Attached hereto as Exhibit 181 is a true and correct copy of an email 
produced by BANA, from Faiz Ahmad to Cathy Bessant, dated September 28, 2020, 
which was marked as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 319 during the January 29, 2025 deposition 
of Faiz Ahmad (BANA_EDD_MDL-00876417).  
15. 
Attached hereto as Exhibit 19 is a true and correct copy of excerpts of 
Bank of America’s Prepaid Organizational Structure, dated October 20, 2023, which 
was marked in its entirety as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 42 during the February 14, 2024 
deposition of William Matthew Martin (BANA_EDD_MDL-00057837), and which 
 
.  
16. 
Attached hereto as Exhibit 20 is a true and correct copy of additional 
excerpts of the official transcript of the deposition of Faiz Ahmad, dated January 29, 
2025.2 
17. 
Attached hereto as Exhibit 21 is a true and correct copy of additional 
excerpts of the official transcript of the deposition of Michael Letson, dated February 
16, 2024. 
 
 
 
 
 
1 BANA submits Exhibits 18-21 herewith in support of it Reply for the Court’s 
consideration in addition to Exhibits 1-17 that were previously submitted with the 
Riffee Declaration (ECF 454) in support of BANA’s Motion for Protective Order 
(ECF 453).   
2 BANA previously submitted other excerpts of the Ahmad transcript and Letson 
transcript in support of its Motion for a Protective Order as Exhibits 5 and 14, 
respectively, to the Riffee Declaration. Should the Court desire a full copy of either 
transcript, or any other transcript submitted in support of BANA’s Motion, BANA 
will provide a full copy to the Court upon request. 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 473     Filed 05/02/25     PageID.28765     Page
4 of 5

 
4 
HOYLE DECL. ISO MOT. FOR 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 
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the 
foregoing is true and correct.  Executed on May 2, 2025, in New York, NY. 
 
 
 
 
By: /s/ Lindsay E. Hoyle___ 
 
LINDSAY E. HOYLE (pro hac vice) 
LHoyle@goodwinlaw.com 
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP 
620 8th Avenue  
New York, NY 10018 
Tel.: +1 212 813 8800 
Fax: +1 212 355 3333 
Attorneys for Defendant 
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. 
 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 473     Filed 05/02/25     PageID.28766     Page
5 of 5

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.casd.709615.473.0.pdf

Size

167,171 bytes

SHA-256

ef70c6bf4e1a63696a8e4e30bbb908955e41679efb1d0bcfab8d707a88d1bd5e

Our copy

gov.uscourts.casd.709615.473.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)