14AF — In re Bank of America California Unemployment Benefits Litigation (Dkt. 591-31, 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. 591-31 · 2025-10-17 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

DX 14.AF 
 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 591-31     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.41461 
Page 1 of 7

·1· · · · · · · · ·UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
·2· · · · · · · ·SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
·3
·4· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·)
· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·)
·5· ·IN RE BANK OF AMERICA· · · · · ·) Case No.:
· · ·CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT· · · · ·) 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB
·6· ·BENEFITS LITIGATION· · · · · · ·)
· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·)
·7· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·)
· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·)
·8· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·)
· · ·______________________________· )
·9
10
11
12
13
14· · · · · · ·DEPOSITION BY WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF
15· · · · CALIFORNIA EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
16· · · · · · · · · ·(READ BY SHAMEEL SINGH)
17· · · · · · · · · · · Appearing Remotely
18· · · · · · · · · · Thursday, May 8, 2025
19
20
21
22
23
24· ·Stenographically reported by:
· · ·EMILY SAMELSON, CSR No. 14043
25· ·Job No.: 10163945
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 591-31     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.41462 
Page 2 of 7
Shameel Singh
In Re Bank of America CA Unemployment Benefits Litigation
www.aptusCR.com
Shameel Singh
In Re Bank of America CA Unemployment Benefits Litigation
www.aptusCR.com
Page 1

·1· ·and/or can obtain from other sources, including
·2· ·documents already produced.
·3· · · · · · To the extent this information has already been
·4· ·produced, BANA further objects to Question No. 15 as the
·5· ·documents speak for themselves.
·6· · · · · · BANA further objects to Question No. 15 to the
·7· ·extent it seeks information protected from discovery by
·8· ·the attorney-client privilege, the work product
·9· ·doctrine, the joint defense or common interest
10· ·privilege, and the bank examiner, supervisory,
11· ·investigative, or other regulatory privileges.
12· · · · · · EDD joins in these objections to
13· ·Question No. 15.
14· · · · · · Shameel, you may respond.
15· · · · · · THE WITNESS:· As to the records EDD has, EDD
16· ·has records showing the dates EDD began issuing paper
17· ·checks to EDD debit cardholders between September 28th,
18· ·2020, and March 18th, 2021.
19· · · · · · However, EDD's records do not distinguish
20· ·between claimants who were moved to paper checks due to
21· ·Bank-initiated freezes or claimants who were moved to
22· ·paper checks for reasons other than Bank-initiated
23· ·freezes.
24· · · · · · As to whether the EDD debit cardholders who
25· ·were issued paper checks are identifiable through a Card
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 591-31     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.41463 
Page 3 of 7
Shameel Singh
In Re Bank of America CA Unemployment Benefits Litigation
www.aptusCR.com
Shameel Singh
In Re Bank of America CA Unemployment Benefits Litigation
www.aptusCR.com
Page 37
YVer1f

·1· · · · · · Plaintiffs further object to
·2· ·Cross-Question No. 23 as vague and ambiguous, including
·3· ·to the extent that Cross-Question No. 23 does not state
·4· ·whether it is referring to EDD paying any or all
·5· ·cardholders whose accounts were frozen via paper check.
·6· · · · · · Plaintiffs also object to Cross-Question No. 23
·7· ·as vague, ambiguous, burdensome, and well beyond the
·8· ·permissible scope of discovery insofar as it does not
·9· ·specify whether this cross-question is limited to EDD
10· ·benefits recipients who received their benefits through
11· ·BANA-issued prepaid debit cards.
12· · · · · · EDD joins in these objections to
13· ·Question No. 23.
14· · · · · · Shameel, you may respond.
15· · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Yes, if those EDD debit
16· ·cardholders were still eligible to receive benefit
17· ·payments.
18· ·BY MS. COSTANTINI:
19· · · ·Q· · Cross-Question No. 24:· What was EDD's process
20· ·for paying unemployment insurance benefits recipients
21· ·via paper checks?
22· · · · · · MS. BRYS:· Plaintiffs' objections to Question
23· ·No. 24 are as follows.
24· · · · · · Plaintiffs incorporate by reference its general
25· ·objections as if fully set forth herein.
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 591-31     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.41464 
Page 4 of 7
Shameel Singh
In Re Bank of America CA Unemployment Benefits Litigation
www.aptusCR.com
Shameel Singh
In Re Bank of America CA Unemployment Benefits Litigation
www.aptusCR.com
Page 58
YVer1f

·1· · · · · · Plaintiffs further object because
·2· ·Cross-Question No. 24 is not limited to any particular
·3· ·time frame and therefore is vague, ambiguous, overbroad,
·4· ·unduly burdensome, and seeks information not relevant to
·5· ·any issue, claim, or defense in this litigation.
·6· · · · · · Plaintiffs further object to
·7· ·Cross-Question No. 24 as beyond the scope of plaintiffs’
·8· ·deposition of third party California Employment
·9· ·Development Department.
10· · · · · · Plaintiffs also object to Cross-Question No. 24
11· ·as vague, ambiguous, burdensome, and well beyond the
12· ·permissible scope of discovery insofar as it does not
13· ·specify whether this Cross-Question is limited to EDD
14· ·benefits recipients who received their benefits through
15· ·BANA-issued prepaid debit cards.
16· · · · · · Plaintiffs further object to this
17· ·Cross-Question No. 24 because of the undefined terms
18· ·that are impermissibly overbroad, vague and ambiguous,
19· ·and unduly burdensome, including “process.”
20· · · · · · EDD joins in these objections to
21· ·Cross-Question No. 24.
22· · · · · · Shameel, you may respond.
23· · · · · · THE WITNESS:· The normal process for paying
24· ·claimants by paper check involved sending a daily
25· ·payment file from the EDD mainframe to EDD's Office of
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 591-31     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.41465 
Page 5 of 7
Shameel Singh
In Re Bank of America CA Unemployment Benefits Litigation
www.aptusCR.com
Shameel Singh
In Re Bank of America CA Unemployment Benefits Litigation
www.aptusCR.com
Page 59
YVer1f

·1· ·Documents, Publications, and Distributions (ODPD), who
·2· ·is responsible for printing and mailing checks daily
·3· ·Monday through Saturday.
·4· · · · · · The payment file is generated based on an
·5· ·authorization for payment derived from claimants' weekly
·6· ·certifications.· The payment file sent to ODPD is based
·7· ·on the payment method of record stored within EDD's
·8· ·single-client database.
·9· · · · · · If the claimant indicated their preferred
10· ·payment method is by debit card instead of paper check,
11· ·a separate payment file was generated and sent to the
12· ·Bank to provide payment to the claimant's EDD debit card
13· ·account.
14· ·BY MS. COSTANTINI:
15· · · ·Q· · Cross-Question No. 25:· Did EDD execute a
16· ·contract with BANA on or around October 13, 2015, that
17· ·specified that all cards would “contain no less than an
18· ·ISO 7811-compliant high coercivity magnetic strip”?
19· · · · · · MS. COSTANTINI:· Plaintiffs' objections to
20· ·No. 25 are as follows.
21· · · · · · Plaintiffs incorporate by reference its general
22· ·objections as if fully set forth herein.
23· · · · · · Plaintiffs object to Cross-Question No. 25 as
24· ·overbroad, unduly burdensome, and harassing in that it
25· ·seeks information that the Bank has access to and/or can
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 591-31     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.41466 
Page 6 of 7
Shameel Singh
In Re Bank of America CA Unemployment Benefits Litigation
www.aptusCR.com
Shameel Singh
In Re Bank of America CA Unemployment Benefits Litigation
www.aptusCR.com
Page 60
YVer1f

·1· · · · · · I, the undersigned, a Certified Shorthand
·2· ·Reporter of the State of California do hereby certify:
·3· · · · · · That the foregoing proceedings were taken
·4· ·before me at the time and place herein set forth; that
·5· ·any witnesses in the foregoing proceedings, prior to
·6· ·testifying, were duly sworn; that a verbatim record of
·7· ·the proceedings was made by me using machine shorthand
·8· ·which was thereafter transcribed under my direction;
·9· ·that the foregoing transcript is an accurate
10· ·transcription thereof.
11· · · · · · Further, that if the foregoing pertains to the
12· ·original transcript of a deposition in a federal case,
13· ·before completion of the proceedings, review of the
14· ·transcript [X] was [ ] was not requested.
15· · · · · · I further certify I am neither financially
16· ·interested in the action nor a relative or employee of
17· ·any attorney or any of the parties.
18· · · · · · IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have this date subscribed
19· ·my name.
20
21· · · · · · Dated:· 22nd of May, 2025
22
23
24· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · _________________________
· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · EMILY SAMELSON,
25· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · CSR No. 14043
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 591-31     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.41467 
Page 7 of 7
Shameel Singh
In Re Bank of America CA Unemployment Benefits Litigation
www.aptusCR.com
Shameel Singh
In Re Bank of America CA Unemployment Benefits Litigation
www.aptusCR.com
Page 66

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.casd.709615.591.31.pdf

Size

130,247 bytes

SHA-256

85d0f9bd0f66834bd9a1c12aeae4f0458ca464c3054a76964cde2a80c7e7f07e

Our copy

gov.uscourts.casd.709615.591.31.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)