Court filing

Exhibit M — In re Bank of America California Unemployment Benefits Litigation (Dkt. 623-15, S.D. Cal. No. 3:21-md-02992)

Summary

Exhibit M, filed January 8, 2026 as Document 623-15 in In re Bank of America California Unemployment Benefits Litigation, Case No. 3:21-md-02992, is plaintiff Candace Koole's redacted objections and supplemental responses to Bank of America, N.A.'s first set of interrogatories, dated January 29, 2024. The responses say that after Koole reported fraudulent ATM withdrawals from the EDD debit card account, the bank recorded a fraud claim on or about December 30, 2020 and froze the account that day. A Bank of America letter dated December 31, 2020 denied the claim, saying the account or the claim had been the subject of fraud or suspicious activity. Koole says later calls to the bank produced conflicting answers about the claim and the account. Koole verified the responses at Temecula, California.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Filed January 8, 2026 in In re Bank of America California Unemployment Benefits Litigation; one of 1602 filings from this case.

Record facts

Court	U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
Filed	2026-01-08

Cite this document

“Exhibit M — In re Bank of America California Unemployment Benefits Litigation (Dkt. 623-15, S.D. Cal. No. 3:21-md-02992).” U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, No. 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB, Doc. 623-15, filed 2026-01-08. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/court-filings/full-docket-bofa-ca-unemployment-casd-709615/2026-01-08-gov-uscourts-casd-709615-623-15-gov-uscourts-casd-709615-623-15/, SHA-256 ab3ca26f92133642ea2aae11e63ce6b70110005713bcc131159d2dd1df11a122.

Search CourtListener for this docket number

Full text

Text recognized from a scanned document; may contain errors.

Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 623-15 Filed 01/08/26 PagelD.45037
Page 1 of 45

EXHIBIT M

REDACTED
Case

B:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB

Page 2 of 45

JOSEPH W. COTCHETT (SBN 36324)
jcotchett@cpmlegal.com

RIAN DANITZ (SBN 247403)
bdanitz@cpmlegal.com
KARIN B. SWOPE (Pro Hac Vice)

kswope@cpmlegal.com

pea TLEY (SBN 328023)
rte al.com

oor , PITRE & McCARTHY,

840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200
Burlingame, CA 94010
Telephone: (650) 697-6000
Fax: (650) 697-0577

Document 623-15

Filed 01/08/26 PagelD.45038

MICHAEL RUBIN (SBN 80618)
mrubin@altber.com

STACEY M. LEYTON (SBN 203827)
sleyton@altber.com

MATTHEW MURRAY (SBN 271461)

CONNI . CHAN (SBN 284230)
cchan@altber.com

ALTSHULER BERZON LLP

177 Post Street, Suite 300

San Francisco, CA 94108

Telephone: (415) 421-7151

Fax: (415) 362-8064

Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE BANK OF AMERICA
CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT
BENEFITS LITIGATION

This Document Relates to All Actions

Case No. 3:21-md-02992-LAB-MSB

PLAINTIFF CANDACE KOOLE’S
OBJECTIONS AND SUPPLEMENTAL
RESPONSES TO BANK OF AMERICA,
N.A.’S FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES

Judge: Hon. Larry Alan Burns

PLAINTIFF CANDACE KOOLE’S OBJECTIONS AND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO

BANA’s FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case No. 3:21-md-02992-LAB-MSB

CONFIDENTIAL

1
Case

i3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 623-15 Filed 01/08/26 PagelD.45039

Page 3 of 45

TO DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. AND ITS ATTORNEYS
OF RECORD:
Pursuant to Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff Kuang
Ting Chong hereby responds and objects to Defendant Bank of America, N.A.’s
First Set of Interrogatories pursuant to the parties’ agreements and compromises as

follows:

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

Plaintiff Candace Koole (“Plaintiff”) provides these responses and
objections based only on information presently available to Plaintiff. Discovery,
investigation, and trial preparation are ongoing and not complete. Plaintiff reserves
the right to later modify, supplement, or amend these objections and responses as
additional information becomes available in the course of fact and expert
discovery, investigation, or trial preparation, or in the event that information that is
presently in Plaintiff's possession is inadvertently omitted or mistakenly stated
herein.

These responses should not be construed as, and do not constitute, a waiver
of Plaintiff's right to provide additional facts during this litigation, including at
class certification, summary judgment, or trial.

All objections as to privilege, relevance, authenticity, or admissibility of any

information or documents referred to herein are expressly reserved.

GENERAL OBJECTIONS

Plaintiff makes the following General Objections to each and every
Interrogatory. All responses set forth herein are subject to and without waiver of
any of these General Objections:

1. Plaintiff objects to the Interrogatories, including the “DEFINITIONS”
AND “INSTRUCTIONS,” to the extent they seek to impose on Plaintiff
obligations that are not imposed by law, or are otherwise inconsistent with the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Civil Rules of the United States

PLAINTIFF CANDACE KOOLE’S OBJECTIONS AND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO
BANA’s FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case No. 3:21-md-02992-LAB-MSB CONFIDENTIAL

2
Case

B:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 623-15 Filed 01/08/26 PagelD.45040

Page 4 of 45

District Court for the Southern District of California, applicable case law, or any
rule or order by the Court.

+4 Plaintiff objects to the Interrogatories to the extent they are overbroad,
burdensome, and oppressive, including because they are overbroad in scope or
duration and are unduly burdensome or oppressive because they would require a
search for information that is not relevant to the parties’ claims and/or defenses and
not proportional to the needs of this case. By responding to the Interrogatories,
Plaintiff does not concede the relevancy, materiality, or admissibility as evidence
of any of the information sought.

3. Plaintiff objects to the Interrogatories to the extent they seek
information that is private and protected from disclosure by the attorney-client
privilege, work product doctrine, the right to privacy, or any other applicable
privilege or immunity. Such information will not be disclosed. Inadvertent
disclosure of any such information is not intended to be, and shall not operate as, a
waiver of any applicable privilege, protection, or immunity, in whole or in part.

4. Plaintiff objects to the Interrogatories to the extent they seek
information that is: (a) within Defendant’s own knowledge, and/or to which
Defendant has equal or superior access; (b) readily available in Defendant’s own
records; or (c) publicly available, where the burden of collecting or compiling such
information is the same for all parties. Because the burden of deriving such
information is substantially the same or greater for Plaintiff, such Interrogatories
are unduly burdensome, oppressive, and harassing.

>. Plaintiff objects to the Interrogatories to the extent they are vague,
ambiguous, and uncertain such that Plaintiff cannot determine the nature of the
information sought and is therefore unable to provide such information.

6. Plaintiff objects to the Interrogatories to the extent they call for

argumentative or speculative answers or legal conclusions.

PLAINTIFF CANDACE KOOLE’S OBJECTIONS AND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO
BANA’s FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case No. 3:21-md-02992-LAB-MSB CONFIDENTIAL

3
Case

1B:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 623-15 Filed 01/08/26 PagelD.45041

Page 5 of 45

L Plaintiff objects to the Interrogatories to the extent they seek facts
known and opinions held by non-witness experts.

8. No objection, limitation, response, or lack thereof made in this
Response is intended as an admission by Plaintiff as to the existence or non-
existence of information responsive to the Interrogatories.

9. Plaintiff objects to the Interrogatories to the extent Defendant has
exceeded the number of permitted Interrogatories without obtaining leave of Court.
Defendants’ Interrogatories containing separate, discrete requests constitute
multiple interrogatories for purposes of the limit on the number of permissible
interrogatories.

10. Plaintiff objects to the Interrogatories to the extent Defendant has
defined “YOU” to include Plaintiff's agents, without defining that term, and to the
extent “agents” is intended to include Plaintiffs attorneys. Plaintiff's responses are
based solely upon information within Plaintiff's personal knowledge.

To the extent an Interrogatory is not objected to, Plaintiff used reasonable
diligence to obtain information responsive to the Interrogatory answered herein,
subject to the objections set forth above, based on examination of such files in
Plaintiff's possession, custody, or control as may reasonably be expected to yield
such information. To the extent that Defendant seeks to require Plaintiff to do more
than the foregoing, Plaintiff also objects to the Interrogatories on the grounds that
Defendant seeks information that is not relevant to any party’s claim or defense
and is not proportional to the needs of the case, and would subject Plaintiffs to
oppression, harassment, and undue burden and expense not commensurate with
any legitimate discovery need.

These responses are based solely on information presently and personally
known to Plaintiff. Some documents within Plaintiff's possession, custody, or
control that may have contained information responsive to Defendant’s

Interrogatories may no longer exist or may otherwise be unavailable. Furthermore,

PLAINTIFF CANDACE KOOLE’S OBJECTIONS AND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO
BANA’s FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case No. 3:21-md-02992-LAB-MSB CONFIDENTIAL

4
Case

1B:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 623-15 Filed 01/08/26 PagelD.45042

Page 6 of 45

future discovery and independent investigation may supply additional documents,
facts, and information that may lead to additions to, changes in, and variations of
the following responses. Therefore, Plaintiff reserves the right to amend and
supplement these responses at a future time. Plaintiff further reserves the right to
introduce, prior to trial or at the time of trial, any additional evidence that may be
discovered and any testimony of any witness whose identity may be discovered
after the service of Plaintiffs responses to these Interrogatories.

Each of the foregoing objections is incorporated by reference into each of
the responses below. To the extent that a particular objection is asserted in
response to a particular Interrogatory, that objection is considered particularly
relevant to that Interrogatory and is not to be considered as excluding other
objections that may be applicable. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing
objections, and based solely on presently known information, Plaintiff responds to
each Interrogatory as follows:

OBJECTIONS AND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES
INTERROGATORY NO. 1:

State the principal facts RELATING TO YOUR collection of benefits from

EDD, including the date(s) YOU collected benefits, YOUR previous occupation

before collecting benefits, the amount YOU were making at least a year before

collecting benefits, what benefits YOU received (e.g. Pandemic Unemployment
Assistance, disability payments, etc.), and the dates (if any) YOU subsequently
became employed or ineligible for benefits.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 1:

Plaintiff incorporates by reference the Preliminary Statement and General
Objections.

Plaintiff objects to the use of “principal facts RELATING TO YOUR
collection of benefits from EDD, including the date(s) YOU collected benefits” as

vague and ambiguous and overbroad, particularly because “benefits” is not a

PLAINTIFF CANDACE KOOLE’S OBJECTIONS AND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO
BANA’s FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case No. 3:21-md-02992-LAB-MSB CONFIDENTIAL

5
Case

B:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 623-15 Filed 01/08/26 PagelD.45043

Page 7 of 45

defined term and is overly broad and not relevant to this litigation. Plaintiff further
objects to this Interrogatory as compound and counting as multiple distinct
interrogatories. Plaintiff also objects to the Request for “YOUR previous
occupation before collecting benefits [and] the amount YOU were making at least
a year before collecting benefits” as overly broad and unduly burdensome for the
purposes of this litigation and not relevant to the claims in this action. 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,
including because to the extent any portion of these Requests are relevant, the
information requested has been or may be incorporated into the payment schedules
required by the CFPB/OCC Remediation Plan.

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, 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 objects to this interrogatory as being compound and objects on the
ground that the amount of compensation plaintiffs received one year before
collecting EDD benefits is not relevant, is unduly burdensome, and is not
proportional to the case's needs. Based on Judge Berg’s direction at the December
5, 2023 hearing, Plaintiff will provide information concerning her employment
history beginning six months prior to her receipt of benefits.

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing and prior objections, Plaintiff
further responds as follows: Plaintiff collected EDD Benefits in the form of
Pandemic Unemployment Assistance beginning on or about April 14, 2020, and
continuing until on or about September 04, 2021. Prior to collecting benefits,

Plaintiff was self-employed as a ij Plaintiff exhausted her benefits after

PLAINTIFF CANDACE KOOLE’S OBJECTIONS AND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO
BANA’s FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case No. 3:21-md-02992-LAB-MSB CONFIDENTIAL

6
Case

iB:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 623-15 Filed 01/08/26 PagelD.45044

Page 8 of 45

September 04, 2021, and was no longer eligible to receive payments.
INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
State the principal facts RELATING TO YOUR allegation that YOU

received (or were supposed to receive) EDD BENEFITS, including the time
period(s) during which YOU received (or should have received) EDD BENEFITS,
which EDD BENEFITS YOU received (or should have received), the amount of
EDD BENEFITS that YOU received (or should have received), and the frequency
at which YOU received (or should have received) EDD BENEFITS.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 2:

Plaintiff incorporates by reference the Preliminary Statement and General
Objections.

Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory as vague, ambiguous, overly broad,
unduly burdensome, and disproportionate to the needs of the case. This
Interrogatory is not limited to a reasonable time period and seeks information not
relevant to any claims or defenses in this action. Plaintiff also objects to this
Interrogatory as compound and counting as multiple distinct interrogatories.
Plaintiff further objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information that
is unknown to Plaintiff or outside of Plaintiff's possession, custody, or control.
Plaintiff also objects to this Interrogatory as unduly burdensome to the extent it
seeks information that is in the possession of third parties or is more readily
accessible to or already in the possession, custody, or control of Defendant,
including because to the extent any portion of these Requests are relevant, the
information requested has been or may be incorporated into the payment schedules
required by the CFPB/OCC Remediation Plan.

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Plaintiff responds
as follows: Plaintiff is willing to meet and confer with Defendant with respect to

this Interrogatory.

PLAINTIFF CANDACE KOOLE’S OBJECTIONS AND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO
BANA’s FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case No. 3:21-md-02992-LAB-MSB CONFIDENTIAL

7
Case

B:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 623-15 Filed 01/08/26 PagelD.45045

Page 9 of 45

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 2:

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Plaintiff responds
as follows: Plaintiff refers Defendant to Plaintiff's documents produced related to
Plaintiff's receipt of EDD benefits, including but not limited to: Koole_C_0000124

INTERROGATORY NO. 3:
State the principal facts RELATING TO whether YOU have ever requested

or attempted to request to recetve 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 recerve EDD BENEFITS by check from January 1, 2020 to
present.

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Plaintiff responds as
follows: On December 30, 2020, Plaintiff tried to use her Bank of America EDD

debit card at a grocery store to buy food for herself and her infant son, and her card

PLAINTIFF CANDACE KOOLE’S OBJECTIONS AND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO
BANA’s FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case No. 3:21-md-02992-LAB-MSB CONFIDENTIAL

8
Case

B:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 623-15 Filed 01/08/26 PagelD.45046

Page 10 of 45

was repeatedly declined at the checkout stand. Confused, Plaintiff left the groceries
at the store and went home to check her account balance. In doing so, Plaintiff found
the account had $8.37 in it, down from over $9,000 the week before. Her online
account statement showed that someone had withdrawn $1,000 per day at several
different locations around Southern California until Plaintiff's account was nearly
drained. Plaintiff did not authorize these withdrawals, and her card was in her
possession when they occurred.

That same day, Plaintiff called Bank of America and submitted a claim
disputing the fraudulent transactions. The Bank of America representative Plaintiff
spoke with informed her over the phone that her account would be frozen as a result
of Plaintiff reporting fraud, and her account was frozen that day. The Bank
representative also told Plaintiff that she was responsible for proving that she had
not committed the fraud on her own account and advised her to file a police report
in support of my claim.

After submitting her initial claim on December 30, 2020, Plaintiff repeatedly
called Bank of America looking for updates. Plaintiff would get a different status
on her claim with every different Bank of America representative she spoke with.
Some said the status is pending, some said she needed to communicate with EDD,
and some said that her account was completely closed. On a different occasion, a
Bank representative accused Plaintiff of having committed fraud and now unjustly
requesting reimbursement. Other times, Bank of America representatives told her
that she needed to contact EDD to tell the agency to communicate with Bank of
America to unfreeze her account. However, Plaintiff called EDD and was told that
their system does not show any issues with her account.

Finally, on January 6, 2021, Plaintiff sent a fax to EDD asking them to
distribute her unemployment benefits via paper checks, and in late February, she
began receiving her benefits by check. The Claim event number on the fax is

201230006779.

PLAINTIFF CANDACE KOOLE’S OBJECTIONS AND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO
BANA’s FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case No. 3:21-md-02992-LAB-MSB CONFIDENTIAL

9
Case

B:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 623-15 Filed 01/08/26 PagelD.45047

Page 11 of 45

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.

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 did not authorize a third party to access their account in

connection with the transactions at issue in this case.

PLAINTIFF CANDACE KOOLE’S OBJECTIONS AND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO
BANA’s FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case No. 3:21-md-02992-LAB-MSB CONFIDENTIAL

10
Case

B:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 623-15 Filed 01/08/26 PagelD.45048

Page 12 of 45

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 4:

Pursuant to Judge Berg’s direction at the December 5 hearing, Plaintiff will
supplement the following interrogatories to provide: (a) a list of the devices
Plaintiff used to access Plaintiff's online Bank of America EDD debit card
account; (b) a list of who had access to those devices; and (c) a list of who had
access to Plaintiff's Bank of America EDD debit card account. Subject to and
without waiving the foregoing objections, Plaintiff responds as follows: Plaintiff
used her laptop computer and phone to access her online Bank of America EDD
debit card accounts. Only Plaintiff had access to her laptop and only Plaintiff had
access to her phone. Only Plaintiff had access to her Bank of America and EDD
Accounts.

INTERROGATORY NO. 5:
If you allege that any TRANSACTIONS on YOUR ACCOUNT were

unauthorized or made in error, state the principal facts RELATING TO each
distinct TRANSACTION that YOU allege was unauthorized or made in error,
including IDENTIFYING the TRANSACTION, the type of error (including
whether the error was an “error” under EFTA Regulation E (15 U.S.C. § 1693 et
seq.) and if so, which type of error), any fees YOU allege were improperly
assessed RELATING TO the TRANSACTION (including the amount of the fee(s)
and the date(s) of assessment), and the basis for YOUR belief that each
TRANSACTION was an error.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 5:

Plaintiff incorporates by reference the Preliminary Statement and General
Objections.

Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory as unduly burdensome to the extent that
it seeks information that is more readily accessible to or already in the possession,
custody, or control of Defendant, including because to the extent any portion of

these Requests are relevant, the information requested has been or may be

PLAINTIFF CANDACE KOOLE’S OBJECTIONS AND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO
BANA’s FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case No. 3:21-md-02992-LAB-MSB CONFIDENTIAL

11
Case

B:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 623-15 Filed 01/08/26 PagelD.45049

Page 13 of 45

incorporated into the payment schedules required by the CFPB/OCC Remediation
Plan. Plaintiff further objects to this Interrogatory as compound and counting as
multiple distinct interrogatories. Plaintiff also objects that it calls for a legal
conclusion, premature disclosure of expert opinions and conclusions and it is
overbroad in that it requests information that is subject to the attorney-client and
attorney work-product privilege.

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Plaintiff responds as
follows: Plaintiff did not authorize a third party to access their account in
connection with the transactions at issue in this case. Several transactions from
different ATMs across Southern California were made by an unknown individual
and/or unknown individuals that was not Plaintiff. Each withdrawal was in
increments of $1000 each day. Plaintiff's online Account statement showed that
$8,760 had been fraudulently taken out of her Account by unauthorized ATM
withdrawals. Plaintiff did not authorize these withdrawals, and her Card was in her
possession when they occurred. She also had never disclosed her Card PIN to

anyone and had never authorized anyone to use her Card.

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 5:

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Plaintiff responds
as follows: On December 30, 2020, Plaintiff tried to use her EDD Debit Card at a
grocery store to buy food for her and her young son, and the Card was repeatedly
declined at the checkout stand. She left the groceries at the store and went home to
check her Account balance. She was shocked to find her Account had just
approximately $7 in it, down from approximately $9,000 the week before. Her
online Account statement showed that $8,760 had been fraudulently taken out of
her Account by ATM withdrawals—mostly withdrawals of the daily maximum of
$1,000 per day at several different ATM locations around Southern California until
her Account was nearly empty. See e.g. BANA EDD MDL-00000757,
BANA EDD MDL-00043566. She did not authorize these withdrawals, and her

PLAINTIFF CANDACE KOOLE’S OBJECTIONS AND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO
BANA’s FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case No. 3:21-md-02992-LAB-MSB CONFIDENTIAL

12
Case

3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 623-15 Filed 01/08/26 PagelD.45050

Page 14 of 45

Card was in her possession when they occurred. She also had never disclosed her
Card PIN to anyone and had never authorized anyone to use her Card.

The same day, Plaintiff called the Bank and submitted a claim disputing the
fraudulent transactions. The unauthorized transactions reported to Bank of
America were recorded by Defendant as Claim No. 201230304711 on or about
December 30, 2020. See e.g. Defendant’s Second Supplemental Responses to
Plaintiffs’ First Set of Interrogatories, Revised Exhibit 1.During that call, a Bank
representative told Plaintiff that her EDD Debit Card Account would be frozen as a
result of her reporting fraud, and Plaintiff's Account was frozen that day. The Bank
representative told Plaintiff that she was responsible for proving that she had not
committed the fraud on her Account and advised her to file a police report in
support of her fraud claim.

Immediately after speaking with the Bank, Plaintiff attempted to file a police
report with the Riverside County Sheriff's Department. She could not complete the
report, however, because she did not know the “terminal ID numbers”
corresponding to the ATMs where money had been fraudulently withdrawn from
her Account. And because Plaintiff's Account was frozen, she could not access her
Account online and, thus, could not access any details about the fraudulent
transactions, including the information necessary to complete the police report. See
e.g. PLFF00000221, PLFF00000223.

In early January 2021, Plaintiff received a letter from the Bank dated
December 31, 2020—just one day after she submitted her claim disputing the
fraudulent transactions—denying her claim. The Bank provided the following
generic explanation for denying her claim: “Your claim has been closed because
we believe the account or the claim have been the subject of fraud or suspicious
activity.” See e.g. BANA EDD MDL-00411205.

In the months after the Bank rejected Plaintiff's fraud claim and froze her

Account, Plaintiff repeatedly called the Bank to address these issues. Some Bank

PLAINTIFF CANDACE KOOLE’S OBJECTIONS AND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO
BANA’s FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case No. 3:21-md-02992-LAB-MSB CONFIDENTIAL

13
Case

B:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 623-15 Filed 01/08/26 PagelD.45051

Page 15 of 45

representatives said the status of her claim was pending, others that she needed to
communicate with EDD, and others that her Account was completely closed. Ona
different occasion, a Bank representative accused Plaintiff of having committed
fraud and now unjustly requesting reimbursement. Other times, Bank
representatives told Plaintiff that she needed to contact EDD to tell the agency to
communicate with the Bank to unfreeze her Account. But when Plaintiff called
EDD she was told by EDD that their system did not show any issues with her
Account. Plaintiff spent approximately 100 hours on the phone trying to resolve
the issues relating to her Account. See e.g. BANA EDD MDL-00001045,
BANA EDD MDL-00001044, BANA EDD MDL-00001043,
Koole_C_0000001, Koole_C_0000004, Koole_C_0000006, Koole_C_0000007,
Koole_C_0000008.

Plaintiff is a single mother with a young son. She was forced to live week to
week, rationing out food for her child. She also had no way to get a job because of
the COVID-19 pandemic, and every day she wondered if she would soon be
homeless. Therefore, Bank of America’s failure to conduct a proper investigation
and timely respond to Plaintiff's report of fraudulent activity on her account was
injurious to Plaintiff.

Plaintiff reserves the right to Supplement this Interrogatory Response as
discovery continues.

INTERROGATORY NO. 6:

State the principal facts RELATING TO why YOU believe that BANA
should have identified the allegedly unauthorized TRANSACTIONS as suspicious,
including IDENTIFYING the allegedly unauthorized TRANSACTIONS YOU

claim BANA should have identified as suspicions, the facts that form the basis for
YOUR belief, such as the location of the merchant and YOUR location on that
date, and whether BANA did in fact identify the TRANSACTION as suspicious.

PLAINTIFF CANDACE KOOLE’S OBJECTIONS AND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO
BANA’s FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case No. 3:21-md-02992-LAB-MSB CONFIDENTIAL

14
Case

B:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 623-15 Filed 01/08/26 PagelD.45052

Page 16 of 45

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 6:

Plaintiff incorporates by reference the Preliminary Statement and General
Objections.

Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory as compound and counting as multiple
distinct interrogatories. Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory as unduly
burdensome to the extent that it seeks information that is more readily accessible to
or already in the possession, custody, or control of Defendant, including because to
the extent any portion of these Requests are relevant, the information requested has
been or may be incorporated into the payment schedules required by the
CFPB/OCC Remediation Plan. Plaintiff further objects to this Interrogatory
because Defendant and Plaintiff's experts have superior knowledge as to best
practices for identifying unauthorized transactions as suspicious.

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Plaintiff responds
as follows: Plaintiff notified the Defendant that the transaction at issue in this
matter was unauthorized. Plaintiff also refers Defendant to the documents in
Defendant’s possession and control, Plaintiffs’ First Amended Master
Consolidated Complaint, the Preliminary Injunction in this case and the facts and
evidence supporting the Preliminary Injunction, the Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau Consent Order of July 14, 2022, and Plaintiffs’ document production.
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 6:

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing and prior objections, Plaintiff
further responds as follows: Plaintiff refers Defendant to Plaintiffs' Supplemental
Interrogatory Answer No. 5, which is hereby fully incorporated herein.
INTERROGATORY NO. 7:

State the principal facts RELATING TO whether YOUR PERSONAL
INFORMATION was compromised, including whether YOUR PERSONAL
INFORMATION, wallet, CARD, or cellphone were ever stolen, and whether YOU

PLAINTIFF CANDACE KOOLE’S OBJECTIONS AND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO
BANA’s FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case No. 3:21-md-02992-LAB-MSB CONFIDENTIAL

15
Case

i3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 623-15 Filed 01/08/26 PagelD.45053

Page 17 of 45

were notified by a THIRD PARTY (e.g. government agency, employer, merchant,
website) that YOUR PERSONAL INFORMATION may have been compromised.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 7:

Plaintiff incorporates by reference the Preliminary Statement and General
Objections.

Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory as vague and ambiguous to the extent it
asks “whether YOUR PERSONAL INFORMATION was compromised” and on
the ground that it is overbroad, not proportional to the needs of this case, and
ambiguous as to the included time period. Plaintiff further objects to this
Interrogatory on the ground that it requests information regarding cell phones,
wallets and notifications by a THIRD PARTY about potential compromises of
Plaintiff's PERSONAL INFORMATION that is unrelated to the claims made by
Plaintiff and it is therefore overbroad and not proportional to the needs of this case.
Plaintiff further objects to this Interrogatory as compound and counting as multiple
distinct interrogatories.

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Plaintiff responds as
follows: On December 30, 2020, Plaintiff tried to use her Bank of America EDD
debit card at a grocery store to buy food for herself and her infant son, and her card
was repeatedly declined at the checkout stand. Confused, Plaintiff left the groceries
at the store and went home to check her account balance. In doing so, Plaintiff found
the account had $8.37 in it, down from over $9,000 the week before. Several
transactions from different ATMs across Southern California were made by an
unknown individual and/or unknown individuals that was not Plaintiff. Each
withdrawal was in increments of $1000 each day. Plaintiff's online Account
statement showed that $8,760 had been fraudulently taken out of her Account by
unauthorized ATM withdrawals. Plaintiff did not authorize these withdrawals, and
her Card was in her possession when they occurred. She also had never disclosed

her Card PIN to anyone and had never authorized anyone to use her Card. Plaintiff

PLAINTIFF CANDACE KOOLE’S OBJECTIONS AND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO
BANA’s FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case No. 3:21-md-02992-LAB-MSB CONFIDENTIAL 16
Case

B:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 623-15 Filed 01/08/26 PagelD.45054

Page 18 of 45

was completely unaware of any transactions that were being made without her
consent. Plaintiff was not notified by Bank of America even though there was very
unusual activity occurring in her account daily.

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 7:

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing and prior objections, Plaintiff
further responds as follows: Plaintiff refers Defendant to Plaintiff's Supplemental
Response to Interrogatory No. 5, which is hereby fully incorporated herein.
INTERROGATORY NO. 8:

State the principal facts RELATED TO all YOUR CLAIMS, including the
date of the CLAIM, the manner in which the CLAIM was submitted or
communicated to BANA, IDENTIFYING all TRANSACTIONS included in the
CLAIM, the interest YOU believe YOU are entitled to and the basis for that belief,
IDENTIFYING the PERSON YOU believe made the transaction, whether YOU
knew a TRANSACTION subject to a CLAIM was authorized by YOU or by
someone with authority to use YOUR CARD or ACCOUNT, and the information
provided to BANA about the disputed TRANSACTION (including but not limited
to any DOCUMENTS or COMMUNICATIONS provided to BANA).
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 8:

Plaintiff incorporates by reference the Preliminary Statement and General
Objections.

Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory as overbroad. Plaintiff further objects to
this Interrogatory as compound and counting as multiple distinct interrogatories.
Plaintiff also objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information that is
unknown to Plaintiff or outside of Plaintiff's possession, custody, or control.
Plaintiff also objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that the Interrogatory calls for
information within Defendant’s own possession, custody, or control, or readily
obtainable by Defendant, including because to the extent any portion of these

Requests are relevant, the information requested has been or may be incorporated

PLAINTIFF CANDACE KOOLE’S OBJECTIONS AND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO
BANA’s FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case No. 3:21-md-02992-LAB-MSB CONFIDENTIAL

17
Case

i3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 623-15 Filed 01/08/26 PagelD.45055

Page 19 of 45

into the payment schedules required by the CFPB/OCC Remediation Plan. Plaintiff
further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it calls for premature
disclosure of expert opinions and conclusions.

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Plaintiff responds as
follows: On December 30, 2020, Plaintiff tried to use her Bank of America EDD
debit card at a grocery store to buy food for herself and her infant son, and her card
was repeatedly declined at the checkout stand. Confused, Plaintiff left the groceries
at the store and went home to check her account balance. In doing so, Plaintiff found
the account had $8.37 in it, down from over $9,000 the week before. Her online
account statement showed that someone had withdrawn $1,000 per day at several
different locations around Southern California until Plaintiff's account was nearly
drained. Plaintiff did not authorize these withdrawals, and her card was in her
possession when they occurred.

Immediately after speaking with the Bank, Plaintiff attempted to file a
police report with the Riverside County Sheriff's Department. She could not
complete the report, however, because she did not know the “terminal ID numbers”
corresponding to the ATMs where money had been fraudulently withdrawn from
her Account. And because Plaintiff's Account was frozen, she could not access
her Account online and, thus, could not access any details about the
fraudulent transactions, including the information necessary to complete the police

report.

PLAINTIFF CANDACE KOOLE’S OBJECTIONS AND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO
BANA’s FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case No. 3:21-md-02992-LAB-MSB CONFIDENTIAL 18
Case

i3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 623-15 Filed 01/08/26 PagelD.45056

Page 20 of 45

In the months after the Bank rejected Plaintiff's fraud claim and froze her
Account, Plaintiff repeatedly called the Bank to address these issues. Some Bank
representatives said the status of her claim was pending, others that she needed to
communicate with EDD, and others that her Account was completely closed. On
a different occasion, a Bank representative accused Plaintiff of having committed
fraud and now unjustly requesting reimbursement. Other times, Bank
representatives told Plaintiff that she needed to contact EDD to tell the agency to
communicate with the Bank to unfreeze her Account. But when Plaintiff called
EDD she had been told by EDD that their system did not show any issues with her
Account. Plaintiff spent approximately 100 hours on the phone trying to resolve
the issues relating to her Account.

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 8:

If YOU contend any part of any of YOUR CLAIMS was wrongly denied,
state the principal facts RELATING TO YOUR allegations in the COMPLAINT
that YOUR CLAIMS were wrongly denied, including IDENTIFYING the
CLAIMS, or which parts of which CLAIMS, that YOU believe were wrongly

PLAINTIFF CANDACE KOOLE’S OBJECTIONS AND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO
BANA’s FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case No. 3:21-md-02992-LAB-MSB CONFIDENTIAL

19
Case

B:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 623-15 Filed 01/08/26 PagelD.45057

Page 21 of 45

denied and any evidence or information that YOU believe was not considered by
BANA.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 9:

Plaintiff incorporates by reference the Preliminary Statement and General
Objections.

Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory as compound and counting as multiple
distinct interrogatories. Plaintiff further also objects to this Interrogatory to the
extent that the Interrogatory calls for information within Defendant’s own
possession, custody, or control, or readily obtainable by Defendant, including
because to the extent any portion of these Requests are relevant, the information
requested has been or may be incorporated into the payment schedules required by
the CFPB/OCC Remediation Plan. Plaintiff also objects to this Interrogatory on
the grounds that it is premature insofar as it seeks “contention” discovery to which
Defendant is not entitled at this time.

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Plaintiff responds as
follows: Plaintiff resides in 3 She is 2 TTT who
found herself out of work during the COVID-19 pandemic. She applied for and was
found eligible by EDD to receive unemployment benefits. Soon thereafter, she
received an EDD Debit Card with a magnetic stripe (but no EMV chip) to access her
benefits. In December 2020, she was then the victim of unauthorized transactions on
her EDD Debit Card Account. Plaintiff promptly reported the unauthorized
transaction to Bank of America, which failed to comply with its legal obligations
causing Plaintiff to suffer immediate and irreparable injury.

Plaintiff started receiving EDD unemployment benefits through a Bank of
America EDD Debit Card during the COVID-19 pandemic. She generally used her
Card to pay for essentials like food, rent, medicine, and toiletries. She also used it to

pay for hospital visits and dental work.

PLAINTIFF CANDACE KOOLE’S OBJECTIONS AND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO
BANA’s FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case No. 3:21-md-02992-LAB-MSB CONFIDENTIAL 20
Case [B:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 623-15 Filed 01/08/26 PagelD.45058
Page 22 of 45

On December 30, 2020, Plaintiff tried to use her EDD Debit Card at a grocery
store to buy food for her and her young son, and the Card was repeatedly declined
at the checkout stand. She left the groceries at the store and went home to check her
Account balance. She was shocked to find her Account had just $7 in it, down from
approximately $9,000 the week before. Her online Account statement showed that
$8,760 had been fraudulently taken out of her Account by ATM withdrawals—
mostly withdrawals of the daily maximum of $1,000 per day at several different

ATM locations around Southern California until her Account was nearly empty. She

did not authorize these withdrawals, and her Card was in her possession when they

—

occurred. She also had never disclosed her Card PIN to anyone and had never

—

authorized anyone to use her Card.

—
N

The same day, Plaintiff called the Bank and submitted a claim disputing the

—

fraudulent transactions. During that call, a Bank representative told Plaintiff that her

—

EDD Debit Card Account would be frozen as a result of her reporting fraud, and

—

Plaintiff's Account was frozen that day. The Bank representative told Plaintiff that

—

she was responsible for proving that she had not committed the fraud on her Account

and advised her to file a police report in support of her fraud claim.

—

Immediately after speaking with the Bank, Plaintiff attempted to file a police

—

report with the Riverside County Sheriff's Department. She could not complete the

N
o

report, however, because she did not know the “terminal ID numbers” corresponding

N
—

to the ATMs where money had been fraudulently withdrawn from her Account. And

N
N

because Plaintiff's Account was frozen, she could not access her Account online

N
Ww

and, thus, could not access any details about the fraudulent transactions, including

the information necessary to complete the police report.

N
Nn

In early January 2021, Plaintiff received a letter from the Bank dated

December 31, 2020—just one day after she submitted her claim disputing the

fraudulent transactions—denying her claim. The Bank provided the following

N
oo

generic explanation for denying her claim: “Your claim has been closed because we

PLAINTIFF CANDACE KOOLE’S OBJECTIONS AND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO
BANA’s FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case No. 3:21-md-02992-LAB-MSB CONFIDENTIAL 21
Case

i3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 623-15 Filed 01/08/26 PagelD.45059

Page 23 of 45

believe the account or the claim have been the subject of fraud or suspicious
activity.”

In the months after the Bank rejected Plaintiff's fraud claim and froze her
Account, Plaintiff repeatedly called the Bank to address these issues. Some Bank
representatives said the status of her claim was pending, others that she needed to
communicate with EDD, and others that her Account was completely closed. Ona
different occasion, a Bank representative accused Plaintiff of having committed
fraud and now unjustly requesting reimbursement. Other times, Bank
representatives told Plaintiff that she needed to contact EDD to tell the agency to
communicate with the Bank to unfreeze her Account. But when Plaintiff called
EDD she had been told by EDD that their system did not show any issues with her
Account. Plaintiff spent approximately 100 hours on the phone trying to resolve
the issues relating to her Account.

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 9:

If YOU believe that YOUR PERSONAL INFORMATION was

compromised or accessed by an unauthorized PERSON in connection with a
SECURITY BREACH at BANA, during the time period from August 1, 2016 to

the present, then state the principal facts RELATING TO YOUR belief, including

PLAINTIFF CANDACE KOOLE’S OBJECTIONS AND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO
BANA’s FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case No. 3:21-md-02992-LAB-MSB CONFIDENTIAL 22
Case

B:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 623-15 Filed 01/08/26 PagelD.45060

Page 24 of 45

all facts that form the basis for YOUR belief, such as when and how YOUR
PERSONAL INFORMATION was accessed.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 10:

Plaintiff incorporates by reference the Preliminary Statement and General
Objections.

Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory to the extent the Interrogatory calls for
information within Defendant’s own possession, custody, or control or is well
known to or readily obtainable by Defendant. Plaintiff further objects to this
Interrogatory because Defendant has superior knowledge of “a SECURITY
BREACH at BANA.” Plaintiff also objects to this Interrogatory that the time
period from August 1, 2016 to present is overly broad for the purposes of this
litigation and the information requested is not relevant to the claims in this action
or proportional to the needs of the litigation at issue. Plaintiff further objects to this
Interrogatory on the ground that it calls for the premature disclosure of expert
opinions and conclusion.

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Plaintiff responds
as follows: Defendant’s lax security practices, including its failure to include EMV
chips on EDD Debit Cards and its failure to vet, train, and monitor contractors and
employees to whom it gave access to Plaintiff's PII resulted in the unauthorized
transaction on Plaintiff's account that is at issue in this lawsuit. Plaintiff's
investigation into this issue is ongoing.

INTERROGATORY NO. 11:

If YOU contend that any unauthorized TRANSACTIONS could have been
avoided if YOUR CARD had an EMV chip, during the time period from August 1,
2016 to the present, then state the principal facts RELATING TO and that form the
basis of YOUR belief, including IDENTIFYING the TRANSACTIONS that YOU

believe could have been avoided and whether and when your card was “skimmed.”

PLAINTIFF CANDACE KOOLE’S OBJECTIONS AND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO
BANA’s FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case No. 3:21-md-02992-LAB-MSB CONFIDENTIAL 23
Case

B:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 623-15 Filed 01/08/26 PagelD.45061

Page 25 of 45

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 11:

Plaintiff incorporates by reference the Preliminary Statement and General
Objections.

Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is premature
insofar as it seeks “contention” discovery to which Defendant is not entitled at this
time. Plaintiff also objects to this Interrogatory on the ground that it is overbroad in
that it requests information for the time period from August 1, 2016, to present
which is not relevant to the claims in this action or proportional to the needs of the
litigation. In addition, this Interrogatory is overbroad as it calls for premature
disclosure of expert opinions and conclusions and information subject to the
attorney client and attorney work product privileges. Plaintiff further objects to this
Interrogatory on the grounds that it requests information that is equally available to
and/or in the possession of Defendant.

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Plaintiff responds
as follows: The Bank was well aware, long before issuing an EDD Debit Card to
Plaintiff, that EMV chips were the industry standard, that limiting security
measures to a magnetic stripe was insufficient to protect the PII and other account
information of the cardholder, and that Plaintiff was a member of a class of
particularly vulnerable individuals to which the Bank owed a duty to protect from
fraudulent account transactions using readily available technology that was already
widely in use by the Bank.

INTERROGATORY NO. 12:

If YOU contend that YOUR ACCOUNT was improperly frozen or blocked,

then state the principal facts RELATING TO each instance YOU believe YOUR

ACCOUNT was improperly frozen or blocked, including the time period(s) of
each instance, whether the ACCOUNT was frozen or blocked, why YOU believe

the freeze or block was improper, how YOU learned of the freeze or block, the

PLAINTIFF CANDACE KOOLE’S OBJECTIONS AND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO
BANA’s FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case No. 3:21-md-02992-LAB-MSB CONFIDENTIAL 24
Case

B:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 623-15 Filed 01/08/26 PagelD.45062

Page 26 of 45

amount of funds YOU were unable to access, and the amount of funds that were
not deposited because of the freeze or block.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 12:

Plaintiff incorporates by reference the Preliminary Statement and General
Objections.

Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory as compound and counting as multiple
distinct interrogatories. Plaintiff also objects to this Interrogatory as unduly
burdensome to the extent that the Interrogatory calls for information within
Defendant’s own possession, custody, or control, and well known to or readily
obtainable by Defendant, including because to the extent any portion of these
Requests are relevant, the information requested has been or may be incorporated
into the payment schedules required by the CFPB/OCC Remediation Plan.
Plaintiff further objects to this Interrogatory because it requests information that is
not relevant to this litigation, including how Plaintiff learned of the freeze or block.

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Plaintiff responds
as follows: Plaintiff resides in TTD She is .
who found herself out of work during the COVID-19 pandemic. She applied for
and was found eligible by EDD to receive unemployment benefits. Soon thereafter,
she received an EDD Debit Card with a magnetic stripe (but no EMV chip) to
access her benefits. In December 2020, she was the victim of unauthorized
transactions on her EDD Debit Card Account. Plaintiff promptly reported the
unauthorized transaction to Bank of America, which failed to comply with its legal
obligations causing Plaintiff to suffer immediate and irreparable injury.

pay for hospital visits and dental work.

PLAINTIFF CANDACE KOOLE’S OBJECTIONS AND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO
BANA’s FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case No. 3:21-md-02992-LAB-MSB CONFIDENTIAL 25
Case [B:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 623-15 Filed 01/08/26 PagelD.45063
Page 27 of 45

ATM locations around Southern California until her Account was nearly empty. She

did not authorize these withdrawals, and her Card was in her possession when they

—

occurred. She also had never disclosed her Card PIN to anyone and had never

—

authorized anyone to use her Card.

—
N

The same day, Plaintiff called the Bank and submitted a claim disputing the

—

fraudulent transactions. During that call, a Bank representative told Plaintiff that her

—

EDD Debit Card Account would be frozen as a result of her reporting fraud, and

—

Plaintiff's Account was frozen that day. The Bank representative told Plaintiff that

—

she was responsible for proving that she had not committed the fraud on her Account

and advised her to file a police report in support of her fraud claim.

—

Immediately after speaking with the Bank, Plaintiff attempted to file a police

—

report with the Riverside County Sheriff's Department. She could not complete the

N
o

report, however, because she did not know the “terminal ID numbers” corresponding

N
—

to the ATMs where money had been fraudulently withdrawn from her Account. And

N
N

because Plaintiff's Account was frozen, she could not access her Account online

N
Ww

and, thus, could not access any details about the fraudulent transactions, including

the information necessary to complete the police report.

N
Nn

In early January 2021, Plaintiff received a letter from the Bank dated

December 31, 2020—just one day after she submitted her claim disputing the

fraudulent transactions—denying her claim. The Bank provided the following

N
oo

generic explanation for denying her claim: “Your claim has been closed because we

PLAINTIFF CANDACE KOOLE’S OBJECTIONS AND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO
BANA’s FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case No. 3:21-md-02992-LAB-MSB CONFIDENTIAL 26
Case

B:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 623-15 Filed 01/08/26 PagelD.45064

Page 28 of 45

believe the account or the claim have been the subject of fraud or suspicious
activity.”

In the months after the Bank rejected Plaintiff's fraud claim and froze her
Account, Plaintiff repeatedly called the Bank to address these issues. Some Bank
representatives said the status of her claim was pending, others that she needed to
communicate with EDD, and others that her Account was completely closed. On a
different occasion, a Bank representative accused Plaintiff of having committed
fraud and now unjustly requesting re1mbursement. Other times, Bank representatives
told Plaintiff that she needed to contact EDD to tell the agency to communicate with
the Bank to unfreeze her Account. But when Plaintiff called EDD she had been told
by EDD that their system did not show any issues with her Account. Plaintiff spent
approximately 100 hours on the phone trying to resolve the issues relating to her
Account.

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 12:

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing and prior objections, Plaintiff
further responds as follows: Plaintiff refers Defendant to Plaintiff's Supplemental
Interrogatory Answer No. 5, which is hereby fully incorporated herein. According
to Bank of America’s records, Plaintiff's account was frozen from December 31,
2020 to April 05, 2021. and See Exhibit 3 of Bank of America’s Second
Supplemental Response to Plaintiffs’ First Set of Interrogatories.

For further information, Plaintiff refers Defendant to documents produced

related to Plaintiff, including but not limited to BANA EDD MDL-00411205,

PLAINTIFF CANDACE KOOLE’S OBJECTIONS AND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO
BANA’s FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case No. 3:21-md-02992-LAB-MSB CONFIDENTIAL 27
Case

i3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 623-15 Filed 01/08/26 PagelD.45065

Page 29 of 45

PLFF00000217, BANA EDD MDL-00044180, BANA EDD MDL-00074328,
PLFF00000221, PLFF00000223.
INTERROGATORY NO. 13:

State the principal facts RELATING TO all steps YOU took to remove any
improper freeze or block on YOUR ACCOUNT, including whether YOU
contacted BANA or EDD, when and how YOU contacted BANA or EDD, and
what information YOU provided BANA or EDD to verify YOUR identity.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 13:

Plaintiff incorporates by reference the Preliminary Statement and General
Objections.

Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory as compound and counting as multiple
distinct interrogatories. Plaintiff also objects to this Interrogatory as unduly
burdensome to the extent that the Interrogatory calls for information within
Defendant’s own possession, custody, or control or is well known to or readily
obtainable by Defendant. Plaintiff further objects to this Interrogatory because it
requests information that is not relevant to this litigation, because Plaintiff had no
legal obligation to take steps to remove any improper freeze or block imposed by
the Bank on Plaintiffs account.

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Plaintiff responds as
follows: Plaintiff Candace Koole resides in I She is 2
WE who found herself out of work during the COVID-19 pandemic. She applied
for and was found eligible by EDD to receive unemployment benefits. Soon
thereafter, she received an EDD Debit Card with a magnetic stripe (but no EMV
chip) to access her benefits. In December 2020, she was then the victim of
unauthorized transactions on her EDD Debit Card Account. Plaintiff promptly
reported the unauthorized transaction to Bank of America, which failed to comply

with its legal obligations causing Plaintiff to suffer immediate and irreparable injury.

PLAINTIFF CANDACE KOOLE’S OBJECTIONS AND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO
BANA’s FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case No. 3:21-md-02992-LAB-MSB CONFIDENTIAL 28
Case [B:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 623-15 Filed 01/08/26 PagelD.45066
Page 30 of 45

Account balance. She was shocked to find her Account had just $7 in it, down from

approximately $9,000 the week before. Her online Account statement showed that

$8,760 had been fraudulently taken out of her Account by ATM withdrawals—

— pom

mostly withdrawals of the daily maximum of $1,000 per day at several different

—
N

ATM locations around Southern California until her Account was nearly empty. She

—

did not authorize these withdrawals, and her Card was in her possession when they

—

occurred. She also had never disclosed her Card PIN to anyone and had never

—

authorized anyone to use her Card.

—

The same day, Plaintiff called the Bank and submitted a claim disputing the

fraudulent transactions. During that call, a Bank representative told Plaintiff that her

—

EDD Debit Card Account would be frozen as a result of her reporting fraud, and

—

Plaintiff's Account was frozen that day. The Bank representative told Plaintiff that

N
o

she was responsible for proving that she had not committed the fraud on her Account

N
—

and advised her to file a police report in support of her fraud claim.

N
N

Immediately after speaking with the Bank, Plaintiff attempted to file a police

N
Ww

report with the Riverside County Sheriff's Department. She could not complete the

report, however, because she did not know the “terminal ID numbers” corresponding

N
Nn

to the ATMs where money had been fraudulently withdrawn from her Account. And

because Plaintiff's Account was frozen, she could not access her Account online

and, thus, could not access any details about the fraudulent transactions, including

N
oo

the information necessary to complete the police report.

PLAINTIFF CANDACE KOOLE’S OBJECTIONS AND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO
BANA’s FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case No. 3:21-md-02992-LAB-MSB CONFIDENTIAL 29
Case [B:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 623-15 Filed 01/08/26 PagelD.45067
Page 31 of 45

In the months after the Bank rejected Plaintiff's fraud claim and froze her

Account, Plaintiff repeatedly called the Bank to address these issues. Some Bank

representatives said the status of her claim was pending, others that she needed to

—

communicate with EDD, and others that her Account was completely closed. Ona

—

different occasion, a Bank representative accused Plaintiff of having committed

—
N

fraud and now unjustly requesting reimbursement. Other times, Bank

—

representatives told Plaintiff that she needed to contact EDD to tell the agency to

—

communicate with the Bank to unfreeze her Account. But when Plaintiff called EDD

—

she had been told by EDD that their system did not show any issues with her

—

Account. Plaintiff had NO WAY of contacting Bank of America through email or

receiving any emails because her account was frozen, so she was cut off from

—

receiving any updates electronically. Therefore, Plaintiff spent hours on the phone

—

trying to get ahold of anyone at Bank of America or EDD just to speak to a

N
o

representative. Plaintiff spent approximately 100 hours on the phone trying to

N
—

resolve the issues relating to her Account. Plaintiff is a single mother with a young

N
N

son. She was forced to live week to week, rationing out food for her child. She also

N
Ww

had no way to get a job because of the COVID-19 pandemic, and every day she

wondered if she would soon be homeless. Therefore, Bank of America’s failure to

N
Nn

conduct a proper investigation and timely respond to Plaintiff's report of fraudulent

activity on her account was injurious to Plaintiff.

PLAINTIFF CANDACE KOOLE’S OBJECTIONS AND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO
BANA’s FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case No. 3:21-md-02992-LAB-MSB CONFIDENTIAL 30
Case

iB:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 623-15 Filed 01/08/26 PagelD.45068

Page 32 of 45

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 13:

State the principal facts RELATING TO the damages YOU are seeking in

this case, including the total amount of damages YOU are seeking, the type or
nature of damages, the basis for the damages, whether YOUR damages includes
any interest or late fees, the basis for inclusion of any interest or late fees, the
timeframe during which you are seeking interest, YOUR proposed interest rate,
any calculations RELATED TO YOUR damages, any DOCUMENTS YOU relied
upon in calculating YOUR damages, and IDENTIFYING any PERSONS who
assisted YOU or whom YOU consulted in identifying or calculating YOUR
damages.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 14:

Plaintiff incorporates by reference the Preliminary Statement and General
Objections.

Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory as compound and counting as multiple
distinct interrogatories. Plaintiff also objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it
requests disclosure of expert testimony that is premature or beyond the scope of
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) and requests disclosure of attorney-client
privileged information or attorney work-product. Plaintiff further objects to this
Interrogatory to the extent it requests information within Defendant’s own
possession, custody, or control or is well known to or readily obtainable by
Defendant, including because to the extent any portion of these Requests are
relevant, the information requested has been or may be incorporated into the

payment schedules required by the CFPB/OCC Remediation Plan.

PLAINTIFF CANDACE KOOLE’S OBJECTIONS AND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO
BANA’s FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case No. 3:21-md-02992-LAB-MSB CONFIDENTIAL
Case

3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 623-15 Filed 01/08/26 PagelD.45069

Page 33 of 45

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Plaintiff responds
as follows: Plaintiff is seeking compensatory, statutory, and punitive damages, as
set forth in the FAMCC. Plaintiff's investigation into damages is ongoing and
awaits the production of data and information concerning Plaintiffs portion of the
recovery from the CFPB/OCC Remediation Plan, as well as expert analysis once
pertinent discovery has been provided. Any class-wide damages analysis that
includes Plaintiff's claim will be provided in a manner consistent with the Court’s
applicable scheduling order.

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 14:

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing and prior objections, Plaintiff
further responds as follows: Plaintiffs are seeking class wide punitive and treble
damages. Facts supporting class punitive damages include the following:

Plaintiff is a single mother with a young son. Plaintiff had just signed a new
lease for $1,500 a month and moved into a new apartment when she discovered
that $8,760 had been fraudulently taken out of her Account by unauthorized ATM
withdrawals. Plaintiff was forced to live week to week, rationing out food for her
child. She also had no way to get a job because of the COVID-19 pandemic, and
every day she wondered if she would soon be homeless. As a result, Plaintiff had
to borrow money from friends and family to keep up with her bills and living
expenses. Plaintiff also used her tax return and money received from her wedding,
which Plaintiff had been saving. Plaintiff had a separate Chase Bank account into
which her friends and family would deposit funds for Plaintiff. Plaintiff
experienced stress and anxiety from having to ask for loans to pay her bills and
living expenses and making sure that all the money she borrowed was paid back.
Plaintiff also experienced panic attacks due to concerns about her future but did not
consult with a medical professional.

In the months after the Bank rejected Plaintiff's fraud claim and froze her

Account, Plaintiff repeatedly called the Bank to address these issues. On one such

PLAINTIFF CANDACE KOOLE’S OBJECTIONS AND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO
BANA’s FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case No. 3:21-md-02992-LAB-MSB CONFIDENTIAL az
Case

B:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 623-15 Filed 01/08/26 PagelD.45070

Page 34 of 45

occasion, a Bank representative accused Plaintiff of having committed the fraud
and now unjustly requested reimbursement. Therefore, Plaintiff became stressed
and anxious that every time she called the Bank to make additional inquiries, she
would be accused of committing a felony and that Bank of America would come
after her for the money that was stolen.

Plaintiff reserves the right to Supplement this Interrogatory Response as
discovery continues.

INTERROGATORY NO. 15:

For all damages identified in response to Interrogatory No. 14, state the
principal facts that support YOUR alleged damages theory, including which of
BANA’s alleged actions or inactions resulted in YOUR alleged damages, how
BANA’s alleged actions or inactions caused YOUR alleged damages, and the
amount of money YOU were deprived of because of each of BANA’s actions or
inactions.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 15:

Plaintiff incorporates by reference the Preliminary Statement and General
Objections.

Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory as vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and
unduly burdensome. Plaintiff further objects to this Interrogatory as compound and
counting as multiple distinct interrogatories. Plaintiff also objects to this
Interrogatory to the extent it requests disclosure of expert testimony that is
premature or beyond the scope of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) and
requests disclosure of attorney-client privileged information or attorney work-
product. Plaintiff further objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that the
Interrogatory calls for information within Defendant’s own possession, custody, or
control or is well known to or readily obtainable by Defendant, including because

to the extent any portion of these Requests are relevant, the information requested

PLAINTIFF CANDACE KOOLE’S OBJECTIONS AND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO
BANA’s FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case No. 3:21-md-02992-LAB-MSB CONFIDENTIAL 33
Case

B:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 623-15 Filed 01/08/26 PagelD.45071

Page 35 of 45

has been or may be incorporated into the payment schedules required by the
CFPB/OCC Remediation Plan.

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Plaintiff responds
as follows: Plaintiff is seeking compensatory, statutory, and punitive damages, as
set forth in the FAMCC. Plaintiff's investigation into damages is ongoing and
awaits the production of data and information concerning Plaintiff's portion of the
recovery from the CFPB/OCC Remediation Plan, as well as expert analysis once
pertinent discovery has been provided. Any class-wide damages analysis that
includes Plaintiff's claim will be provided in a manner consistent with the Court’s
applicable scheduling order.

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 15:

For any bills, expenses, or debts that YOU allege YOU were unable to pay
because of BANA’s actions alleged in the COMPLAINT, state the principal facts
as to why BANA’s actions caused YOU to be unable to pay it, including
identifying each bill, expense, or debt that was owed, when it was due, the amount
of other assets or funds available to YOU at that time, and why YOU were not able
to use other assets or funds to pay those bills, expenses, or debts at the time they
were due.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 16:

Plaintiff incorporates by reference the Preliminary Statement and General
Objections.

Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory as overly broad as to scope, and
therefore unduly burdensome. Plaintiff also objects to this Interrogatory on the

ground that unduly violates the Plaintiff's right to privacy and is vague and

PLAINTIFF CANDACE KOOLE’S OBJECTIONS AND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO
BANA’s FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case No. 3:21-md-02992-LAB-MSB CONFIDENTIAL 34
Case

B:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 623-15 Filed 01/08/26 PagelD.45072

Page 36 of 45

ambiguous as to “unable to pay.” Plaintiff further objects to this Interrogatory as
compound and counting as multiple distinct interrogatories. Plaintiff further
objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that the Interrogatory calls for
information within Defendant’s own possession, custody, or control or is well
known to or readily obtainable by Defendant, including because to the extent any
portion of these Requests are relevant, the information requested has been or may
be incorporated into the payment schedules required by the CFPB/OCC
Remediation Plan. Plaintiff also objects to this Interrogatory on the ground that
some of the Requests included in this Interrogatory are not relevant to this
litigation, including the amount of assets available to the Plaintiff at particular
times and why Plaintiff was not able to use those assets to pay certain bills or other
obligations.

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Plaintiff responds
as follows: Plaintiff is willing to meet and confer with Defendant with respect to
this Interrogatory.

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 16:

If YOU claim any physical or emotional harm caused by BANA’s actions
alleged in the COMPLAINT, state in detail the principal facts RELATING TO the
harm YOU allege was caused by BANA, including the nature of the harm and its
manifestation, any medical consultation or treatment YOU received for that
physical or emotional harm, and how BANA’s actions caused that harm.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 17:

Plaintiff incorporates by reference the Preliminary Statement and General

Objections.

PLAINTIFF CANDACE KOOLE’S OBJECTIONS AND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO
BANA’s FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case No. 3:21-md-02992-LAB-MSB CONFIDENTIAL Ba
Case

B:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 623-15 Filed 01/08/26 PagelD.45073

Page 37 of 45

Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory as overly broad, unduly invasive of
Plaintiff's right to privacy and unduly burdensome, as it seeks information that is
not proportional to the needs of this case.

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Plaintiff responds as
follows: Plaintiff experienced emotional distress resulting from Bank of America’s
actions and inactions. Plaintiff experienced emotional distress resulting from Bank
of America’s actions and inactions. Plaintiff is a single mother with a young son.
She was forced to live week to week, rationing out food for her child. She also had
no way to get a job because of the COVID-19 pandemic, and every day she
wondered if she would soon be homeless. As a result, Plaintiff had to borrow money
from friends and family to keep up with her bills and living expenses. Plaintiff
experienced stress and anxiety from having to ask for loans to pay her bills and living
expenses and making sure that all the money she borrowed was paid back.

In the months after the Bank rejected Plaintiff's fraud claim and froze her
Account, Plaintiff repeatedly called the Bank to address these issues. On one such
occasion, a Bank representative accused Plaintiff of having committed the fraud
and now unjustly requested reimbursement. Therefore, Plaintiff became stressed
and anxious that every time she called the Bank to make additional inquiries, she
would be accused of committing a felony and that Bank of America would come

after her for the money that was stolen.

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 17:

List all contact information used by, or registered to, YOU, including YOUR

mailing address, phone number, email address, and social media

PLAINTIFF CANDACE KOOLE’S OBJECTIONS AND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO
BANA’s FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case No. 3:21-md-02992-LAB-MSB CONFIDENTIAL 36
Case

B:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 623-15 Filed 01/08/26 PagelD.45074

Page 38 of 45

usernames/handles (regardless of the names under which said contact information
is registered).

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 18:

Plaintiff incorporates by reference the Preliminary Statement and General
Objections.

Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory as overly broad and unduly
burdensome as it seeks information that is neither relevant to any claim or defense
in this action, and it is not proportional to the needs of this case. Plaintiff also
objects to the use of “all contact information used by, or registered to YOU” as
overbroad as among other things, it is not limited in scope. Plaintiff further objects
to this Interrogatory in that it is vague and ambiguous and overbroad as to the
scope of the term “social media” and is vague and ambiguous as to the term
“registered.” Plaintiff further objects on the grounds that this Interrogatory is
unduly invasive of Plaintiff's right to privacy.

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Plaintiff responds
as follows: Plaintiff is willing to meet and confer with Defendant with respect to
this Interrogatory.

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 18:

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing and prior objections, Plaintiff

further responds as follows: Plaintiff's phone number is [J and

Plaintiff's email address is EG Plaintiff resides in

INTERROGATORY NO. 19:
IDENTIFY all bank accounts used or accessed by YOU (regardless of who

created the account or who the accountholder is), including whether the accounts
were personal and/or business accounts, whether the accounts were savings,

checking, or other accounts, and whether YOU ever transferred EDD BENEFITS

to those accounts.

PLAINTIFF CANDACE KOOLE’S OBJECTIONS AND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO
BANA’s FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case No. 3:21-md-02992-LAB-MSB CONFIDENTIAL

37
Case

B:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 623-15 Filed 01/08/26 PagelD.45075

Page 39 of 45

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 19:

Plaintiff incorporates by reference the Preliminary Statement and General
Objections.

Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory as overly broad and unduly invasive of
Plaintiff's right to privacy as it seeks sensitive personal financial information that
is neither relevant to any claim or defense in this action nor proportional to the
needs of this case. Plaintiff also objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it
is overbroad, irrelevant and unduly burdensome as to the request relating to “all
bank accounts used or accessed by YOU.” Plaintiff further objects to this
Interrogatory on the grounds stated herein as “all” of Plaintiff's bank accounts,
business and personal, checking and savings, are not at issue in this litigation and
are not relevant to any issue in this litigation.

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Plaintiff responds
as follows: Plaintiff is willing to meet and confer with Defendant with respect to
this Interrogatory.

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 19:

List all of YOUR ACCOUNT LOGIN CREDENTIALS, and the date(s)

during which those credentials were effective.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 20:

Plaintiff incorporates by reference the Preliminary Statement and General
Objections.

Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory as overly broad as it seeks information
that is neither relevant to any claim or defense in this action, nor is the request

proportional to the needs of this case. Plaintiff further objects to this Interrogatory

PLAINTIFF CANDACE KOOLE’S OBJECTIONS AND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO
BANA’s FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case No. 3:21-md-02992-LAB-MSB CONFIDENTIAL

38
Case

B:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 623-15 Filed 01/08/26 PagelD.45076

Page 40 of 45

in that it requests Plaintiff provide “all of YOUR ACCOUNT LOGIN
CREDENTIALS” which is highly personal information that could be used to log
into accounts other than Plaintiff's ACCOUNT with Defendant.

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Plaintiff responds
as follows: Plaintiff is willing to meet and confer with Defendant with respect to
this Interrogatory.

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 20:

Pursuant to Judge Berg’s direction at the December 5 hearing, Plaintiff will
supplement the following interrogatories to provide: (a) a list of the devices
Plaintiff used to access Plaintiff's online Bank of America EDD debit card
account; (b) a list of who had access to those devices; and (c) a list of who had
access to Plaintiff's Bank of America EDD debit card account. Subject to and
without waiving the foregoing and prior objections, Plaintiff further responds as
follows: Plaintiff refers Defendant to Plaintiff's Supplemental Response to
Interrogatory No. 4, which is hereby fully incorporated herein.
INTERROGATORY NO. 21:

IDENTIFY all persons to whom YOU gave, shared, disclosed, or otherwise
provided access to any of YOUR ACCOUNT LOGIN CREDENTIALS.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 21:

Plaintiff incorporates by reference the Preliminary Statement and General
Objections.

Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory as overly broad as it seeks information
that is neither relevant to any claim or defense in this action, nor proportional to
the needs of this case. Plaintiff further objects to the terms “gave,” “shared,”
“disclosed” and “provided access to” as vague and ambiguous in the context of this

litigation.

PLAINTIFF CANDACE KOOLE’S OBJECTIONS AND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO
BANA’s FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case No. 3:21-md-02992-LAB-MSB CONFIDENTIAL

39
Case

B:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 623-15 Filed 01/08/26 PagelD.45077

Page 41 of 45

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Plaintiff responds
as follows: Plaintiff never authorized any third party to access their account in

connection with any of the transactions at issue in this case.

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 21:

Pursuant to Judge Berg’s direction at the December 5 hearing, Plaintiff will
supplement the following interrogatories to provide: (a) a list of the devices
Plaintiff used to access Plaintiff's online Bank of America EDD debit card
account; (b) a list of who had access to those devices; and (c) a list of who had
access to Plaintiff's Bank of America EDD debit card account. Subject to and
without waiving the foregoing and prior objections, Plaintiff further responds as
follows: Plaintiff refers Defendant to Plaintiff's Supplemental Response to
Interrogatory No. 4, which is hereby fully incorporated herein.
INTERROGATORY NO. 22:

List all locations (including electronic locations and writings) where YOU
saved any of YOUR ACCOUNT LOGIN CREDENTIALS identified in response
to Interrogatory No. 20.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 22:

Plaintiff incorporates by reference the Preliminary Statement and General
Objections.

Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory as overly broad, unduly burdensome
and unduly invasive of Plaintiff's right to privacy as it seeks sensitive information
that is neither relevant to any claim or defense in this action, nor proportional to
the needs of this case.

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Plaintiff responds
as follows: Plaintiff is willing to meet and confer with Defendant with respect to

this Interrogatory.

PLAINTIFF CANDACE KOOLE’S OBJECTIONS AND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO
BANA’s FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case No. 3:21-md-02992-LAB-MSB CONFIDENTIAL 40
Case

B:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 623-15 Filed 01/08/26 PagelD.45078

Page 42 of 45

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 22:

Pursuant to Judge Berg’s direction at the December 5 hearing, Plaintiff will
supplement the following interrogatories to provide: (a) a list of the devices
Plaintiff used to access Plaintiff's online Bank of America EDD debit card
account; (b) a list of who had access to those devices; and (c) a list of who had
access to Plaintiff's Bank of America EDD debit card account. Subject to and
without waiving the foregoing and prior objections, Plaintiff further responds as
follows: Plaintiff refers Defendant to Plaintiff's Supplemental Response to
Interrogatory No. 4, which is hereby fully incorporated herein.
INTERROGATORY NO. 23:

List any electronic devices, by describing the type of device and providing
the serial number, on which YOU have ever accessed YOUR ACCOUNT,
including cell phones, tablets and computers.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 23:

Plaintiff incorporates by reference the Preliminary Statement and General
Objections.

Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory as overly broad, unduly burdensome
and unduly invasive of Plaintiff's right to privacy as it seeks sensitive information,
including device serial numbers that is neither relevant to any claim or defense in
this action, nor proportional to the needs of this case and is not limited in time or
scope.

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Plaintiff responds
as follows: Plaintiff is willing to meet and confer with Defendant with respect to
this Interrogatory.

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 23:

Pursuant to Judge Berg’s direction at the December 5 hearing, Plaintiff will
supplement the following interrogatories to provide: (a) a list of the devices

Plaintiff used to access Plaintiff's online Bank of America EDD debit card

PLAINTIFF CANDACE KOOLE’S OBJECTIONS AND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO
BANA’s FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case No. 3:21-md-02992-LAB-MSB CONFIDENTIAL

41
Case

B:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 623-15 Filed 01/08/26 PagelD.45079

Page 43 of 45

account; (b) a list of who had access to those devices; and (c) a list of who had
access to Plaintiff's Bank of America EDD debit card account. Subject to and
without waiving the foregoing and prior objections, Plaintiff further responds as
follows: Plaintiff refers Defendant to Plaintiff's Supplemental Response to
Interrogatory No. 4, which is hereby fully incorporated herein.
INTERROGATORY NO. 24:

For each electronic device on which YOU accessed YOUR ACCOUNT,
IDENTIFY all PERSONS (including children, roommates, spouses, and other

relatives or acquaintances) that had access to the device and their relationship to
YOU.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 24:

Plaintiff incorporates by reference the Preliminary Statement and General
Objections.

Plaintiff objects to the use of “accessed,” as it is subject to varying
interpretations and is not a defined term. Plaintiff further objects to this Interrogatory
on the ground that it is not relevant to any issue in the litigation.

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Plaintiff responds
as follows: Plaintiff is willing to meet and confer with Defendant with respect to
this Interrogatory.

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 24:

Pursuant to Judge Berg’s direction at the December 5 hearing, Plaintiff will
supplement the following interrogatories to provide: (a) a list of the devices
Plaintiff used to access Plaintiff's online Bank of America EDD debit card
account; (b) a list of who had access to those devices; and (c) a list of who had
access to Plaintiff's Bank of America EDD debit card account. Subject to and
without waiving the foregoing and prior objections, Plaintiff further responds as
follows: Plaintiff refers Defendant to Plaintiff's Supplemental Response to

Interrogatory No. 4, which is hereby fully incorporated herein.

PLAINTIFF CANDACE KOOLE’S OBJECTIONS AND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO
BANA’s FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case No. 3:21-md-02992-LAB-MSB CONFIDENTIAL 42
Case

i3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 623-15 Filed 01/08/26 PagelD.45080

Page 44 of 45

INTERROGATORY NO. 25:

Identify by caption, court, case number, and result, all litigation in which

YOU have ever served as a class representative.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 25:

Plaintiff incorporates by reference the Preliminary Statement and General
Objections.

Plaintiff objects on the ground that this Interrogatory seeks information
which is irrelevant to any issue in this litigation.

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Plaintiff responds
as follows: Plaintiff is willing to meet and confer with Defendant with respect to
this Interrogatory.

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 25:

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing and prior objections, Plaintiff
further responds as follows: Plaintiff has not filed a class action lawsuit nor

requested any court to serve as a class representative prior to filing this lawsuit.

Dated: January 29, 2024 COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP

By: /s/ Brian Danitz
JOSEPH W. COTCHETT
BRIAN DANITZ
KARIN B. SWOPE
ANDREW F. KIRTLEY

Dated: January 29, 2024 ALTSHULER BERZON LLP
By: /s/Michael Rubin
MICHAEL RUBIN
STACEY M. LEYTON
MATTHEW MURRAY

CONNIE K. CHAN

Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs and the
Proposed Class

PLAINTIFF CANDACE KOOLE’S OBJECTIONS AND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO
BANA’s FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case No. 3:21-md-02992-LAB-MSB CONFIDENTIAL 43
Case|$8:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 623-15 Filed 01/08/26 PagelD.45081
Page 45 of 45

1 ||Jn re Bank of America California Unemployment Benefits Litigation
Case No. 3:21-md-02992-LAB-MSB (N.D. California)

3 VERIFICATION

4 I, Candace Koole, declare:

5 I am one of the plaintiffs in the above-entitled action. I have reviewed my
6 || Objections and Supplemental Responses to Bank of America, N.A.’s First Set of
7 |\Interrogatories. The responses contained therein are true and correct to the best of

9 I declare under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of California,
10 || that the foregoing is true and correct.

11 Executed on January 3rd , 2024, at Temecula, California

12 (City, State)

15 CANDACE KOOLE

PLAINTIFF CANDACE KOOLE’S VERIFICATION

File and source

File: gov.uscourts.casd.709615.623.15.pdf
Size: 19,624,242 bytes
SHA-256: ab3ca26f92133642ea2aae11e63ce6b70110005713bcc131159d2dd1df11a122
Our copy: gov.uscourts.casd.709615.623.15.pdf
Original: PACER (login required)

Exhibit M — In re Bank of America California Unemployment Benefits Litigation (Dkt. 623-15, S.D. Cal. No. 3:21-md-02992)

Summary

Record facts

Cite this document

Full text

File and source

Related records