Court filing

Exhibit D — In re Bank of America California Unemployment Benefits Litigation (Dkt. 623-6, S.D. Cal. No. 3:21-md-02992)

Summary

Exhibit D, filed January 8, 2026 as Document 623-6 in In re Bank of America California Unemployment Benefits Litigation, Case No. 3:21-md-02992, is plaintiff Roland Oosthuizen's redacted supplemental objections and responses to Bank of America, N.A.'s first set of interrogatories, dated January 29, 2024. The responses say someone withdrew the $1,000 daily ATM maximum for five straight days from Oosthuizen's EDD debit card account at ATMs the plaintiff never visited, while the plaintiff was at work. Oosthuizen discovered the withdrawals on September 29, 2020, suspended the card and made a fraud claim, which a Bank of America letter dated October 1, 2020 closed. A November 5, 2020 fax with a written statement and police report information got no response, according to the responses.

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 D — In re Bank of America California Unemployment Benefits Litigation (Dkt. 623-6, 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. 623-6, 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-709615-623-6-gov-uscourts-casd-709615-623-6/, SHA-256 b614cb4657f647d4c49d44e9f70b8e791ca1004383dcb7f321be6b65acc32e0b.

Search CourtListener for this docket number

Full text

Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 623-6 Filed 01/08/26 PageID.44977
Page 1 of 38
EXHIBIT D

REDACTED
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 623-6 Filed 01/08/26 PageID.44978
Page 2 of 38
Case

Oo A NI BD A BP WY NH —

NO WO NH HN NH NH HN HN NO KH K&S HS HF KFS KFS FS | —
oN DH n BP WN K§ TO HO WANT DA UA BR WW NY KF CO

JOSEPH W. eine ped (SBN 36324) MICHAEL RUBIN (SBN 80618)

jena dete al.com mrubin@altber.com
RIAN DANITZ (SBN 247403) STACEY M. LEYTON (SBN 203827)
bdanitz ae eae .com en altber.com
KARIN PE (Pro Hac Vice) TTHEW MURRAY (SBN 271461)
kswope@c cpm aici com mmutrra Gale er.com
AND TLEY (SBN 328023) CONNI CHAN (SBN 284230)
akirtle coms al.com cchan@altber.com
eal RE & McCARTHY, ALTSHULER BERZON LLP

177 Post Street, Suite 300
R40. eae hoe pate 200 San Francisco, CA 94108
Burlingame, C Telephone: (415) 421-7151
Telephone: 630 607. 6000 Fax: M415) 362-8064

Fax: (650) 697-0577

Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE BANK OF AMERICA Case No. 3:21-md-02992-LAB-MSB
CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT
BENEFITS LITIGATION PLAINTIFF ROLAND OOSTHUIZEN

SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND

N.A.’S FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES

Judge: Hon. Larry Alan Burns
This Document Relates to All Actions

=< EXHIBIT —
BlDNay,

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

RESPONSES TO BANK OF AMERICA,

l
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 623-6 Filed 01/08/26 PageID.44979
Page 3 of 38
So mH NID WH BP WW NY

mo HN NHN NY NY NY NO DN HRN eR Re Re Ow ee Oe ee ee
CoN DN AN BP WN KY DODO WANT DB NH BW NY KF CO

TO DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. AND ITS ATTORNEYS
OF RECORD:

Pursuant to Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff
Lindsay McClure hereby provides supplemental responses and objections to
Defendant Bank of America, N.A.’s First Set of Interrogatories pursuant to the
parties’ agreements and compromises as follows:

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

Plaintiff Roland Oosthuizen (“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:

l. 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 ROLAND OOSTHUIZEN’S SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND 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 623-6 Filed 01/08/26 PageID.44980
Page 4 of 38
So WAN DN” BW NY

NO WHO HNO HNO HN NH ND WN WN HE HH HFS FS KFS KES SES S| S|
CN DH nN BPW NY KK CO UO WAN DW NH BR WO NBO K CO

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

2. 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.

8 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.

Da 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 ROLAND OOSTHUIZEN’S SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND 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 623-6 Filed 01/08/26 PageID.44981
Page 5 of 38
coma NI Dn BPW HY

mo NW NH WP ND WH NY NY NO FH YE KF SS SS SS SS SS eS Ee
CoN DON BP WN RK DOD OBO DANI HDA NH BR WNP KK CO

1 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 Plaintiffs 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,

oN DN MN BP WN RK CO UO WAN Dn FBR WN KY SO

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 Plaintiff's 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

NYO NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NO ee ew ee
oN HDHD nN FP WY NYNK CO CO DWDNI DA MN FF WN KK CO

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 his employment
history beginning six months prior to his receipt of benefits.

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing and prior objections, Plaintiff
further responds as follows: Plaintiff started collecting EDD Benefits in the form
of Unemployment Insurance and/or Pandemic Emergency Unemployment

Compensation beginning on or about May 22, 2020, and continuing until on or
about September 12, 2020. Oosthuizen was employed as a

NM NWO NO NO N WH WD NO HO & HF KF KF HFS KFS ES Se KS
oN DWN UN BP WOW NY KK TO UO WAN KH NH HBR WW NY KF CO

Oosthuizen went back to work full time starting approximately on or around
September 13, 2020.
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.

NO WwW HN NO NH WN HN HN NO HLH HS &F KH HFS KS SS Se ee ee
CoN DH nH FP WOW NY KY COD OO WN DA NA BP WO NO K CO

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 2:

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing and prior objections, Plaintiff
further responds as follows: Plaintiff refers Defendant to Plaintiffs documents
produced related to Plaintiffs receipt of EDD benefits, including but not limited
to: Oosthuizen_R_ 0000042 to Oosthuizen_R_ 0000150.

INTERROGATORY NO. 3:

State the principal facts RELATING TO whether YOU have ever requested

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

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Plaintiff responds
as follows: Plaintiff requested to receive EDD benefits by check in approximately

January, 2021.

Co WmWnnNnN DUN FW NY

Nm HO WH NY KH WN NO KR HNO RRR Re Re RS Oe
oN DWN OH HP WO NY KY TO CO WAN KH NH BR WW NY | OO

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.

Nw NY NY NY NY DY DO RO RO eee ee ee
on HD nH FP WY NK DO WDWNI DW NH BW NHO KK CO

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 and prior objections, Plaintiff further responds as
follows:

Plaintiff used his desktop computer and cellphone to access his Bank of
America EDD debit card account. Only Plaintiff's mom and Plaintiff had access to
his desktop and only Plaintiff had access to his cellphone. Only Plaintiff had access
to his Bank of America EDD debit card account. Plaintiff has never shared his
device passwords with anyone, and no one had access to his Bank of America
EDD debit card account.

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.

oC WON DA HR W NYO

NB WO PO LO NH NWN WN HD WN HE KE KFS HS HS HS Se Se —|—
oN DH nN BP WN KH TOD O BNI HD UA BW NH KS CO

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 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.

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 5:

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

further responds as follows: From September 24 to 28, 2020, Plaintiff was the
victim of five separate unauthorized transactions on his card on five successive
days in the amount of $1,000 each. See e.g. BANA EDD MDL-00000952,
BANA _EDD_MDL-00043567, Oosthuizen_R_0000016, Oosthuizen_R_0000019,

DO BN HN NY ND NY ND NWN HNO YE YF FS FS | =| S| — =
CAND nA BPW NY KH DO WANQI HA UA BR WN KK CO

Oosthuizen_R_0000020, Oosthuizen_R_0000021 for account information
regarding the five unauthorized transactions.

These unauthorized transactions are an error under EFTA Regulation E
because they were initiated by someone other than the account holder and the
account holder did not receive any benefit from the transfer. The Bank should have
identified the unauthorized transactions as highly suspicious because each
withdrawal was a withdrawal of the maximum daily ATM limit under the
Cardholder Agreement of $1,000 per day for five straight days at different ATMs,
which was a completely different pattern of withdrawal than Plaintiff himself had
ever undertaken. Plaintiff did not visit each ATM location of the $1000 daily
withdrawals as shown in BANA_EDD_MDL-00000952, BANA EDD MDL-
00043567, Oosthuizen_R_0000016, Oosthuizen R_ 0000019,
Oosthuizen_R_0000020, Oosthuizen_R_0000021. Plaintiff was at work during the
times the unauthorized transactions occurred on his account. See e.g.
Oosthuizen_R_0000002. The Bank did not identify the transactions as suspicious
as the Bank never notified Plaintiff of these withdrawals.

After discovering the fraudulent withdrawals from his EDD Debit Card
Account on September 29, 2020, Plaintiff promptly suspended his EDD Debit Card
using the Bank of America online portal. Plaintiff called Bank of America and—
after waiting on hold for approximately three hours—made a fraud claim. See e.g.
BANA_EDD_MDL-00001045, BANA EDD MDL-00001044
BANA_EDD_MDL-00044212, BANA_EDD_MDL-00001250. The unauthorized
transactions reported to Bank of America were recorded by Defendant as Claim
No. 200929302952 on or about September 29, 2020. See Defendant’s Second
Supplemental Responses to Plaintiffs’ First Set of Interrogatories, Revised Exhibit
he

Approximately two weeks later, Plaintiff received a letter in the

Oo A NI HD NA HBP WO NY —

mM Ww NY NH ND NY NY NO RN ee ee wR Re OO
oN HD On BPW NY KY CO OO WON DR A BR WHO NY KF CO

mail from Bank of America dated October 1, 2020—just two days after Plaintiff
had reported the fraud—which summarily closed his claim and failed to provide
any substantive information concerning what Bank of America did to investigate
his claim or its reason for closing the claim. See e.g.
BANA_EDD_MDL-00556156, BANA_EDD_MDL-00558988 and
Oosthuizen_R_ 0000040.

Plaintiff called Bank of America multiple times between September 28 and
November 20, 2020, typically waiting on hold for hours before, on occasion,
reaching a live person. Plaintiff spoke with a Bank representative named Tara on
October 14, 2020. He requested that Bank of America re-open his case. Tara
assured him during that call that his claim would be “escalated.” Tara also
requested that Plaintiff fax the Bank documentation supporting his claim. See e.g.
BANA_EDD_MDL-00044212, BANA EDD MDL-00001045.

On November 5, 2020, Plaintiff faxed Bank of America a written statement
regarding the theft, a police report information statement from when he made a
report of the theft to the Los Angeles Sherriff’s Department, and other
documentation. See e.g. Oosthuizen_R_ 0000002. In his fax, Plaintiff specifically
requested that Bank of America provide him with whatever documentation the
Bank had relied upon when it denied his fraud claim. He did not receive a response
to his fax.

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

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

PLAINTIFF ROLAND OOSTHUIZEN’S SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND 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 623-6 Filed 01/08/26 PageID.44991
Page 15 of 38
oOo ANID WA FP W NY

SND nN FP WN KY DO DANI DN BW NY KS CO

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.
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 Plaintiff's Supplemental
Interrogatory Response 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

Co mWAaANI Dn BP W NY

NO wo WN HO HO HN NH HN NO eH HH HS HF KF Se OS S|

INFORMATION, wallet, CARD, or cellphone were ever stolen, and whether YOU
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.

transactions.

WO NO NHN ND NYDN NY YN YW HNO | | HFS |S =| SS SS = ee

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
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.

mw NY KY NY NH NH NY RO RO ea ee
ConNI Dn BPW NY KY OD OO WAN KH NH BW NY KS CO

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Plaintiff responds
as follows: Every day from September 24 to 28, 2020, Plaintiff was the victim of
five separate unauthorized transactions on his card on five successive days in the
amount of $1,000 each, despite his having maintained exclusive physical
possession of that card. Plaintiff did not make the withdrawals himself, did not
authorize the withdrawals, and only learned about the withdrawals when he logged
into his EDD Debit Card Account on Bank of America’s website to find that
$5,000 was missing. Plaintiff always kept his original EDD Debit Card in his
wallet. He does not know how unauthorized third parties gained access to his EDD
Debit Card Account. Plaintiff had never used the ATMs used for the fraudulent
transactions. The Bank never notified Plaintiff of this fraud, notwithstanding the
highly suspicious withdrawal of the maximum daily ATM limit under the
Cardholder Agreement of $1,000 per day for five straight days at different ATMs,
which was a completely different pattern of withdrawal than Plaintiff himself
had ever undertaken. After discovering the fraudulent withdrawals from his EDD
Debit Card Account on September 29, 2020, Plaintiff promptly suspended his EDD
Debit Card using the Bank of America online portal. The next day, Plaintiff
called Bank of America and—after waiting on hold for three hours—made a fraud
claim concerning the missing $5,000. A Bank of America representative named
Kaitlyn told Plaintiff he should wait to hear back from Bank of America
concerning his claim.

Approximately two weeks later, Plaintiff received a letter in the
mail from Bank of America dated October 1, 2020—just two days after Plaintiff
had reported the fraud—which summarily closed his claim and failed to provide
any substantive information concerning what Bank of America did to investigate
his claim or its reason for closing the claim.

Over the following months, Plaintiff called Bank of America multiple times,

typically waiting on hold for hours before, on occasion, reaching a live person.

oN DMN FP WN eK TD OBO WAN WD NH BR WY K CO

Plaintiff spoke with a Bank representative named Tara on October 14, 2020. He
requested that Bank of America re-open his case. Tara assured him during that call
that his claim would be “escalated.” Tara also requested that Plaintiff fax the Bank
documentation supporting his claim.

On November 5, 2020, Plaintiff faxed Bank of America a written statement
regarding the theft, a police report information statement from when he made a
report of the theft to the Los Angeles Sherriff’s Department, and other
documentation. In his fax, Plaintiff specifically requested that Bank of America
provide him with whatever documentation the Bank had relied upon when it
denied his fraud claim. He did not receive a response to his fax.
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 8:

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing and prior objections, Plaintiff
further responds as follows: Plaintiff refers Defendant to Plaintiff's Supplemental
Interrogatory Response No. 5, which is hereby fully incorporated herein.
INTERROGATORY NO. 9:

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
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

Co ANH HD A FSP W NH

NO NY NY NY NY NY NY NV N YF KF FF RFE EF SES hl
oN DMN BW NK OD UO DANI Dn FP WN KF CO

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.

The Bank never notified Plaintiff of this fraud, notwithstanding the
highly suspicious withdrawal of the maximum daily ATM limit under the
Cardholder Agreement of $1,000 per day for five straight days at different ATMs,

which was a completely different pattern of withdrawal than Plaintiff
himself had ever undertaken.

After discovering the fraudulent withdrawals from his EDD Debit

Card Account on September 29, 2020, Plaintiff promptly suspended his
EDD Debit Card using the Bank of America online portal. The next day, Plaintiff
called Bank of America and—after waiting on hold for three hours—made a fraud
claim concerning the missing $5,000. A Bank of America representative named
Kaitlyn told Plaintiff he should wait to hear back from Bank of America

concerning his claim.

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

Ig
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 623-6 Filed 01/08/26 PageID.44997
Page 21 of 38
Co wWmAN DUN FB WwW NY

oN DN FP WN KF DOD UO DANI Dn FBP WN KS CO

Approximately two weeks later, Plaintiff received a letter in the mail from
Bank of America dated October 1, 2020—just two days after Plaintiff had reported
the fraud—which summarily closed his claim and failed to provide any substantive
information concerning what Bank of America did to investigate his claim or its
reason for closing the claim.

Over the following months, Plaintiff called Bank of America multiple times,
typically waiting on hold for hours before, on occasion, reaching a live person.
Plaintiff spoke with a Bank representative named Tara on October 14, 2020. He
requested that Bank of America re-open his case. Tara assured him during that call
that his claim would be “escalated.” Tara also requested that Plaintiff fax the Bank
documentation supporting his claim.

On November 5, 2020, Plaintiff faxed Bank of America a written statement
regarding the theft, a police report information statement from when he made a
report of the theft to the Los Angeles Sherriff’s Department, and other
documentation. In his fax, Plaintiff specifically requested that Bank of America
provide him with whatever documentation the Bank had relied upon when it
denied his fraud claim. He did not receive a response to his fax.
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 9:

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

further responds as follows: Plaintiff refers Defendant to Plaintiffs Supplemental
Interrogatory Response No. 5, which is hereby fully incorporated herein.
INTERROGATORY NO. 10:

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
all facts that form the basis for YOUR belief, such as when and how YOUR

PERSONAL INFORMATION was accessed.

PLAINTIFF ROLAND OOSTHUIZEN’S SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO
BANA’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case No. 3:21-md-02992-LAB-MSB CONFIDENTIAL 20
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 623-6 Filed 01/08/26 PageID.44998
Page 22 of 38
Co DANY Dn FP WW NY

mM NO ND NO HN NH NWN HM WN XH HLH HS KFS HS HFS FSF Se SS
CoN DN MN BPW NYDN KY CO UO WBN BD nA BR WW NY KS OC

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 Plaintiffs 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.”
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

amount of funds YOU were unable to access, and the amount of funds that were

not deposited because of the freeze or block.

PLAINTIFF ROLAND OOSTHUIZEN’S SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO
BANA’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case No. 3:21-md-02992-LAB-MSB CONFIDENTIAL 22
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 623-6 Filed 01/08/26 PageID.45000
Page 24 of 38
Case §

Oo mWmnNI DN FP W YN

oN DN MN BP WYN KY DOD UO DANI Dn BPW NY KF CO

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 is unaware whether his account was ever frozen and/or
blocked.

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 12

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

further responds as follows: Plaintiff refers Defendant Exhibit 3 of Bank of
America’s Second Supplemental Response to Plaintiffs’ First Set of
Interrogatories.

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 ROLAND OOSTHUIZEN’S SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO
BANA’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case No. 3:21-md-02992-LAB-MSB CONFIDENTIAL 23
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 623-6 Filed 01/08/26 PageID.45001
Page 25 of 38
So ANI Dun BP WY NH —

NO NO NO ND ND NH NWN NH NO & KH FS = S&S Se SB ee Ee

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 Plaintiff's account.

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Plaintiff responds
as follows: Plaintiff is unaware whether his account was ever frozen and/or
blocked.

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 13:

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing and prior objections, Plaintiff
further responds as follows: Plaintiff refers Defendant to Exhibit 3 of Bank of
America’s Second Supplemental Response to Plaintiffs’ First Set of
Interrogatories.

INTERROGATORY NO. 14:
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.

PLAINTIFF ROLAND OOSTHUIZEN’S SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO
BANA’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case No. 3:21-md-02992-LAB-MSB CONFIDENTIAL 24
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 623-6 Filed 01/08/26 PageID.45002
Page 26 of 38
Co WH NI DN FB WW NY

WO NO NY NO VW WNW WH VM WH KK KS KS | FS FS S| SS SS
oN DWN AN BP WN SK CO HO WAN HD WA BR WW NY KS CO

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.

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. Plaintiffs 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 Plaintiffs 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 experienced emotional distress resulting from Bank of America’s
actions and inactions. Plaintiff experienced financial hardship causing him

emotional distress from having $5000 fraudulently withdrawn from his account.

PLAINTIFF ROLAND OOSTHUIZEN’S SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO
BANA’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case No. 3:21-md-02992-LAB-MSB CONFIDENTIAL a5
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 623-6 Filed 01/08/26 PageID.45003
Page 27 of 38
Co AN Dn Ff WW NY

NO NO NO HNO NWN ND ND WN WN eH HH He HE KE HFS KF Se —_

Plaintiff was residing with his mother, Rosemary Matthews, at the time the
unauthorized transactions on his and his mother’s account occurred. Consequently,
Plaintiff had to rely on and use his savings from his primary bank account Kinecta
to pay rent for both himself and his mother along with other living expenses such
as groceries, phone bills, and lending money to his mother so she could pay her
bills.

Plaintiff reserves the right to Supplement this Interrogatory Response as
discovery continues and the case progresses.
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 ROLAND OOSTHUIZEN’S SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO
BANA’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 623-6 Filed 01/08/26 PageID.45004
Page 28 of 38
Oo ANID UA BW NY

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 Plaintiffs claim will be provided in a manner consistent with the Court’s
applicable scheduling order.

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 15:

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing and prior objections, Plaintiff
further responds as follows: Plaintiff refers Defendant to Plaintiffs Supplemental
Rog Answer No. 14, which is hereby fully incorporated herein.
INTERROGATORY NO. 16:

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 ROLAND OOSTHUIZEN’S SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO
BANA’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case No. 3:21-md-02992-LAB-MSB CONFIDENTIAL 27
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 623-6 Filed 01/08/26 PageID.45005
Page 29 of 38
CWO AN DN BW NY

CoN HD nH BP WN KY DOD UO DANI DH nA BW NY KS CO

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:

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

further responds as follows: Plaintiff refers Defendant to Plaintiffs Supplemental
Interrogatory Response No. 14, which is hereby fully incorporated herein.
INTERROGATORY NO. 17:

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 ROLAND OOSTHUIZEN’S SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO
BANA’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case No. 3:21-md-02992-LAB-MSB CONFIDENTIAL 28
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 623-6 Filed 01/08/26 PageID.45006
Page 30 of 38
Case

Co DHONI HD nA SP WW NY

mo NYO ND WN NH NW NH NHN NO YF KF K§ Ee Ee FE EE Eee OS
on DN ON HB WN KF CO OO WAN DA FH WOW NY KF SO

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 financial hardship causing
him emotional distress from having $5000 fraudulently withdrawn from his
account.

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 17:

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

further responds as follows: Plaintiff refers Defendant to Plaintiff's Supplemental
Rog Answer No. 14, which is hereby fully incorporated herein.
INTERROGATORY NO. 18:

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

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

PLAINTIFF ROLAND OOSTHUIZEN’S SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO
BANA’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case No. 3:21-md-02992-LAB-MSB CONFIDENTIAL 29
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 623-6 Filed 01/08/26 PageID.45007
Page 31 of 38
Co AHN DNA Ff WW NY —

oN DN MN Hh WON SK CO OHO DOA A nA BR WO NY —& CO

“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 email address is:

ES ? 2i0ti00's phone number is
Plaintiff resides in iii

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.

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.

PLAINTIFF ROLAND OOSTHUIZEN’S SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO
BANA’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case No. 3:21-md-02992-LAB-MSB CONFIDENTIAL 30
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 623-6 Filed 01/08/26 PageID.45008
Page 32 of 38
Case 4

Oo A ANI HD A HB WW NY

No wo NM ND NY NY ND NHN HNO ee He Hee Hee He He Ee Se
on DH nN BPW NY KH CO OO CON WH A BW NY — CO

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:

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

further responds as follows: Plaintiff refers Defendant to Plaintiff's Supplemental
Interrogatory Response No. 14, which is hereby fully incorporated herein.
INTERROGATORY NO. 20:

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
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

access to Plaintiff's Bank of America EDD debit card account. Subject to and

NO NY NY NHN NY NH KN KN NO Rm eee ee ee
oN DD HA FP WN KH DOD CO DBNI DWN BP WY K OO

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.

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

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

PLAINTIFF ROLAND OOSTHUIZEN’S SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO
BANA’S FirsT SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case No. 3:21-md-02992-LAB-MSB CONFIDENTIAL 32
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 623-6 Filed 01/08/26 PageID.45010
Page 34 of 38
Case

Co AND A FP W NY —

Oo NH NY NY KN KN LPO KN HNO RR RR ee
oN DM FP WN RK CO UO WAN DUH BW NY KK SO

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.

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 22:

Pursuant to Judge Berg’s direction at the December 5 hearing, Plaintiff will

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.

NO wo NO NHN ND ND NO WN NO HF KF KF KFS | HS S| S| =

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

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 ROLAND OOSTHUIZEN’S SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO
BANA’S First SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case No. 3:21-md-02992-LAB-MSB CONFIDENTIAL 34
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 623-6 Filed 01/08/26 PageID.45012
Page 36 of 38
Case

Co AND A FP W NH

NO WhO bt HO HN HN ND HN WN KH He He HF KS HF ES S| —_—s_ le
ont NWN UN BW NY KK CO OO BHOnN WD A BR WO NY KK CO

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

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
BRIAN DANITZ

KARIN B. SWOPE
ANDREW F. KIRTLEY

Dated: January 29, 2024 ALTSHULER BERZON LLP

By: /s/ Michael Rubin

STACEY M. LEYTON
MATTHEW MURRAY
CONNIE K. CHAN

Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs and the
Proposed Class

VERIFICATION

1. Roland Oosthuizen, declare:

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

I declare under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of California,
that the foregoing is poet and correct. ot

aGH 3 Cember 2 , 2023, at

Duel bp
R

oland Oosthuizen

PLAINTIFF ROLAND OOSTHUIZEN’S VERIFICATION

PagelD.45014

File and source

File: gov.uscourts.casd.709615.623.6.pdf
Size: 7,866,124 bytes
SHA-256: b614cb4657f647d4c49d44e9f70b8e791ca1004383dcb7f321be6b65acc32e0b
Our copy: gov.uscourts.casd.709615.623.6.pdf
Original: PACER (login required)

Exhibit D — In re Bank of America California Unemployment Benefits Litigation (Dkt. 623-6, S.D. Cal. No. 3:21-md-02992)

Summary

Record facts

Cite this document

Full text

File and source

Related records