Full text
BANA’S OPP. TO MOT. FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
CASE NO. 21-MD-02992-GPC-MSB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
JAMES W. MCGARRY (pro hac vice)
JMcGarry@goodwinlaw.com
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
100 Northern Avenue
Boston, MA 02210
Tel.: +1 617 570 1000
Fax: +1 617 523 1231
SABRINA M. ROSE-SMITH (pro hac vice)
SRoseSmith@goodwinlaw.com
MATTHEW L. RIFFEE (pro hac vice)
MRiffee@goodwinlaw.com
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
1900 N Street, NW
Washington, DC 20036
Tel.: +1 202 346 4000
Fax: +1 202 346 4444
Attorneys for Defendant
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.
[ADDITIONAL COUNSEL LISTED IN SIGNATURE BLOCK]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN DIEGO DIVISION
IN RE: BANK OF AMERICA
CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT
BENEFITS LITIGATION
Case No. 21-MD-02992-GPC-MSB
MEMORANDUM
OF
POINTS
AND
AUTHORITIES
IN
OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE
ORDER
Date:
N/A, per Dkt. 319
Time:
N/A, per Dkt. 319
Ctrm:
2C
Judge:
Hon. Michael S. Berg
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 330 Filed 09/06/24 PageID.7445 Page 1
of 5
1
BANA’S OPP. TO MOT. FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
CASE NO. 21-MD-02992-GPC-MSB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Nothing in Class Counsel’s Motion for Protective Order, ECF 327 (“Mot.”),
justifies reversal of the Tentative Order.1
Prematurity. Class Counsel complains that the 10 previously-ordered
depositions are premature because BANA did not move for leave to take them (Mot.
at 4), but there was no need for BANA to file a formal motion. Individual Counsel—
who actually represents the would-be deponents in this action—did not object to the
taking of 10 depositions pending the Court’s ruling on the Stay Motion. See Health
v. Nautilus Ins. Co., 2022 WL 18031825, at *2–3 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 31, 2022) (no
formal motion necessary in light of “tacit understanding and agreement” among
parties for additional depositions). Despite having multiple opportunities to raise this
issue before the Court (in the IDC briefing, at the IDC itself, in the Stay Motion, and
in the Stay Reply), Individual Counsel has never objected to the relevance of the
depositions. Rather, Individual Counsel’s concerns have been limited to the timing
(now or later) and method (in person or remote) of the depositions that Individual
Counsel, presumably, understands are a natural consequence of their clients’ decision
to sue BANA. Indeed, prior to Class Counsel’s improper intervention, Individual
Counsel offered seven Individual Plaintiffs available for deposition in Los Angeles
in September and offered to immediately identify three more. See Brys Decl., ¶¶ 61,
65. Regardless, Rule 30 permits a party to take more than 10 depositions upon “leave
of Court” which is what the Tentative Order provided. See BANA Br. at 4.
Class Counsel’s arguments that no depositions should happen until after a
ruling on the Stay Motion (Mot. at 4) have already been considered and rejected.
The Court was well aware of the pendency of the Stay Motion when it issued the
Tentative Order, and nonetheless found that it was appropriate to allow the 10
depositions to go forward now, in light of the fact that BANA has been trying to
schedule these depositions for months and that Individual Counsel objected only to
whether the depositions should proceed in person. See BANA Br. at 3. As explained,
1 Defined terms have the same meaning as in ECF 326 (“BANA Br.”).
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 330 Filed 09/06/24 PageID.7446 Page 2
of 5
2
BANA’S OPP. TO MOT. FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
CASE NO. 21-MD-02992-GPC-MSB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
BANA must begin scheduling the depositions now if they are to be completed before
or near the close of fact discovery in December. See id.2
Need. Class Counsel also incorrectly say that BANA “can cite no legal
authority” to support its position (Mot. at 5). BANA cited Agena v. Cleaver-Brooks,
Inc, 2020 WL 6929671 (D. Haw. June 15, 2020), and Chavez v. Wis Holdings Corp.,
2013 WL 2181214 (S.D. Cal. May 20, 2013), cases wherein courts permitted
defendants to depose 73 and 30 plaintiffs, respectively, given the relevance of the
unique, otherwise unavailable information to be gained from those depositions to the
parties’ claims and defenses, including to oppose class certification. See BANA Br.
at 4–5. In contrast, it is Class Counsel who offer no legal authority for why they have
any right to object to depositions of people they do not represent.
Burden. Since the Tentative Order finding no Individual Plaintiff made any
showing of burden, no plaintiff filing—either by Individual or Class Counsel—has
attempted to remedy this failure. The best argument Class Counsel can come up with
is that the depositions of Individual Plaintiffs (who they do not represent, and do not
have to prepare for testimony) are “plainly calculated to harass Class Plaintiffs”
during the time that BANA will be writing its opposition to the class certification
motion. Mot. at 6. It is hard to see how this can be so when Class Counsel failed to
participate in the previous five Individual Plaintiff depositions. See Brys Decl. ¶¶ 40,
42–45. Class Counsel’s burden arguments further contemplate 128 depositions
(which are appropriate for the reasons in the Stay Opp.), but say nothing at all about
the burden associated with the 10 depositions contemplated by the Tentative Order.
Regardless, Class Counsel’s inability to allocate resources to multiple workflows at
once is not a reason to deny BANA discovery to which it is entitled.
For these, reasons the Court should deny the Motion, affirm the Tentative
Order, and order that the 10 depositions at issue proceed as noticed.
2 After pushing the Court for months to order BANA to comply with their ceaseless
discovery demands, Class Counsel casually suggest that the “discovery deadline may
be extended to accommodate” Plaintiffs’ compliance. Mot. at 3.
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 330 Filed 09/06/24 PageID.7447 Page 3
of 5
3
BANA’S OPP. TO MOT. FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
CASE NO. 21-MD-02992-GPC-MSB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Dated: September 6, 2024
Respectfully submitted,
By: s/ Laura G. Brys
JAMES W. MCGARRY (pro hac vice)
JMcGarry@goodwinlaw.com
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
100 Northern Avenue
Boston, MA 02210
Tel.: +1 617 570 1000
Fax: +1 617 523 1231
THOMAS M. HEFFERON (pro hac vice)
THefferon@goodwinlaw.com
SABRINA M. ROSE-SMITH (pro hac vice)
SRoseSmith@goodwinlaw.com
MATTHEW L. RIFFEE (pro hac vice)
MRiffee@goodwinlaw.com
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
1900 N St. NW
Washington, DC 20036
Tel: +1 202 346 4000
Fax: +1 202 346 4444
LAURA G. BRYS (SBN 242100)
LBrys@goodwinlaw.com
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
601 S Figueroa St., Suite 4100
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Tel.: +1 213 426 2500
Fax: +1 617 346 4444
YVONNE W. CHAN (pro hac vice)
YChan@jonesday.com
JONES DAY
100 High Street
Boston, MA 02110
Tel.: +1 617 960 3939
Fax: +1 617 449 6999
JANICE P. BROWN (SBN 114433)
jbrown@myersnave.com
MATTHEW B. NAZARETH (SBN
278405)
mnazareth@myersnave.com
MEYERS NAVE
600 B Street, Suite 1650
San Diego, CA 92101
Attorneys for Defendant
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 330 Filed 09/06/24 PageID.7448 Page 4
of 5
4
BANA’S OPP. TO MOT. FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
CASE NO. 21-MD-02992-GPC-MSB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I electronically filed the foregoing with the clerk of the
court for the United States District Court for the Southern District of California by
using the CM/ECF system on September 6. I further certify that all participants in
the case are registered CM/ECF users and that service will be accomplished by the
CM/ECF system. I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and
correct.
Executed:
September 6, 2024
s/ Laura G. Brys
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 330 Filed 09/06/24 PageID.7449 Page 5
of 5