This Document Relates to All Actions

Upon consideration of Plaintiffs’ Motion to File Under Seal portions of Plaintiffs’ Reply in Support of Plaintiffs’ Objections to and Motion to Reverse in Part Magistrate Judge’s April 24, 2024 Discovery Order that reference material designated by Defendant Bank of America as “Confidential” pursuant to the Protective Order, and no opposition having been filed, the motion is DENIED for failure to establish good cause.

of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006).

Plaintiffs are ORDERED to file an unredacted copy of their reply brief on the public docket.

Plaintiffs argue that the ESI of Moynihan and Montag’s are relevant to demonstrate their knowledge, motive and intent in adopting the challenged policies, including the implementation of the CFF, to support a showing of punitive

(Id.) It asserts that compelling Moynihan and Montag’s ESI would be duplicative and burdensome because Plaintiffs have or will receive discovery from 23 custodians, many who were actually involved in the decision and actions that give rise to the litigation, and it has already produced 275,000 documents and expended more than $7 million in vendor costs alone.

Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 298 Filed 06/25/24 PageID.3167 Page 10 of 12 Moynihan and Montag possessed “uniquely relevant information that is not available from the sources already designated, (id. at 8 (emphasis in original); id. at 9), the Magistrate Judge denied Plaintiffs’ motion to compel.

First, “[i]t is well- established that a ‘jury may award punitive damages under section 1983 either when a defendant's conduct was driven by evil motive or intent, or when it involved a reckless or callous indifference to the constitutional rights of others.’” Dang v. Cross, 422 F.3d 800, 807 (9th Cir. 2005).

According to Plaintiffs, they seek discovery on the Bank’s motives and reasons for “(a) developing its Claim Fraud Filter; (b) using its CFF as the basis for automatically denying EDD debit cardholders’ unauthorized-transaction claims, rescinding their previously issued permanent credits, and freezing their accounts; (c) adopting a policy and practice of understaffing its EDD debit card customer service call centers, such that cardholders were subjected to hours-long wait times; and (d) maintaining these policies even after the Bank knew they were harming large numbers of legitimate cardholders.” (Dkt. No. 278-1 at 15-16.)

A complaint may survive a motion to dismiss only if, taking all well pleaded factual allegations as true, it contains enough facts to “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570).

Previously, the Court granted dismissal of the claim for breach of Section 9 and 11 of the Account Agreement with leave to amend except as to Plaintiffs Jennifer Yick, Stephanie Smith, Beth Burns and Crystal Horath.

The unfair prong is “intentionally framed in its broad, sweeping language, precisely to enable judicial tribunals to deal with the innumerable ‘new schemes which the fertility of man's invention would contrive.’” Id. (quoting Am. Philatelic Soc.

App. 4th 594, 612 (2014) (“the appellate courts split regarding the definition of ‘unfair’ business practices in consumer action.”); Hodsdon v. Mars, Inc., 891 F.3d 857, 866 (9th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (proper test for whether an action violates the unfair prong is “currently in flux among California courts.”).

Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 297 Filed 06/25/24 PageID.3154 Page 14 of 17 investigate and resolve Plaintiffs’ and Class Members’ claims of unauthorized transactions in a timely manner despite the Bank’s promised ‘Zero Liability’ policy for unauthorized transactions”; (10) “failing to extend provisional credit to Plaintiffs and Class Members in cases where the Bank was unable to timely investigate and resolve fraud claims”; (11) “automatically denying Plaintiffs’ and Class Members’ claims of unauthorized transactions without investigation, explanation, or reasonable basis, including based solely on the results of a highly unreliable ‘fraud filter’”; (12) “rescinding, without explanation or legitimate basis, ‘permanent’ credits the Bank had previously paid to EDD Debit Cardholders upon determining fraud had occurred in their Account”; (13) “freezing and/or blocking EDD Debit Card Accounts without a reasonable basis for believing that the Cardholders themselves had committed fraud”; (14) “freezing and/or blocking EDD Debit Card Accounts not to protect the Cardholders but to protect the Bank’s own interests”; and (15) “failing to provide reasonable or adequate customer service to Plaintiffs and other Class Members seeking assistance in obtaining reimbursement for third-party fraud on their Accounts or in accessing their frozen Accounts, despite the Bank’s representation” to the contrary.

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Reset Hearing.

hearing on the G6 Defendants’ Motion to Transfer Venue Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) [Dkt. 19] on July 17, 2024.

Due to a conflict in counsel’s schedule, Plaintiff requests the Court reset the hearing.

After considering the Plaintiff’s motion and reviewing the pleadings on file and all applicable law, the Court GRANTS the same and resets the hearing on G6 Defendants’ Motion to Transfer Venue Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) [Dkt. 19] for August 7, 2024 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 2, Jack Brooks Federal Courthouse, 300 Willow Street, Beaumont, Texas.

Michael J. Truncale United States District Judge SIGNED this 23rd day of June, 2024.

This Document Relates to All Actions Case No. 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB

Upon consideration of Plaintiffs’ Motion to File Documents Under Seal, and for good cause shown, the motion is GRANTED.

of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006).

It is further ORDERED that Plaintiffs may file under seal (1) portions of Plaintiffs’ Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Plaintiffs’ Objections to and Motion to Reverse in Part Magistrate Judge’s April 24, 2024 Discovery Order that reference material designated by Defendant Bank of America as “Confidential” pursuant to the Protective Order; and (2) portions of the Supplemental Declaration of Connie K. Chan in support of Plaintiffs’ Objections and Motion that reference material designated by Defendant as “Confidential,” including the Index of Exhibits and Exhibits 24-36.

Before the Court is G6 Defendants’ Request for Oral Hearing Regarding Motion to Transfer Venue Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).

After considering Defendants’ request, the Court GRANTS the same and sets G6 Defendants' Motion to Transfer Venue [Dkt. 19] for oral hearing before this Honorable Court on July 17, 2024 in Courtroom 2, Jack Brooks Federal Courthouse, 300 Willow Street, Beaumont, Texas, at 11:30 a.m. or immediately following the previously scheduled hearings involving the G6 Defendants.

All Parties are required to attend in person.

Michael J. Truncale United States District Judge SIGNED this 11th day of June, 2024.

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for Oral Argument Regarding Motion to Proceed Under Pseudonym and for Protective Order.

After considering Plaintiff’s unopposed motion, the Court GRANTS the same and sets the above-referenced motion for oral hearing before this Honorable Court on July 17, 2024 in Courtroom 2, Jack Brooks Federal Courthouse, 300 Willow Street, Beaumont, Texas, at 11:00 a.m. or immediately following the previously scheduled Rule 16 Case Management Conferences involving the G6 Defendants.

All Parties are required to attend in person.

Michael J. Truncale United States District Judge SIGNED this 11th day of June, 2024.

On February 14, 2024, Plaintiff Lindsay McClure (“Plaintiff”) filed an Ex Parte Motion seeking an order compelling non-party TTEC Government Solutions, LLC (“TTEC”) to comply with a subpoena.

Now pending before the Court is the parties’ third Joint Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply Papers (hereinafter, “Joint Motion”).

In the instant Joint Motion, Plaintiff explains that Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Motion and TTEC’s Opposition “continue to lead to productive meet and confer discussions ... [and] the production of substantial materials.” (ECF No. 282 at 2.)

During each of the extended time periods to date, Plaintiff says the parties “have made significant 21md2992-GPC (MSB) Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 283 Filed 05/13/24 PageID.2919 Page 2 of 2 progress, including TTEC’s production of a significant volume of highly relevant data surrounding calls made by EDD beneficiaries to TTEC call centers.” (Id.) The parties believe additional discussions regarding the production of documents are “likely to lead to a near complete resolution of the present discovery dispute.” (Id.) They ask the Court to extend the deadline to file reply papers from May 10, 2024, to June 7, 2024.

Because briefing on this discovery dispute was originally set to close on March 1, 2024, and the Court has now granted four extensions, the Court will not permit any further extensions of time absent extraordinary circumstances.