Motion to File Documents Under Seal (With attachments) — In re BofA Unemployment Litigation (Dkt. 347)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California · No. 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB · Doc. 347 · 2024-10-24 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SEAL 
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. 3:21-MD-02992-GPC-MSB 
DEFENDANT’S NOTICE AND 
MOTION TO SEAL DOCUMENTS 
FILED IN OPPOSITION TO 
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR 
CLASS CERTIFICATION 
 
  
Ctrm:   
2D – 2nd Floor  
Judge:  
Hon. Gonzalo P. Curiel 
 
  
 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 347     Filed 10/24/24     PageID.8035     Page 1
of 21

 
 
 
 
i 
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SEAL 
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 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
Page 
I. 
STANDARD TO SEAL DOCUMENTS ........................................................ 1 
II. 
GOOD CAUSE AND COMPELLING REASONS EXIST TO SEAL 
THE CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS ......................................................... 2 
Documents That Risk Future Fraud ................................................................ 7 
Documents That Risk Competitive Harm ....................................................... 8 
Cardholders’ Personal Account, Transaction And Claim Information ......... 11 
Confidential Regulator Materials .................................................................. 13 
BANA’s Opposition, Expert And Fact Declarations Quote And 
Summarize Confidential Exhibits ................................................................. 14 
III. 
CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 15 
 
 
 
 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 347     Filed 10/24/24     PageID.8036     Page 2
of 21

 
 
 
 
ii 
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SEAL 
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 
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 
 
Page(s) 
Cases 
Adtrader, Inc. v. Google LLC, 
2020 WL 6391210 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2020) ..................................................... 9 
Algarin v. Maybelline, LLC, 
2014 WL 690410 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 2014) .................................................... 1, 2 
Andren v. Alere Inc., 
No. 3:16-cv-01255-GPC (AGS), ECF 112 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 11, 
2017) (J. Curiel) (ECF 344-6) .............................................................................. 2 
Bohannon v Facebook, Inc., 
2019 WL 188671 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2019) ........................................................ 7 
Brady v. Grendene USA, Inc., 
2015 WL 6828400 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2015) ............................................... 10, 11 
Cowan v. GE Cap. Retail Bank, 
2015 WL 1324848 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2015) ................................................... 10 
Darisse v. Nest Labs, Inc., 
2016 WL 11474174 (N.D. Cal. June 2, 2016) ................................................... 14 
E.W. Bank v. Shanker, 
2021 WL 3112452 (N.D. Cal. July 22, 2021) ........................................ 2, 3, 9, 13 
Erhart v. BofI Fed. Bank, 
2019 WL 4534701 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 19, 2019) ............................................. 13, 14 
Hill v. City of Chicago, 
2011 WL 320204 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 31, 2011) .......................................................... 5 
Jasso v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 
2022 WL 2665979 (D. Nev. July 8, 2022) ........................................................... 8 
Lundstrom v. Young, 
2022 WL 15524624 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 27, 2022) ..................................................... 4 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 347     Filed 10/24/24     PageID.8037     Page 3
of 21

 
 
 
 
iii 
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SEAL 
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 
Makaeff v. Trump Univ., LLC, 
No. 10-cv-0940-GPC (WVG), ECF 416 (S.D. Cal. June 29, 2015)  
(J. Curiel) (ECF 344-5) ...................................................................................... 1-2 
McAfee v. Experian Info. Sols., 
2023 WL 8237364 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 28, 2023) .................................................. 11 
Medimpact Healthcare Sys., Inc. v. IQVIA Holdings, Inc., 
No. 3:19-cv-01865-GPC (DEB), ECF 875 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2023)  
(J. Curiel) (ECF 344-7) ......................................................................................... 9 
Nia v. Bank of Am., N.A., 
2024 WL 171659 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 12, 2024) ....................................................... 11 
Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 
435 U.S. 589 (1978) ............................................................................................. 1 
Pryor v. City of Clearlake, 
2012 WL 3276992 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2012) ............................................... 12, 13 
Shelley v. Cnty. of San Joaquin, 
2015 WL 2082370 (E.D. Cal. May 4, 2015) .............................................. 4, 5, 13 
Soria v. U.S. Bank N.A., 
2019 WL 8167925 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 25, 2019) ............................................. passim 
Workplace Techs. Rsch., Inc. v. Project Mgmt. Inst., Inc., 
2021 WL 6091272 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 20, 2021) ....................................................... 4 
Xifin, Inc. v. Sunshine Pathways, LLC, 
2016 WL 5930313 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 12, 2016) ..................................................... 10 
Other Authorities 
Local Civ. R. 79.2(c) ................................................................................................. 1 
 
 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 347     Filed 10/24/24     PageID.8038     Page 4
of 21

 
 
 
 
1 
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SEAL 
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 
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, pursuant to Local Civil Rule 79.2(c), 
Defendant Bank of America, N.A. (“Defendant” or “BANA”) submits this Notice 
and Motion to Seal certain documents and portions of other documents1 submitted in 
its Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for 
Class Certification (the “Opposition”).2 
I. 
STANDARD TO SEAL DOCUMENTS 
The public’s right to inspect and copy judicial records is not absolute, and a 
party faced with the disclosure of confidential or proprietary information may seek 
to file the documents under seal to avoid disclosure of business information that 
might result in competitive harm or be used for improper purposes.  See Nixon v. 
Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978) (denying disclosure); Local Civ. 
R. 79.2(c).  The documents that BANA seeks to seal each contain information that 
qualifies as “Protected Material” pursuant to the Parties’ Stipulated Protective Order 
(“Protective Order”), entered by the Court on September 24, 2021 (ECF No. 82). 
Courts in this district, including this Court, have held that a party seeking to 
seal documents filed in connection with a motion for class certification must show 
“good cause” to seal documents in connection with class certification “[u]nless the 
 
1 Defendants’ Exhibits to the Declaration of Laura Brys in Support of Defendant’s 
Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification shall be 
referred to as “DX” in this Motion and the forthcoming Memorandum and supporting 
documents.  Plaintiffs’ Exhibits to the Declaration of Connie K. Chan in Support of 
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class certification shall be referred to as “PX” in this Motion 
and the forthcoming Memorandum and supporting documents. 
2 This Motion is based on Defendant’s Notice of Motion and Motion to Seal, the 
Declarations of William Martin (“Martin Decl.”) and Don Robart (“Robart Decl.”) 
submitted herewith, the documents filed in support of Defendant’s Memorandum of 
Points and Authorities in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification, 
certain documents filed in support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification (ECF 
324, 336), Defendant’s sealing motions filed in connection with Plaintiffs’ Motion 
For Class Certification (ECF 328, 337, 344), all pleadings and papers on file in this 
action, oral argument if requested by the Court, and any such other matters that the 
Court deems appropriate.  Should the Court desire more detailed briefing to decide 
Defendant’s Motion to Seal, BANA respectfully requests the opportunity to submit 
additional briefing in support of sealing. 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 347     Filed 10/24/24     PageID.8039     Page 5
of 21

 
 
 
 
2 
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SEAL 
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 
denial of a motion for class certification would constitute the death knell of the case.”  
See Makaeff v. Trump Univ., LLC, No. 10-cv-0940-GPC (WVG), ECF 416 (S.D. Cal. 
June 29, 2015) (J. Curiel) (quoting Algarin v. Maybelline, LLC, 2014 WL 690410, at 
*2 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 2014) (ECF 344-5); see also Andren v. Alere Inc., No. 3:16-
cv-01255-GPC (AGS), ECF 112 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 11, 2017) (J. Curiel) (finding “good 
cause” to seal portions of opposition to class certification) (ECF 344–6).  Here, where 
nearly 400 Individual Plaintiffs filed suit against BANA and alleged more than de 
minimis damages, it is likely the case would proceed should class certification be 
denied (see ECF 304, 311, 325), and thus the good cause standard applies.  See 
Algarin, 2014 WL 690410, at *2. 
Even applying the “compelling reasons” standard, however, courts 
consistently seal documents where—as here—disclosure of the confidential business 
information risks competitive harm to the litigant or improper use of the information 
such as to commit fraud.  E.g., E.W. Bank v. Shanker, 2021 WL 3112452, at *18–19 
(N.D. Cal. July 22, 2021) (finding compelling reasons to seal confidential onboarding 
processes, verification of customer identities, and fraud prevention measures); Soria 
v. U.S. Bank N.A., 2019 WL 8167925, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 25, 2019) (finding 
compelling reasons to seal internal fraud investigation procedures because there was 
a “significant danger that someone could improperly use this information to commit 
fraud and avoid detection.”). 
II. 
GOOD CAUSE AND COMPELLING REASONS EXIST TO SEAL 
THE CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS 
Good cause and compelling reasons exist to file under seal each of the 
confidential documents, discovery responses and testimony (or portions thereof) filed 
in connection with BANA’s Opposition, and any substantive discussion of those 
documents contained in BANA’s Opposition or the declarations filed in support 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 347     Filed 10/24/24     PageID.8040     Page 6
of 21

 
 
 
 
3 
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SEAL 
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 
thereof.3  Each of those documents and testimony were properly designated as 
“Confidential” or “Highly Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only” under the Protective 
Order entered by this Court because each pertains to topics that are likely to cause 
particularized competitive harm to BANA and which could potentially enable future 
fraud, which poses a danger to BANA’s business and the public.  Many of the 
documents were also designated as confidential pursuant to the terms of BANA’s 
contract and confidentiality agreement with the EDD (see infra at 10-12), because 
BANA was explicitly instructed by its regulators to keep the documents confidential 
because they implicate regulatory protections and concern ongoing remediation 
efforts (see infra at 13-14), and/or because their disclosure could implicate or 
interfere with potential or ongoing law enforcement investigations (see infra at 5, 12-
13). 
All are compelling reasons which outweigh the public disclosure factors, and 
thus permit sealing of those documents.  For example, in East West Bank v. Shanker, 
a California district court granted a motion to seal portions of exhibits concerning 
“confidential onboarding processes, digital banking platform[s], fraud management 
techniques, and verification of customer identities, which if made public would harm 
[the bank’s] business,” and found that public disclosure of EWB’s confidential fraud 
prevention measures would “harm EWB’s business.”  2021 WL 3112452, at *18-19.  
Similarly, in Soria v. U.S. Bank, N.A., another California district court found 
compelling reasons to file under seal information related to a bank’s internal 
procedures for investigating incidents of fraud, explaining that “[a]lthough there is a 
public interest in [the b]ank’s procedures concerning its fraud investigations, public 
disclosure of this information may impede [the b]ank’s ability to identify and combat 
 
3 In its Opposition, BANA refers to certain of Plaintiffs’ exhibits, including 
documents, testimony and expert reports, that Plaintiffs provisionally filed under seal 
in connection with their Motion for Class Certification.  ECF 324, 336.  Those 
exhibits should remain sealed for the reasons set forth in BANA’s previously filed 
motions to seal and the declarations submitted therewith.  ECF 328, 337, 344. 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 347     Filed 10/24/24     PageID.8041     Page 7
of 21

 
 
 
 
4 
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SEAL 
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 
future instances of fraud” and that “[t]here is a significant danger that someone could 
improperly use this information to commit fraud and avoid detection.”  2019 WL 
8167925, at *4.  Further, in Shelley v. County of San Joaquin, yet another California 
district court protected materials where “the public release of those documents could 
negatively impact” law enforcement investigations.  2015 WL 2082370, at *7 (E.D. 
Cal. May 4, 2015). 
Similar compelling reasons exist here.  Indeed, this court has already found, 
good cause and compelling reasons to seal documents just like those at issue here 
based on the plain language of the exhibits and testimony at issue—which each relate 
to confidential business practices and fraud prevention measures that could be 
misused to commit future fraud or used by competitor banks to BANA’s 
disadvantage.  Earlier this year, Judge Berg determined that there are “compelling 
reasons” to seal a number of exhibits previously submitted with Plaintiffs’ motion to 
compel discovery that concern the very same categories of confidential information 
that BANA seeks to seal here.  See ECF 266.  In doing so, Judge Berg found that 
compelling reasons existed to seal information concerning: the Claim Fraud Filter, 
other fraud and claims strategies, call center operations, prepaid fraud losses, state 
contract issues, prepaid updates and trackers, cardholder complaints and escalations, 
and certain of BANA’s interrogatory responses—which are precisely the types of 
documents BANA seeks to seal here.  This Court also found good cause to seal the 
same or similar documents related to the Claim Fraud Filter and other fraud 
strategies, operational fraud losses, and trainings for claims investigations.  See ECF 
212, 293.  Those prior rulings are sufficient grounds alone to grant sealing here.  See 
Lundstrom v. Young, 2022 WL 15524624, at *17 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 27, 2022) (J. Curiel) 
(considering prior sealing of exhibits when granting motion to seal); Workplace 
Techs. Rsch., Inc. v. Project Mgmt. Inst., Inc., 2021 WL 6091272, at *3 (S.D. Cal. 
Oct. 20, 2021) (sealing references to document that court already granted sealing of). 
Specifically, the Confidential and Highly Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 347     Filed 10/24/24     PageID.8042     Page 8
of 21

 
 
 
 
5 
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SEAL 
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 
documents, testimony and declarations that BANA seeks to seal, include but are not 
limited to, the following categories of documents and information: 
• 
BANA’s analyses of transactional and claims fraud and BANA’s fraud 
detection and prevention policies and strategies designed to combat 
fraud, including the Claim Fraud Filter and EMV chips (see DX 1, 2, 3, 
4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 41, 43, 85, 97, 98, 100, 102, 103, 
112, 113, 114, 115, 121, 122); 
• 
BANA’s claims review policies and strategies and the implementation 
thereof, including with respect to BANA’s additional fraud review 
process that seeks to identify fraudulent claims already paid in 
connection with the remediation process – which separately must be 
protected because they also have the potential to implicate or impact 
future or ongoing law enforcement investigations4 (see DX 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 
23, 24, 41, 43, 85, 98, 112, 122); 
• 
BANA’s call center operations and strategies, including its 
authentication procedures, trainings, business controls and processes, 
and general services agreements and statements of work between 
BANA and its call center vendors (see DX 1, 5, 9, 18, 104, 116, 117, 
118); 
• 
BANA’s communications with EDD regarding BANA’s and/or EDD’s 
fraud strategies, including the use of EMV chip technology and freezing 
and blocking of accounts (see DX 2, 5, 6, 24, 27, 28, 29, 97, 122);  
• 
BANA’s analyses of its state prepaid unemployment program 
operations, including but not limited to, contractual negotiations, card 
 
4 See, e.g., Shelley, 2015 WL 2082370, at *7 (protecting materials where “the public 
release of those documents could negatively impact” law enforcement 
investigations); Hill v. City of Chicago, 2011 WL 320204, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 31, 
2011) (denying motion to compel to keep “ongoing, active criminal investigation 
confidential to prevent any harm from public disclosure of the content of the 
investigation”). 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 347     Filed 10/24/24     PageID.8043     Page 9
of 21

 
 
 
 
6 
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SEAL 
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 
volume, fraud volume, claims and call center operations, and 
operational risks and losses (see DX 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 18, 19, 20, 21, 24, 
85, 97, 98, 99, 100); 
• 
BANA’s Remediation Plans and Addenda with the OCC and CFPB, and 
its implementation of those Plans, which both agencies themselves 
designated as “Highly Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only” (see DX 1, 
2, 3, 5, 7, 8); 
• 
BANA’s interrogatory responses and data provided therein reflecting 
BANA’s use of the Claim Fraud Filter to decision unauthorized 
transaction claims and to freeze or block EDD cardholder accounts, and 
any reconsideration by BANA of those claims and any compensation 
paid as a result (see DX 1, 3, 5, 23, 43, 85, 86, 104, 105); 
• 
Aggregated statistics related to EDD benefit recipients account 
balances, activity, and fraud claims that BANA is obligated to maintain 
as confidential pursuant to its agreement with EDD (ECF 324-106 at 5), 
and otherwise would keep as confidential because its disclosure could 
cause competitive harm to BANA or its customers (DX 1, 4, 5, 6, 8, 12, 
41, 42, 86, 99, 101, 102, 105, 115, 120); and 
• 
Individual EDD cardholder account, transactions, and claim 
information, which often include personal, sensitive, or financial 
information (see DX 1, 9, 30, 31, 32, 33, 35, 36, 38, 40, 45, 46, 47, 51, 
58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 64, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 77, 78, 80, 81, 82, 
84).5 
 
5  BANA submits excerpted deposition testimony from six BANA witnesses (DX 18, 
24, 29, 97, 98, 112), which BANA designated as Confidential or Highly Confidential 
– Attorneys’ Eyes Only because those witnesses testify to BANA’s confidential 
documents and to the same categories of confidential information described above, 
including but not limited to: BANA’s handling of unauthorized transactions claims 
and reconsiderations; BANA’s contract with EDD and the responsibilities 
thereunder; BANA’s communications with EDD regarding fraud-related measures; 
BANA’s fraud strategies, including the use of EMV chip technology and the freezing 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 347     Filed 10/24/24     PageID.8044     Page
10 of 21

 
 
 
 
7 
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SEAL 
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 
Documents that risk future fraud.  BANA moves to seal BANA’s fraud and 
claims review policies, practices and strategies and any analyses thereof (see DX 1, 
2, 6, 7, 9, 23, 24, 41, 43, 85, 98, 112, 121, 122) because they could be misused to 
perpetrate future fraud against BANA and the public.  As courts routinely find, and 
this court has previously found in this case (see ECF 266, 293), there is good cause 
and compelling reasons to limit public access to such documents because their 
disclosure could lead to future fraud that poses a harm not only to the Bank, but also 
the public.  See Soria, 2019 WL 8167925, at *4 (granting sealing of bank’s fraud 
investigations procedures); see also Bohannon v Facebook, Inc., 2019 WL 188671, 
at *6 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2019) (finding compelling reasons to seal references to 
policies and methods used for refunds and to confirm identities because disclosure 
“might allow a third party to…undermine… protections against fraud, in turn causing 
harm to both Facebook and its users”).   
Public access to BANA’s fraud and claims review strategies and any analyses 
of fraud and possible strategies to combat fraud (see DX 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 23, 24, 
25, 26, 27, 29, 41, 43, 85, 97, 98, 100, 102, 103, 112, 113, 114, 115, 121, 122) could 
provide insight into BANA’s fraud detection and prevention measures.  ECF 344-2 
(Robart Decl.) ¶¶ 4-5; ECF 344-1 (Martin Decl.) ¶¶ 7-10.  That insight could be used 
by fraudsters to perpetrate future fraud and to circumvent BANA’s security and fraud 
prevention procedures, and to otherwise cause harm to the Bank and its customers, 
which are compelling reasons to seal these documents.  ECF 344-2 (Robart Decl.) ¶¶ 
4-5; ECF 344-1 (Martin Decl.) ¶¶ 7-10.  See, e.g., Soria, 2019 WL 8167925, at *4 
(granting motion to seal because, “[a]lthough there is a public interest in [the b]ank’s 
procedures concerning its fraud investigations, public disclosure of this information 
may impede [the b]ank’s ability to identify and combat future instances of fraud” and 
that “[t]here is a significant danger that someone could improperly use this 
 
and blocking of accounts; and BANA’s call center procedures and complaint 
escalation intake channels. 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 347     Filed 10/24/24     PageID.8045     Page
11 of 21

 
 
 
 
8 
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SEAL 
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 
information to commit fraud and avoid detection”); see also Jasso v. Wells Fargo 
Bank, N.A., 2022 WL 2665979, at *2 (D. Nev. July 8, 2022) (granting motion to seal 
documents that “contain sensitive information . . . regarding Wells Fargo’s business 
practices and procedures that could be used for an improper purpose if allowed into 
the public record”).   
Similarly, BANA’s communications with EDD regarding fraud strategies 
utilized in the EDD program, including the use of EMV chip technology and the 
freezing and blocking of accounts (see DX 2, 5, 6, 24, 27, 28, 29, 97, 122) could also 
be misused by fraudsters to perpetrate future fraud and avoid detection.  ECF 344-1 
(Martin Decl.) ¶ 8.  See, e.g., Soria, 2019 WL 8167925, at *4; Jasso, 2022 WL 
2665979, at *2.  For example, BANA’s internal analyses concerning the costs 
associated with and types of fraud that EMV chips may or may not prevent are not 
public knowledge (see DX 24, 25, 26, 27, 41, 112, 114, 115), and could still be 
misused by fraudsters to perpetrate fraud on cards with or without EMV chips.  See 
ECF 344-1 (Martin Decl.) ¶ 8. 
Additionally, public access to information regarding BANA’s call center 
operations and strategies, including its authentication procedures, trainings, and 
business controls and processes (see DX 1, 5, 9, 18, 104, 116, 117, 118) could be 
used by fraudsters to perpetrate future fraud and to circumvent BANA’s call center 
authentication and fraud prevention procedures.  ECF 344-1 (Martin Decl.) ¶ 10.  See, 
e.g., Soria, 2019 WL 8167925, at *4.6 
Documents that risk competitive harm.  The aforementioned categories of 
 
6  There are compelling reasons to seal discontinued fraud and claim strategies, like 
the Claim Fraud Filter, because different indicators, features or components of those 
strategies could be used now or in the future, as part of BANA’s many fraud 
prevention strategies.  Moreover, BANA’s past and present fraud strategies, and 
related rationales or analysis, could be misused by fraudsters and criminals to gain 
insight into BANA’s inner workings to circumvent future fraud strategies to 
perpetrate future fraud or crimes.  ECF 344-3 (Lennon Dec.) ¶¶ 3-4; ECF 344-1 
(Martin Decl.) ¶¶ 4–5, 7.  See, e.g., Soria, 2019 WL 8167925, at *4.  
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 347     Filed 10/24/24     PageID.8046     Page
12 of 21

 
 
 
 
9 
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SEAL 
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 
documents and testimony also contain sensitive business information that could be 
used to BANA’s competitive or commercial disadvantage, which is yet another 
compelling reason to seal the documents.  See, e.g., E.W. Bank, 2021 WL 3112452, 
at *18-19 (granting motion to seal where public disclosure of EWB’s confidential 
fraud prevention measures would “harm EWB’s competitive standing”); Adtrader, 
Inc. v. Google LLC, 2020 WL 6391210, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2020) (sealing 
references to internal strategic decisions, policies, and processes related to detecting 
and responding to advertising fraud).   
For example, documents, testimony or discovery responses demonstrating how 
BANA structures its claims and fraud teams (see DX 24, 26, 85, 97, 98, 99, 100, 
122), and the review procedures, protocols, and systems used and implemented by 
those teams (see DX 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 41, 43, 85, 97, 98, 102, 104, 112, 114, 115) 
is sensitive business information that, if disclosed to the public, could be replicated 
by a competitor financial institution to BANA’s competitive disadvantage (ECF 344-
1 (Martin Decl.) ¶¶ 5, 7-10; ECF 344-2 (Robart Decl.) ¶¶ 4-5), and accordingly, good 
cause and compelling reasons exist to seal that information.  See, e.g., E.W. Bank, 
2021 WL 3112452, at *18-19 (permitting sealing of confidential onboarding 
processes, digital banking platform, fraud management techniques, and verification 
of customer identities); Medimpact Healthcare Sys., Inc. v. IQVIA Holdings, Inc., 
No. 3:19-cv-01865-GPC (DEB), ECF 875 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2023) (J. Curiel) 
(finding compelling reasons to seal testimony on “policies and procedures regarding 
the preservation of electronic information” where party “d[id] business in an industry 
where the preservation and confidentiality of information is highly regulated”) (ECF 
344-7).  Notably, certain claims review processes and trainings (e.g., DX 24, 43, 97, 
98, 99) are utilized in the same or similar fashion for many of BANA’s lines of 
business, not simply prepaid, and are still being utilized today.  See ECF 344-2 
(Robart Decl.) ¶ 3.  Thus, good cause and compelling reasons exist to seal those 
procedures because their disclosure to other financial institutions or potential 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 347     Filed 10/24/24     PageID.8047     Page
13 of 21

 
 
 
 
10 
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SEAL 
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 
fraudsters could place BANA at a competitive disadvantage or risk future fraud.  See, 
e.g., Cowan v. GE Cap. Retail Bank, 2015 WL 1324848, at *2-3 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 
2015) (compelling reasons to seal bank’s internal procedures for investigating fraud 
and addressing cardholder fraud notifications). 
Additionally, documents or testimony reflecting BANA’s analyses of its state 
prepaid unemployment program operations, including but not limited to, contractual 
negotiations with the states, contracts with call center vendors, card and fraud 
volumes, and operational risks and losses (see DX 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 18, 19, 20, 21, 24, 
85, 97, 98, 99, 100), which this court has already sealed (ECF 266, 293), could 
similarly be used by a competitor financial institution to BANA’s competitive 
disadvantage (Martin Decl. ¶¶ 10-12; ECF 344-1 (Martin Decl.) ¶¶ 5, 7–10; ECF 
344-2 (Robart Decl.) ¶ 4), and thus require sealing.  See, e.g., Xifin, Inc. v. Sunshine 
Pathways, LLC, 2016 WL 5930313, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 12, 2016) (J. Curiel) 
(finding compelling reasons to seal services agreement that contained detailed 
information about pricing structure, nature of services, system security requirements, 
and how to use the cloud-based billing system “that could expose Plaintiff to a 
competitive disadvantage if revealed”); Brady v. Grendene USA, Inc., 2015 WL 
6828400, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2015) (J. Curiel) (sealing confidential business 
information that might harm the litigants’ competitive standing including profit and 
loss data and contractual agreements). 
As another example, BANA continues to operate call centers to answer 
cardholders’ calls, both within prepaid and other lines of business (ECF 344-1 
(Martin) ¶ 10), and thus details regarding BANA’s call center operations and 
strategies, including the different types of call centers utilized by BANA, the roles 
and responsibilities of each, BANA’s call center authentication procedures, and call 
center metrics (DX 1, 5, 9, 18, 19, 20, 104, 116, 117, 118), are still commercially 
sensitive and warrant sealing.  See Xifin, Inc., 2016 WL 5930313, at *3. 
Moreover, aggregated account statistics regarding the number of active EDD 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 347     Filed 10/24/24     PageID.8048     Page
14 of 21

 
 
 
 
11 
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SEAL 
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 
accounts, the balances on those cards, the fraud claims filed by EDD cardholders, 
and the combined monetary amounts of fraud associated therewith (DX 1, 4, 5, 6, 8, 
12, 41, 42, 86, 99, 101, 102, 105, 115, 120, 121) are proprietary, confidential business 
information of EDD and/or BANA.  Martin Decl. ¶¶ 10-12.  Public disclosure of the 
number of active EDD accounts, account balances and first party fraud could violate 
BANA’s confidentiality agreement with EDD.  Id.; see also ECF 324-106 (PX 103) 
at 5.  Additionally, aggregated account statistics related to customer account 
balances, activity, and fraud claims is also commercially sensitive information, from 
which certain of BANA’s revenues and fraud losses could be derived, and if 
disclosed, could be used by another financial institution to compete against BANA 
(Martin Decl.¶¶ 10-12), which warrants sealing.  See, e.g., Brady, 2015 WL 6828400, 
at *3. 
Cardholders’ personal account, transaction and claim information.  
Additional compelling reasons and good cause exist to seal Exhibits 1, 9, 30, 31, 32, 
33, 35, 36, 38, 40, 45, 46, 47, 51, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 64, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 
73, 77, 78, 80, 81, 82, and 84 because they reflect EDD cardholder account, 
transaction and claim information, which often include personal, sensitive and 
financial information that the customers did not intend to appear on a public docket.  
See Nia v. Bank of Am., N.A., 2024 WL 171659, at *6 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 12, 2024) 
(permitting sealing of exhibit reflecting customer data such as internal deposit 
account and credit account closure data); see also McAfee v. Experian Info. Sols., 
2023 WL 8237364, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 28, 2023) (finding compelling reasons to 
seal documents in order to “protect Plaintiff’s credit history and financial account 
information from public disclosure to maintain Plaintiff’s privacy . . . [and] guard 
against the threat of identi[t]y theft…”).7  Moreover, BANA is obligated to keep such 
 
7 BANA is provisionally sealing sensitive financial information of both named 
Plaintiffs and absent class members.  If Plaintiffs request that their personal and 
financial information be made public, BANA can remove sealing over Plaintiffs’ 
account, transactions and claims information, but not with respect to non-plaintiffs. 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 347     Filed 10/24/24     PageID.8049     Page
15 of 21

 
 
 
 
12 
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SEAL 
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 
information confidential pursuant to the terms of its contract and confidentiality 
agreement with EDD.  See ECF 324-106 at 5 (prohibiting “disclosure of the EDD’s 
confidential information to the public”); Robart Decl. ¶ 5. 
For example, EDD cardholders’ claim details and correspondence, account 
and transaction histories, ATM footage and call recordings (DX 30, 31, 32, 33, 35, 
36, 38, 40, 45, 46, 64, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73) reflect not only personal 
identifying information, but also personal, transactional and claims information, such 
as cardholders’ personal purchases, their telephone discussions with customer 
service, their receipt of unemployment benefits, the denial of their claims, suspicion 
of fraudulent behavior, repossession of property, foreclosure and eviction (Robart 
Decl., ¶¶ 3-8), which is sensitive, personal information that warrants sealing.  See, 
e.g., Pryor v. City of Clearlake, 2012 WL 3276992, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2012) 
(sealing non-litigant’s prior arrest record).  Similarly, BANA’s responses and 
objections to Plaintiffs’ interrogatories (and the exhibits thereto), including Exhibits 
85 and 86, also reflect highly sensitive, personal and financial information of EDD 
cardholders.  ECF 344-3 (Lennon Decl.) ¶¶ 4-5.   
Additionally, Exhibits 58, 59, 60, 61, and 62 are PowerPoint presentations that 
identify certain EDD cardholders and unauthorized transactions claims that BANA 
previously paid, but that BANA has subsequently reviewed and now believes may 
be fraudulent based on its additional fraud review process.  Martin Decl. ¶¶ 7-9.  
Those exhibits reflect highly sensitive personal, account, and claims details of those 
cardholders, including photographs of those individuals and details regarding their 
transactions.  Id.  Disclosure of these exhibits could reveal the identities of certain 
cardholders engaging in fraud, which is highly sensitive and potentially embarrassing 
information that warrants sealing.  Id.  See, e.g., Pryor, 2012 WL 3276992, at *2.  
Disclosure of these exhibits could also reveal details regarding BANA’s additional 
fraud review process, including the identities of individuals who may be the subject 
of ongoing internal and/or law enforcement investigations and proceedings, which 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 347     Filed 10/24/24     PageID.8050     Page
16 of 21

 
 
 
 
13 
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SEAL 
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 
could enable fraudsters to circumvent BANA’s fraud detection processes, and which 
could also provide competitor financial institutions with access to and the ability to 
replicate BANA’s confidential fraud processes.  Martin Decl. ¶¶ 7-9.  Thus, 
compelling reasons exist to seal those presentations.  See Soria, 2019 WL 8167925, 
at *4 (granting sealing of bank’s fraud investigations procedures); E.W. Bank, 2021 
WL 3112452, at *18-19 (granting sealing where public disclosure of confidential 
fraud prevention measures would “harm [bank’s] competitive standing”); Shelley v. 
Cnty. of San Joaquin, 2015 WL 2082370, at *7 (protecting materials where “the 
public release of those documents could negatively impact” law enforcement 
investigations). 
Finally, Plaintiffs themselves designated their own claim files and 
correspondence and deposition testimony as Confidential in many instances (see DX 
47, 51, 80, 84), and under the Protective Order, BANA is required to file under seal 
documents or testimony that Plaintiffs designated confidential (ECF 82 § 12.5).  
Accordingly, cardholder claim and account details contain sensitive, personal 
information that overcomes the presumption of public access and warrants sealing.   
Confidential regulator materials.  Compelling reasons exist to seal Exhibits 
1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 23, 24, 41, 43, 85, 98, 112, and 122, which contain documents and 
information regarding BANA’s implementation of its Remediation Plans and 
Addenda with the OCC and CFPB.  The regulators designated the Plans “Highly 
Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only” as a condition to BANA producing them to 
Plaintiffs, and they contain information the OCC deemed privileged and confidential 
under its statutes and regulations.  Standing alone, the regulators’ determination and 
designation—which Plaintiffs readily agreed to when they accepted the documents 
last year—should be a sufficient, compelling reason to seal the Plans and any 
documents quoting from or referencing those Plans.  See, e.g., Erhart v. BofI Fed. 
Bank, 2019 WL 4534701, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 19, 2019) (sealing information that 
the OCC asserted bank examination privilege over but permitted to be produced 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 347     Filed 10/24/24     PageID.8051     Page
17 of 21

 
 
 
 
14 
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SEAL 
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 
subject to confidentiality protections).  See also ECF 344-3 (Lennon Decl.) ¶¶ 3–4, 
6. 
Moreover, notwithstanding the regulators’ views, the details within the Plans 
and how BANA continues to implement the Plans are highly sensitive because they 
could provide fraudsters with a roadmap for how to fraudulently seek additional 
payments under the Plans.  ECF 344-3 (Lennon) ¶ 3.  Similarly, the data that BANA 
compiled to respond to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests regarding BANA’s 
implementation of the Remediation Plans (DX 86, 105) should also be sealed because 
BANA’s efforts to implement the Plans is ongoing, and such data could be used to 
potentially back into the confidential formulas in the Plans, and because they contain 
sensitive personal information regarding cardholders.  ECF 344-3 (Lennon Decl. ) ¶¶ 
4-5. 
BANA’s Opposition, expert and fact declarations quote and summarize 
confidential exhibits.  BANA has provisionally redacted and sealed portions of its 
Opposition and expert and fact declarations (see DX 1–9) that quote or describe the 
confidential documents, testimony and topics identified above, including BANA’s 
fraud, claims and call center policies, strategies and practices, as well as BANA’s 
implementation of the Remediation Plans.  See supra, pgs. 6-14.  This is consistent 
with the terms of the Stipulated Protective Order (ECF 82, § 3), and with rulings in 
this circuit.  See, e.g., Darisse v. Nest Labs, Inc., 2016 WL 11474174, at *2 (N.D. 
Cal. June 2, 2016) (sealing class certification motion and declarations that quote or 
reference confidential exhibits).  For example, portions of the Declaration of Russell 
Cronan (DX 3) reference confidential deposition testimony of BANA’s witnesses 
(DX 6, 7) and provisionally sealed portions of Plaintiffs’ expert reports (PX 1, 4) 
pertaining to the details of the Claim Fraud Filter and other BANA claim 
investigation processes, as well as the Remediation Plan (PX 74).  Similarly, portions 
of the Declaration of Professor Victor Stango (DX 1) reference confidential 
documents and testimony related to the Claim Fraud Filter (DX 7), the Remediation 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 347     Filed 10/24/24     PageID.8052     Page
18 of 21

 
 
 
 
15 
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SEAL 
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 
Plans (DX 8; PX 74), and provisionally sealed portions of Plaintiffs’ expert report of 
Greg J. Regan (PX 4), among other confidential topics.  As yet another example, the 
majority of Jennifer Lennon’s declaration (DX 8) quotes from or describes the Highly 
Confidential-Attorneys’ Eyes Only Remediation Plan (PX 74) and summarizes 
BANA’s implementation of the Plan.  For the reasons discussed above, there are good 
cause and compelling reasons to seal discussions of those topics, testimony and 
documents, as well as others discussed in BANA’s Opposition and expert and fact 
declarations.  See supra, pgs. 6-14. 
III. 
CONCLUSION 
For the foregoing reasons, BANA respectfully requests that the Court grant 
Defendant’s Motion to Seal because good cause and compelling reasons support 
sealing of the identified documents or portions thereof. Defendant has lodged a 
Proposed Order separately with the Court. 
 
Dated:   October 24, 2024 
Respectfully submitted, 
 
By: s/ James W. McGarry__________________ 
 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 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 347     Filed 10/24/24     PageID.8053     Page
19 of 21

 
 
 
 
16 
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SEAL 
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 
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 347     Filed 10/24/24     PageID.8054     Page
20 of 21

 
 
 
 
17 
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SEAL 
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 
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 October 24, 2024.  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: 
October 24, 2024 
 
s/ James W. McGarry 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 347     Filed 10/24/24     PageID.8055     Page
21 of 21

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.casd.709615.347.0.pdf

Size

375,240 bytes

SHA-256

bed1187de81a9634a4d60d1926fde6aa4b936e77d8ab121bae84a66d8c78faaa

Our copy

gov.uscourts.casd.709615.347.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)