MOTION to File Documents Under Seal — Bofa Ca Unemployment (Dkt. 577)

Summary

Bank of America, N.A.'s notice and motion to seal documents filed in support of its motion to exclude the expert testimony of Jane Cloninger, filed 10/17/25 as Document 577 in In re Bank of America California Unemployment Benefits Litigation, Case No. 21-MD-02992-GPC-MSB. The bank argues that compelling reasons exist to seal the confidential documents. It groups them as documents that risk future fraud, documents that risk competitive harm, and cardholders' personal account, transaction and claim information. It also seeks to seal portions of its motion to exclude, the expert reports and appendices that quote or summarize those exhibits. Advocacy document; claims are Bank of America's.

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

Record facts

Full text

BANA’S MOTION TO SEAL RE CLONINGER 
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 
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 
SAN DIEGO DIVISION 
IN RE: BANK OF AMERICA 
CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT 
BENEFITS LITIGATION 
Case No. 21-MD-02992-GPC-MSB 
DEFENDANT BANK OF 
AMERICA, N.A.’S NOTICE AND 
MOTION TO SEAL DOCUMENTS 
FILED IN SUPPORT OF ITS 
MOTION TO EXCLUDE THE 
EXPERT TESTIMONY OF JANE 
CLONINGER 
Ctrm:   
12A – 12th Floor 
Judge:  
Hon. Gonzalo P. Curiel 
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP 
ATTORNEYS AT LAW 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 577     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.34752     Page
1 of 19

i 
BANA’S MOTION TO SEAL RE CLONINGER 
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.
COMPELLING REASONS EXIST TO SEAL THE CONFIDENTIAL
DOCUMENTS. ............................................................................................... 2 
Documents that risk future fraud. .................................................................... 6 
Documents that risk competitive harm. .......................................................... 8 
Cardholders’ personal account, transaction and claim information. ............. 11 
BANA’s Motion to Exclude, expert reports and appendices of exhibits 
that quote and summarize confidential exhibits. ........................................... 12 
III.
CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 12 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ................................................................................ 15 
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP 
ATTORNEYS AT LAW 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 577     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.34753     Page
2 of 19

ii 
BANA’S MOTION TO SEAL RE CLONINGER 
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) ..................................................... 8 
Bohannon v Facebook, Inc., 
2019 WL 188671 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2019) ........................................................ 6 
Brady v. Grendene USA, Inc., 
2015 WL 6828400 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2015) (J. Curiel) .................................... 10 
Cowan v. GE Cap. Retail Bank, 
2015 WL 1324848 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2015) ..................................................... 9 
Darisse v. Nest Labs, Inc., 
2016 WL 11474174 (N.D. Cal. June 2, 2016) ................................................... 12 
E.W. Bank v. Shanker, 
2021 WL 3112452 (N.D. Cal. July 22, 2021) .......................................... 2, 3, 8, 9 
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) ........................................................... 7 
Lundstrom v. Young, 
2022 WL 15524624 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 27, 2022) (J. Curiel) ................................... 4 
Lust ex rel. Lust v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 
89 F.3d 594 (9th Cir. 1996) .................................................................................. 1 
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 
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP 
ATTORNEYS AT LAW 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 577     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.34754     Page
3 of 19

iii 
BANA’S MOTION TO SEAL RE CLONINGER 
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 
Nia v. Bank of Am., N.A., 
2024 WL 171659 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 12, 2024) (permitting sealing of 
exhibit reflecting customer data such as internal deposit account 
and credit account closure data) ......................................................................... 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) ..................................................... 11 
Rink v. Cheminova, Inc., 
400 F.3d 1286 (11th Cir. 2005) ............................................................................ 1 
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) (J. Curiel) ................................... 10 
Other Authorities 
Local Civil Rule 79.2(c) ............................................................................................ 1 
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP 
ATTORNEYS AT LAW 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 577     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.34755     Page
4 of 19

1 
BANA’S MOTION TO SEAL RE CLONINGER 
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”) hereby submits this 
Notice and Motion to Seal (the “Motion to Seal”) certain documents and portions of 
other documents submitted in connection with BANA’s Motion to Exclude the 
Expert Testimony of Jane Cloninger (the “Motion to Exclude”).1 
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 82).
Courts in this district have held that a party seeking to seal documents filed in 
connection with a motion to exclude expert testimony must show “compelling 
reasons” to seal, as such motions may be effectively “dispositive of a motion for 
summary judgment.” Lust ex rel. Lust v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 89 F.3d 594, 597 
(9th Cir. 1996) (noting that Daubert ruling was dispositive); see Rink v. Cheminova, 
Inc., 400 F.3d 1286, 1288 (11th Cir. 2005) (affirming a grant of summary judgment 
on grounds that plaintiff failed to prove causation after the plaintiff's expert was 
excluded under Daubert). 
In applying the “compelling reasons” standard, courts, including this Court, 
1 This Motion is based on Defendant’s Notice of Motion and Motion to Seal, the 
documents filed in support of Defendant’s Motion to Exclude, including the 
Declaration of Lindsay E. Hoyle (“Hoyle Decl.”) submitted herewith, 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. 
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP 
ATTORNEYS AT LAW 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 577     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.34756     Page
5 of 19

2 
BANA’S MOTION TO SEAL RE CLONINGER 
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 
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.”); see also ECF 266, 293, 365, 381, 390, 391, 397, 421,
466, 467, 548 (the “Sealing Orders”).
II.
COMPELLING REASONS EXIST TO SEAL THE CONFIDENTIAL
DOCUMENTS.
Compelling reasons exist to file under seal each of the confidential documents
(or portions thereof) filed in connection with BANA’s Motion to Exclude, and any 
substantive discussion of those documents contained in BANA’s Motion to Exclude 
or the declarations or testimony filed in support thereof.  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 Confidential 
pursuant to the terms of BANA’s contract and confidentiality agreement with the 
EDD (see infra at 10-11), 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 12), and/or because their disclosure 
could implicate or interfere with potential or ongoing law enforcement investigations 
(see infra at 3). 
All are compelling reasons which outweigh the public disclosure factors, and 
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP 
ATTORNEYS AT LAW 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 577     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.34757     Page
6 of 19

3 
BANA’S MOTION TO SEAL RE CLONINGER 
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 
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 
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. Cnty. 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, 
compelling reasons to seal documents just like those at issue here, 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 in this litigation, 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 
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP 
ATTORNEYS AT LAW 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 577     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.34758     Page
7 of 19

4 
BANA’S MOTION TO SEAL RE CLONINGER 
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 
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 compelling reasons to seal the same or similar 
documents related to analyses of claims fraud and potential strategies to combat that 
fraud including the Claim Fraud Filter and other fraud strategies, operational fraud 
losses, trainings for claims investigations, fraud detection and prevention policies and 
strategies, claims review policies and strategies and their implementation, BANA’s 
analyses of transactional fraud, risk of competitor advantage concerning how BANA 
structures its claims and frauds teams and the review procedures, protocols and 
systems therein, its analyses of state prepaid unemployment program operations and 
contractual negotiations with vendors, fraud prevention programs, organizational 
charts, confidential regulator materials, and quotes or summary descriptions from 
sealed exhibits.  See ECF 365, 381, 390.  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 
documents, testimony and declarations that BANA seeks to seal, include but are not 
limited to, the following categories of documents and information, which this Court 
has already found compelling reasons to seal: 
•
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 HX2 6, 7,
8) (see ECF 365) at 5–6, 12 (finding compelling reasons to seal));
2 Exhibits to the Declaration of Lindsay E. Hoyle submitted in support of BANA’s 
Motion to Exclude are referred to as “HX.” 
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP 
ATTORNEYS AT LAW 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 577     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.34759     Page
8 of 19

5 
BANA’S MOTION TO SEAL RE CLONINGER 
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 
•
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 investigations3 (see HX 5, 6) (see
ECF 365 at 5–6, 12 (finding compelling reasons to seal));
•
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 HX 6, 8, 9) (see ECF 365 at 10–
13, n. 14 (finding compelling reasons to seal));
•
BANA’s communications with EDD regarding BANA’s and/or EDD’s
fraud strategies (see HX 9) (see ECF 365 at 5–6, 12 (finding compelling
reasons to seal));
•
BANA’s analyses of its state prepaid unemployment program
operations, including but not limited to, contractual negotiations, card
volume, fraud volume, claims and call center operations, and
operational risks and losses (see HX 6, 7, 8, 9) (see ECF 365 at 10–13,
n. 14 (finding compelling reasons to seal));
•
Individual EDD cardholder account, transactions, and claim
information, which often include personal, sensitive, or financial
information (see HX 4, 5) (see ECF 365, 381 (finding compelling
reasons to seal));
3 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”). 
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP 
ATTORNEYS AT LAW 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 577     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.34760     Page
9 of 19

6 
BANA’S MOTION TO SEAL RE CLONINGER 
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 
•
Expert reports and excerpts of experts’ deposition testimony, which
include discussions of BANA’s confidential documents, many of which
contain the confidential information described above, including but not
limited to: BANA’s handling of unauthorized transaction 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 and blocking of accounts; and BANA’s
call center procedures and complaint escalation intake channels (see HX
1, 2, 3) (see ECF 365, 381 (finding compelling reasons to seal)).4
Documents that risk future fraud.  BANA moves to seal BANA’s fraud and 
claims review policies, practices and strategies and any analyses thereof (see HX 5, 
6, 7, 8) 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, 365, 381, 390, 391, 498), there are 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 
4  BANA submits excerpted deposition testimony from 1 expert (HX 3), which 
BANA designated as Confidential or Highly Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only 
because that witness testified regarding BANA’s confidential documents and to the 
same categories of confidential information described above, including but not 
limited to: BANA’s handling of unauthorized transaction 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 and 
blocking of accounts; and BANA’s call center procedures and complaint escalation 
intake channels. 
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP 
ATTORNEYS AT LAW 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 577     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.34761     Page
10 of 19

7 
BANA’S MOTION TO SEAL RE CLONINGER 
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 
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 HX 6, 7, 8) 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
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”).  This Court has previously found 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 ECF 365, 381, 498,
516.
Similarly, BANA’s communications with EDD regarding fraud strategies 
utilized in the EDD program (see HX 9) 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 HX 6, 7), and 
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP 
ATTORNEYS AT LAW 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 577     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.34762     Page
11 of 19

8 
BANA’S MOTION TO SEAL RE CLONINGER 
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 still be misused by fraudsters to perpetrate fraud on cards with or without EMV 
chips.  See ECF 344-1 (Martin Decl.) ¶ 8.  This Court has previously found 
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 ECF 365, 381. 
Additionally, public access to information regarding BANA’s call center 
operations and strategies, including its authentication procedures, trainings, and 
business controls and processes (see HX 6, 8, 9) could be used by fraudsters to 
perpetrate future fraud and to circumvent BANA’s call center authentication and 
fraud prevention procedures  See, e.g., Soria, 2019 WL 8167925, at *4.5  ECF 344-1 
(Martin Decl.) ¶ 10. This Court has previously found compelling reasons to limit 
public access to such documents because their disclosure would be used to execute 
fraud against BANA and its customers.  See ECF 365, 381, 498. 
Documents that risk competitive harm.  The aforementioned categories of 
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).   
5  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.  
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP 
ATTORNEYS AT LAW 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 577     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.34763     Page
12 of 19

9 
BANA’S MOTION TO SEAL RE CLONINGER 
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 
For example, documents, testimony or discovery responses demonstrating how 
BANA structures its claims and fraud teams, and the review procedures, protocols, 
and systems used and implemented by those teams (see HX 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 13, 14, 17, 
19, 20, 26, 27, 42) 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, 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).  This Court has previously found compelling reasons to limit public access
to such documents because these exhibits include confidential, proprietary insight
into BANA’s business operations, including procedures, protocols, systems and
implementation as to its claims and fraud team, and their disclosure could lead to
future fraud that poses a harm not only to BANA’s competitive advantage, but also
the public.  See ECF 365, 381.
Notably, certain claims review processes and trainings (e.g., HX 5, 6) 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, compelling reasons exist to seal those procedures because their disclosure to 
other financial institutions or potential 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 
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP 
ATTORNEYS AT LAW 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 577     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.34764     Page
13 of 19

10 
BANA’S MOTION TO SEAL RE CLONINGER 
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 
notifications).  This Court has previously found compelling reasons to limit public 
access to such documents because their disclosure could be used by other financial 
institutions to BANA’s competitive disadvantage.  See ECF 365, 381. 
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 6, 7, 8, 9) could similarly be used by 
a competitor financial institution to BANA’s competitive disadvantage (ECF 344-1 
(Martin Decl.) ¶¶ 7–10; ECF 344-2 (Robart Decl.) ¶ 5; ECF 347-1 (Martin 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).  This Court has previously found compelling reasons to limit public 
access to such documents because their disclosure could be used by other financial 
institutions to BANA’s competitive disadvantage. See ECF 365, 381, 516. 
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 (HX 6, 8, 9), are still commercially sensitive and warrant sealing.  See 
Xifin, Inc., 2016 WL 5930313, at *3.  This Court has previously found compelling 
reasons to limit public access to such documents because their disclosure could lead 
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP 
ATTORNEYS AT LAW 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 577     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.34765     Page
14 of 19

11 
BANA’S MOTION TO SEAL RE CLONINGER 
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 
to future fraud that poses a harm not only to the Bank, but also the public.  See ECF 
365, 381, 498. 
Cardholders’ personal account, transaction and claim information.  
Additional compelling reasons and good cause exist to seal HX 4 and 5 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…”).6  Moreover, BANA 
is obligated to keep such 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 investigation details and transaction 
histories (HX 4, 5) 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, and suspicion of fraudulent 
behavior, 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).  The Court has previously found compelling 
reasons to limit public access to such documents.  ECF 381, 390. 
6 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. 
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP 
ATTORNEYS AT LAW 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 577     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.34766     Page
15 of 19

12 
BANA’S MOTION TO SEAL RE CLONINGER 
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 
BANA’s Motion to Exclude, expert reports and appendix of exhibits that 
quote and summarize confidential exhibits.  BANA has provisionally redacted and 
sealed portions of its Motion to Exclude, expert reports appended in support thereof, 
and the appendix of exhibits to the Motion to Exclude 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 Plan and Addenda (see HX 1, 2, 3).  See supra, 
pgs. 5–14.  This is consistent with the terms of the Stipulated Protective Order (ECF 
82, § 3), and with rulings in this circuit including by this Court.  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); 
ECF 365, 381.   
For example, portions of the Motion to Exclude reference confidential 
deposition testimony of BANA’s expert witnesses and provisionally sealed portions 
of Plaintiffs’ expert reports pertaining to the details of the Claim Fraud Filter and 
other BANA claim investigation processes, as well as the Remediation Plan and 
Addenda; reference confidential documents and testimony related to the Claim Fraud 
Filter, the Remediation Plan and Addenda, and provisionally sealed portions of 
Plaintiffs’ expert reports, among other confidential topics; and quote from or describe 
the Highly Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only Remediation Plan and Addenda 
summarize BANA’s implementation of the Plans.   
For the reasons discussed above, there are compelling reasons to seal 
discussions of those topics, testimony and documents, as well as others discussed in 
BANA’s Motion to Exclude and the expert reports appended in support thereof.  See 
supra, pgs. 5–15. 
III.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons and for the reasons set forth in the Court’s Sealing
Orders (ECF 365, 381, 390, 391, 397, 421, 431, 460, 466, 467, 477, 498, 507, 516, 
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP 
ATTORNEYS AT LAW 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 577     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.34767     Page
16 of 19

13 
BANA’S MOTION TO SEAL RE CLONINGER 
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 
531, 532, 547, 548), Plaintiffs’ Motions to Seal (ECF 322, 334, 376, 384, 394, 463), 
BANA’s prior Motions to Seal (ECF 328, 337, 344, 347, 383, 418, 451, 457, 470, 
481, 495, 501, 511, 539, 542) and accompanying declarations submitted in support 
thereof (ECF 344-1, 344-2, 344-3, 347-1, 347-2), all of which are incorporated herein 
by reference, BANA respectfully requests that the Court grant Defendant’s Motion 
to Seal because compelling reasons support sealing of the identified documents or 
portions thereof.  Defendant has lodged a Proposed Order separately with the Court. 
Dated:   October 17, 2025 
Respectfully submitted,
By: s/ Lindsay E. Hoyle__________________
LINDSAY E. HOYLE (pro hac vice) 
LHoyle@goodwinlaw.com 
VALERIE A. HAGGANS (pro hac vice) 
VHaggans@goodwinlaw.com 
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP 
620 Eighth Avenue 
New York, NY 10018 
Tel: +1 212 813-8800 
Fax: +1 212 355-3333 
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 
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 
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 
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP 
ATTORNEYS AT LAW 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 577     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.34768     Page
17 of 19

14 
BANA’S MOTION TO SEAL RE CLONINGER 
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 
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. 
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP 
ATTORNEYS AT LAW 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 577     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.34769     Page
18 of 19

15 
BANA’S MOTION TO SEAL RE CLONINGER 
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 17, 2025.  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 17, 2025 
s/ Lindsay E. Hoyle 
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP 
ATTORNEYS AT LAW 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 577     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.34770     Page
19 of 19

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.casd.709615.577.0.pdf

Size

295,737 bytes

SHA-256

a0524128d3aa54cea522fcfb596eb4f84d1a2ba3774dc2057813ac482d5ae804

Our copy

gov.uscourts.casd.709615.577.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)