MOTION to File Documents Under Seal — Bofa Ca Unemployment (Dkt. 585)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California · No. 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB · Doc. 585 · 2025-10-17 · Docket on CourtListener

Summary

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 Greg Regan, filed October 17, 2025 as Document 585 in In re: Bank of America California Unemployment Benefits Litigation, Case No. 21-MD-02992-GPC-MSB, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, San Diego Division, before Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel. The motion sets out the standard for sealing and argues that compelling reasons exist to seal the confidential documents. It groups the material as documents that risk competitive harm, cardholders’ personal account, transaction and claim information, confidential regulator materials, and the motions to exclude, expert reports and appendix of exhibits that quote or summarize those exhibits. The 17-page filing includes a table of authorities and a certificate of service.

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

Full text

BANA’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 
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 GREG 
REGAN 
Ctrm:   
12A – 12th Floor 
Judge:  
Hon. Gonzalo P. Curiel 
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP 
ATTORNEYS AT LAW 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 585     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.36076     Page
1 of 17

i 
BANA’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.
COMPELLING REASONS EXIST TO SEAL THE CONFIDENTIAL
DOCUMENTS ................................................................................................ 2 
Documents that risk competitive harm ........................................................... 6 
Cardholders’ personal account, transaction and claim information ................ 8 
Confidential regulator materials ...................................................................... 9 
BANA’s Motions to Exclude, expert reports and appendix of exhibits that 
quote and summarize confidential exhibits ................................................... 10 
III.
CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 10 
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP 
ATTORNEYS AT LAW 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 585     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.36077     Page
2 of 17

ii 
BANA’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) .......................................................................... 6 
Brady v. Grendene USA, Inc., 
2015 WL 6828400 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2015) ........................................................................ 7, 8 
Darisse v. Nest Labs, Inc., 
2016 WL 11474174 (N.D. Cal. June 2, 2016) ........................................................................ 10 
E.W. Bank v. Shanker, 
2021 WL 3112452 (N.D. Cal. July 22, 2021) ................................................................... 2, 6, 7 
Erhart v. BofI Fed. Bank, 
2019 WL 4534701 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 19, 2019) .......................................................................... 9 
Lundstrom v. Young, 
2022 WL 15524624 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 27, 2022) ......................................................................... 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) ......................................................................... 8 
Medimpact Healthcare Sys., Inc. v. IQVIA Holdings, Inc., 
No. 3:19-cv-01865-GPC (DEB), (S.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2023) ...................................................... 7 
Nia v. Bank of Am., N.A., 
2024 WL 171659 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 12, 2024) .............................................................................. 8 
Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 
435 U.S. 589 (1978) .................................................................................................................. 1 
Rink v. Cheminova, Inc., 
400 F.3d 1286 (11th Cir. 2005) ................................................................................................. 1 
Shelley v. Cnty. of San Joaquin, 
2015 WL 2082370 (E.D. Cal. May 4, 2015) ............................................................................. 3 
Soria v. U.S. Bank N.A., 
2019 WL 8167925 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 25, 2019) ...................................................................... 2, 3 
Workplace Techs. Rsch., Inc. v. Project Mgmt. Inst., Inc., 
2021 WL 6091272 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 20, 2021) ........................................................................... 4 
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP 
ATTORNEYS AT LAW 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 585     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.36078     Page
3 of 17

iii 
BANA’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 
Xifin, Inc. v. Sunshine Pathways, LLC, 
2016 WL 5930313 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 12, 2016) ........................................................................... 7 
Other Authorities 
Local Civ. R. 79.2(c) ....................................................................................................................... 1 
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP 
ATTORNEYS AT LAW 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 585     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.36079     Page
4 of 17

1 
BANA’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”) 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 Opinions of Greg Regan (the “Regan Motion”) (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 585     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.36080     Page
5 of 17

2 
BANA’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 
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 6-9) and/or 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 9-10). 
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 
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP 
ATTORNEYS AT LAW 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 585     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.36081     Page
6 of 17

3 
BANA’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 
“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 
complaints and escalations, and certain of BANA’s interrogatory responses—which 
are precisely the types of documents BANA seeks to seal here.   
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP 
ATTORNEYS AT LAW 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 585     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.36082     Page
7 of 17

4 
BANA’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 
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 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 47) (see ECF 365 at 10–13, n. 14
(finding compelling reasons to seal));
•
BANA’s Remediation Plan 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 HX
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP 
ATTORNEYS AT LAW 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 585     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.36083     Page
8 of 17

5 
BANA’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 
30, 31) (see ECF 365 at 14–16 (finding compelling reasons to seal)); 
•
BANA’s interrogatory responses and data provided therein reflecting
any reconsideration by BANA of those claims and any compensation
paid as a result (see HX 42) (see ECF 365 at 5–9, 12 (finding compelling
reasons to seal));
•
Testimony concerning 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 (see HX 30) (see ECF 365, 381 (finding compelling reasons
to seal));
•
Individual EDD cardholder account, transactions, and claim
information, which often include personal, sensitive, or financial
information (see HX 37, 43, 44, 45, 46) (see ECF 365, 381 (finding
compelling reasons to seal));
•
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: 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 34, 39, 40 and 41)
(see ECF 365, 381 (finding compelling reasons to seal));2 and
2  BANA submits excerpted deposition testimony from one expert (HX 39), which 
BANA designated as Confidential or Highly Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only 
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP 
ATTORNEYS AT LAW 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 585     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.36084     Page
9 of 17

6 
BANA’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 
•
Excerpts of 30(b)(6) fact witnesses’ and EDD’s 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 30, 47) (see ECF 365, 381 (finding compelling
reasons to seal)).
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).   
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 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 
because this witness testified regarding BANA’s confidential documents and to the 
same categories of confidential information described above. 
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP 
ATTORNEYS AT LAW 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 585     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.36085     Page
10 of 17

7 
BANA’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 
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. 
Additionally, 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 HX 47) 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 
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP 
ATTORNEYS AT LAW 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 585     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.36086     Page
11 of 17

8 
BANA’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 
access to such documents because their disclosure could be used by other financial 
institutions to BANA’s competitive disadvantage. See ECF 365, 381, 516. 
Moreover, testimony concerning aggregated account statistics regarding the 
number of active EDD accounts, the balances on those cards, the fraud claims filed 
by EDD cardholders, and the combined monetary amounts of fraud associated 
therewith (HX 30) are proprietary, confidential business information of EDD and/or 
BANA.  ECF 344-1 (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.  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, which warrants sealing.  See, e.g., Brady, 2015 WL 
6828400, at *3.  This Court has previously found compelling reasons to limit public 
access to such documents because their disclosure could lead to harm to BANA’s 
competitive advantage.  See ECF 381. 
Cardholders’ personal account, transaction and claim information.  
Additional compelling reasons and good cause exist to seal HX 37, 43, 44, 45, and 
46 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 
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP 
ATTORNEYS AT LAW 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 585     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.36087     Page
12 of 17

9 
BANA’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 
Plaintiff’s privacy . . . [and] guard against the threat of identi[t]y theft…”).3  
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.  
Finally, Plaintiffs themselves designated their own interrogatory responses as 
Confidential (HX 37, 43, 44, 45, and 46), and under the Protective Order, BANA is 
required to file under seal 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 HX 30 
and 31, which contain documents and testimony regarding BANA’s implementation 
of its Remediation Plan 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 subject to confidentiality protections). See also ECF 344-3 (Lennon 
Decl.) ¶¶ 3–4, 6.  This Court has previously found compelling reasons to limit public 
access to such documents because they contain highly sensitive, and confidential 
3 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 585     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.36088     Page
13 of 17

10 
BANA’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 that would subject any disclosure to potential fraud.  ECF 381, 498. 
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 30, 31, 34, 35, 39, 40 
and 41).  See supra, pgs. 2–10.  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. 2–10. 
III.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons and for the reasons set forth in the Court’s Sealing
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP 
ATTORNEYS AT LAW 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 585     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.36089     Page
14 of 17

11 
BANA’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 
Orders (ECF 365, 381, 390, 391, 397, 421, 431, 460, 466, 467, 477, 498, 507, 516, 
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 
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP 
ATTORNEYS AT LAW 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 585     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.36090     Page
15 of 17

12 
BANA’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 
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. 
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP 
ATTORNEYS AT LAW 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 585     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.36091     Page
16 of 17

13 
BANA’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 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 585     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.36092     Page
17 of 17

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.casd.709615.585.0.pdf

Size

384,662 bytes

SHA-256

6ac9bb96ccb230c20b54a3feac2fca7528066c59ebe1829f8dec00225c112105

Our copy

gov.uscourts.casd.709615.585.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)