MOTION to File Documents Under Seal — Bofa Ca Unemployment (Dkt. 587)

Summary

Bank of America, N.A.'s notice and motion to seal documents filed in support of its motion for partial summary judgment, filed 10/17/25 as Document 587 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, cardholders' personal account, transaction and claim information, and confidential regulator materials. It also seeks to seal portions of its summary judgment motion, expert reports and appendix of exhibits 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
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 FOR
PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Ctrm: 
12A – 12th Floor 
Judge: 
Hon. Gonzalo P. Curiel   
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 587     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.36422     Page
1 of 24

i
CASE NO. 21-MD-02992-GPC-MSB 
BANA’S MOTION TO SEAL
1 
2 
3 
4 
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. .................................................................... 8 
Documents that risk competitive harm. ........................................................ 11 
Cardholders’ personal account, transaction and claim information. ............. 14 
Confidential regulator materials. ................................................................... 15 
BANA’s Summary Judgment Motion, expert reports, and Appendix of 
Exhibits that quote and summarize confidential exhibits. ............................ 16 
III. 
CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 17 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 587     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.36423     Page
2 of 24

 
 
 
 
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) ................................................... 11 
Bohannon v Facebook, Inc., 
2019 WL 188671 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2019) ........................................................ 9 
Brady v. Grendene USA, Inc., 
2015 WL 6828400 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2015) ............................................... 13, 14 
Cowan v. GE Cap. Retail Bank, 
2015 WL 1324848 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2015) ................................................... 12 
Darisse v. Nest Labs, Inc., 
2016 WL 11474174 (N.D. Cal. June 2, 2016) ................................................... 17 
E.W. Bank v. Shanker, 
2021 WL 3112452 (N.D. Cal. July 22, 2021) ............................................ 2, 3, 11 
EpicentRx, Inc. v. Carter, 
2023 WL 4336695 (S.D. Cal. May 16, 2023) ...................................................... 1 
Erhart v. BofI Fed. Bank, 
2019 WL 4534701 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 19, 2019) ................................................... 16 
Jasso v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 
2022 WL 2665979 (D. Nev. July 8, 2022) ..................................................... 9, 10 
Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 
447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006) .............................................................................. 1 
Lundstrom v. Young, 
2022 WL 15524624 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 27, 2022) ..................................................... 4 
McAfee v. Experian Info. Sols., 
2023 WL 8237364 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 28, 2023) .................................................. 14 
Medimpact Healthcare Sys., Inc. v. IQVIA Holdings, Inc., 
No. 3:19-cv-01865-GPC (DEB), ECF 875 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2023)................ 11 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 587     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.36424     Page
3 of 24

 
 
 
 
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 
Nia v. Bank of Am., N.A., 
2024 WL 171659 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 12, 2024) ....................................................... 14 
Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 
435 U.S. 589 (1978) ............................................................................................. 1 
Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass'n, 
605 F.3d 665 (9th Cir. 2010) ................................................................................ 1 
Pryor v. City of Clearlake, 
2012 WL 3276992 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2012) ..................................................... 15 
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) ............................................. 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) ............................................... 12, 13 
Other Authorities 
Local Civ. R. 79.2(c) ................................................................................................. 1 
 
 
 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 587     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.36425     Page
4 of 24

 
 
 
 
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”) certain documents and portions of other 
documents in connection with BANA’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 
(“Summary Judgment Motion”).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). 
It is acknowledged by courts, including many courts in this district, that a party 
seeking to seal documents filed in connection with a motion for summary judgment, 
a dispositive motion, must show “compelling reasons” to seal.  Kamakana v. City 
and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006); see Pintos v. Pacific 
Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678-79 (9th Cir. 2010) (determining “compelling 
reasons” standard applies to motion to seal documents attached to cross-motion for 
summary judgment); see also EpicentRx, Inc. v. Carter, 2023 WL 4336695, at 1 (S.D. 
Cal. May 16, 2023) (applying “compelling reasons” standard to request to seal certain 
exhibits associated with motions for summary judgment). 
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 Summary Judgment Motion, including the 
Declaration of Laura G. Brys (“Brys 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. 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 587     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.36426     Page
5 of 24

 
 
 
 
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.  See 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 Summary Judgment Motion, 
and any substantive discussion of those documents contained therein or in the 
documents filed in support thereof.  Each of those documents 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 13–14), 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 15–16), 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 
thus permit sealing of those documents.  For example, in East West Bank v. Shanker, 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 587     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.36427     Page
6 of 24

 
 
 
 
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 
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 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 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 587     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.36428     Page
7 of 24

 
 
 
 
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 
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 fraud 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: 
 DX2 1, 4, 5, 12.A, 71, 85, 86, 90, 101, 104, 132, 133, 143, 144, 145, 149, 
158, 159, 165, 168, 169, 176, and 184 reflect confidential BANA fraud 
detection and prevention strategies and policies, including the Claim 
Fraud Filter, and other current and former fraud strategies that could be 
misused by fraudsters to perpetrate future fraud or could be used by 
 
2 Exhibits to the Brys Declaration submitted in support of BANA’s Summary 
Judgment Motion are referred to as “DX.” 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 587     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.36429     Page
8 of 24

 
 
 
 
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 
another financial institution to BANA’s competitive disadvantage (see 
Amended Sealing Order (ECF 365) at 5–6, 12); 
 DX 50, 51, 59, 60, 61, 64, 91, 92, 98, 120, 122, 126, 128, 135, 176, 177, 
and 178 reflect confidential BANA claims review policies and strategies 
and the implementation thereof, including reviewing complaint 
escalations and issuing provisional credits in compliance with 
regulations that could also be misused by fraudsters to perpetrate fraud 
or could be used by another financial institution to BANA’s competitive 
disadvantage (see Amended Sealing Order (ECF 365) at 5–6, 12); 
 DX 4, 5, 12.A, 62, 75, 76, 79, 83, 87, 88, 102, 105, 113, 114, 118, 121, 
136, 140, and 183 reflect confidential BANA analyses pertaining to 
fraud, including card skimming, and potential fraud prevention and 
detection strategies to combat that fraud that similarly could be misused 
by fraudsters to perpetrate future fraud or could be used by another 
financial institution to BANA’s competitive disadvantage (see 
Amended Sealing Order (ECF 365) at 5–9, 12;   
 DX 1, 2, 4, 5, 12.A, 24, 25, 63, 72, 84, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 99, 106, 107, 
108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 116, 119, 124, 125, 127, 134, 137, 138, 139, 
146, 147, 148, 150, 151, 152, 154, 155, 156, 157, 166, 167, 168, 169, 
170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 178, 179, 180, 181, 183 and 184 reflect 
BANA’s confidential analyses of its state prepaid unemployment 
program operations, including but not limited to, contractual 
negotiations, fraud volume, claims and call center operations, and 
operational risks and losses (see Amended Sealing Order (ECF 365) at 
10–13, n. 14); 
 DX 2, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48 and 49 reflect confidential BANA general 
services agreements and statements of work between BANA and its call 
center vendors, which could be used to harm BANA’s competitive 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 587     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.36430     Page
9 of 24

 
 
 
 
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 
standing (see Amended Sealing Order (ECF 365) at 10–13, n. 14); 
 DX 1, 12.A, 53, 54, 55, 70, 73, 74, 77, 78, 80, 81, 100, 115, 117, 123, 
129, 130, 131, 134, 141, 142, 153, 161, 162, 163, 164 and 182 reflect 
confidential BANA 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 which could be 
misused by fraudsters to perpetrate future fraud or could be used by 
another financial institution to BANA’s competitive disadvantage (see 
Amended Sealing Order (ECF 365) at 5–6, 12); 
 DX 1, 55, 125, 134, 154, 155 and 170 reflect confidential BANA fraud 
and operational losses in connection with the unemployment insurance 
prepaid programs which could be misused by fraudsters to perpetrate 
future fraud or could be used by another financial institution to BANA’s 
competitive disadvantage (see Amended Sealing Order (ECF 365) at 
10–13, n. 14); 
 DX 3, 7, 26, 27, 27.A, 27.B, 27.C, 27.D, 28, 28.A, 28.A.1, 29, 30, 30.A, 
30.B, 31, 31.A, 31.B and 31.B.1 reflect confidential BANA 
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 which could be misused by fraudsters to perpetrate future 
fraud or could be used by another financial institution to BANA’s 
competitive disadvantage (see Amended Sealing Order (ECF 365) at 5–
9, 12); 
 DX 3, 14.P, 43.A, 43.B and 43.C reflect confidential BANA documents 
and testimony pertaining to BANA’s Remediation Plan and Addenda 
with the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (“OCC”) and the 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 587     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.36431     Page
10 of 24

 
 
 
 
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 
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”)—which were 
designated Highly Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only at those 
regulators’ requests—which this Court has found compelling reasons to 
seal (see Amended Sealing Order (ECF 365) at 14–16);  
 DX 14.AC, 14.AD, 14.AE, 14.T, 14.W, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 
23, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 82, 148 and 177 reflect 
confidential EDD cardholder account or personal information, including 
personal identifying information, the disclosure of which could expose 
those cardholders to harm or identity theft (see Amended Sealing Order 
(ECF 365) at 16–17; Sealing Order (ECF 381) at 1.  Those exhibits also 
reflect the types of claims files or information that BANA considers in 
connection with investigating and processing unauthorized transaction 
and error claims.  See Robart Decl. (ECF 347-2) ¶¶ 3–8.  Further 
compelling reasons exist to seal that information because the disclosure 
of that information could provide potential fraudsters with insight into 
BANA’s confidential claims processes or procedures, thereby enabling 
fraudsters to circumvent them and perpetrate future fraud, and 
disclosure could also enable other financial institutions to use that 
information to BANA’s competitive disadvantage (see id.); 
 DX 7.A, 8.A, 9.A, 10.A, 11.A, 11.B, 12.A, 12.B, 13.A, 14.AB, 14.AB.1, 
14.AG, 14.C, 14.C.1, 14.C.2, 14.D, 14.F, 14.K, 14.N, 14.O.1, 14.R, 
14.U, 14.U.1 and 14.Z reflect 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; 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 587     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.36432     Page
11 of 24

 
 
 
 
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 
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. This information 
could be misused by fraudsters to perpetrate future fraud or could be 
used by another financial institution to BANA’s competitive 
disadvantage (see Amended Sealing Order (ECF 365) at 5–9, 12); and 
 DX 6, 14.A, 14.AA, 14.B, 14.E, 14.G, 14.H, 14.I, 14.J, 14.L, 14.M, 
14.P, 14.Q, 14.S, 14.V, 14.X and 14.Y reflect 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.  which 
could be misused by fraudsters to perpetrate future fraud or could be 
used by another financial institution to BANA’s competitive 
disadvantage (see Amended Sealing Order (ECF 365) at 5–9, 12); 
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 4, 
5, 12.A, 50, 51, 59, 60, 61, 62, 64, 71, 75, 76, 79, 83, 85, 86, 87, 88, 90, 91, 92, 98, 
101, 102, 104, 105, 113, 114, 118, 120, 121, 122, 126, 128, 132, 133, 135, 136, 140, 
143, 144, 145, 149, 158, 159, 165, 169, 176, 177, 183 and 184) 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 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 587     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.36433     Page
12 of 24

 
 
 
 
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 
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 4, 5, 12.A, 50, 51, 59, 60, 
61, 62, 64, 71, 75, 76, 79, 83, 85, 86, 87, 88, 90, 91, 92, 98, 101, 102, 104, 105, 113, 
114, 118, 120, 121, 122, 126, 128, 132, 133, 135, 136, 140, 143, 144, 145, 149, 158, 
159, 165, 169, 176, 177, 178, 183 and 184) 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 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 587     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.36434     Page
13 of 24

 
 
 
 
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 
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, including the use of EMV chip technology and the 
freezing and blocking of accounts (see DX 1, 5, 12.A, 53, 54, 55, 70, 73, 74, 77, 78, 
80, 81, 100, 115, 117, 123, 129, 130, 131, 134, 141, 142, 153, 161, 162, 163, 164 and 
182) 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 1, 12.A, 73, 74, 77, 78, 117, 123, 129, 131, 134, 
141, 142, 164 and 182), and 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 DX 2, 12.A, 24, 25, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 63, 
72, 84, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 116, 119, 124, 125, 127, 
134, 137, 138, 139, 146, 147, 148, 150, 151, 152, 154, 155, 156, 157, 166, 167, 169, 
170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 178, 179, 180, 181, 183 and 184) 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 *4.3  ECF 344-1 
 
3  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 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 587     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.36435     Page
14 of 24

 
 
 
 
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 
(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).   
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 DX 6, 7.A, 8.A, 9.A, 10.A, 
11.A, 11.B, 12.A, 12.B, 13.A, 14.A, 14. AA. 14.AB, 14.AB.1, 14.AG, 14.B, 14.C, 
14.C.1, 14.C.2, 14.D, 14.E, 14.F, 14.G, 14.H, 14.I, 14.J, 14.K, 14.L, 14.M, 14.N, 
14.O.1, 14.P, 14.Q, 14.R, 14.S, 14.U, 14.U.1, 14.V, 14.X, 14.Y, 14.Z, 50, 51, 59, 60, 
61, 64, 91, 92, 98, 120, 122, 126, 128, 135, 176, 177, and 178) 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 
 
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 587     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.36436     Page
15 of 24

 
 
 
 
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 
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 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., DX 1, 4, 5, 12.A, 
71, 85, 86, 90, 101, 104, 132, 133, 143, 144, 145, 149, 158, 159, 165, 168, 169, 176, 
and 184) 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 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 DX 1, 2, 12.A, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 
53, 54, 55, 70, 73, 74, 77, 78, 80, 81, 100, 115, 117, 123, 129, 130, 131, 134, 141, 
142, 153, 161, 162, 163, 164 and 182) 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, 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 587     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.36437     Page
16 of 24

 
 
 
 
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 
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 (see DX 1, 2, 12.A, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 53, 54, 55, 70, 73, 74, 77, 
78, 80, 81, 100, 115, 117, 123, 129, 130, 131, 134, 141, 142, 153, 161, 162, 163, 164 
and 182), 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 to future fraud 
that poses a harm not only to the Bank, but also the public.  See ECF 365, 381, 498. 
Moreover, 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 (see DX 1, 2, 4, 
5, 12.A, 24, 25, 63, 72, 84, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 99, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 
116, 119, 124, 125, 127, 134, 137, 138, 139, 146, 147, 148, 150, 151, 152, 154, 155, 
156, 157, 166, 167, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 178, 179, 180, 181, 183 and 184) 
are proprietary, confidential business information of EDD and/or BANA.  ECF 344-
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 587     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.36438     Page
17 of 24

 
 
 
 
14 
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 
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 harm BANA’s competitive advantage.  See 
ECF 381. 
Cardholders’ personal account, transaction and claim information.  
Additional compelling reasons and good cause exist to seal DX 14.AC, 14.AD, 
14.AE, 14.T, 14.W, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 65, 66, 
67, 68, 69, 82, 148 and 177 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…”).4  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 
 
4 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, transaction and claims information, but not with respect to non-plaintiffs. 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 587     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.36439     Page
18 of 24

 
 
 
 
15 
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 to the public”); Robart Decl. ¶ 5.   
For example, EDD cardholders’ claim details and correspondence, account 
and transaction histories, ATM footage and call recordings (see DX 14.AC, 14.AD, 
14.AE, 14.T, 14.W, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 65, 66, 
67, 68, 69, 82 and 177) 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 3, 7, 26, 27, 27.A, 27.B, 
27.C, 27.D, 28, 28.A, 28.A.1 29, 30, 30.A, 30.B, 31, 31.A, 31.B, and 31.B.1, also 
reflect highly sensitive, personal and financial information of EDD cardholders.  ECF 
344-3 (Lennon Decl.) ¶¶ 4-5.  This Court has previously found compelling reasons 
to limit public access to such documents.  See ECF 381. 
Finally, Plaintiffs themselves designated their own claim files and 
correspondence and deposition testimony as Confidential in many instances (see, 
e.g., DX 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23), 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 
3, 14.P, 43.A, 43.B and 43.C, which contain documents and information regarding 
BANA’s implementation of its Remediation Plan and Addenda with the OCC and 
CFPB.  The regulators designated the Plans “Highly Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 587     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.36440     Page
19 of 24

 
 
 
 
16 
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 
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 information that would 
subject any disclosure to potential fraud.  ECF 381, 498.  
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 3, 7, 26, 27, 27.A, 27.B, 27.C, 27.D, 
28, 28.A, 28.A.1 29, 30, 30.A, 30.B, 31, 31.A, 31.B and 31.B.1) 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. 
BANA’s Summary Judgment Motion, expert reports, and Appendix of 
Exhibits that quote and summarize confidential exhibits.  BANA has 
provisionally redacted and sealed portions of its Summary Judgment Motion, expert 
reports appended in support thereof, and Appendix of Exhibits to the Summary 
Judgment Motion that quote or describe the confidential documents, testimony and 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 587     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.36441     Page
20 of 24

 
 
 
 
17 
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 
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 DX 5, 6, 7.A, 8.A, 9.A, 10.A, 11.A, 11.B, 12.A, 12.B, 13.A, 14.A, 
14.AA, 14.AB, 14.AB.1, 14.AG, 14.B, 14.C, 14.C.1, 14.C.2, 14.D, 14.E, 14.F, 14.G, 
14.H, 14.I, 14.J, 14.K, 14.L, 14.M, 14.N, 14.O.1, 14.P, 14.Q, 14.R, 14.S, 14.U, 
14.U.1, 14.V, 14.X, 14.Y and 14.Z).  See supra, pgs. 4–16.  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 Summary Judgment Motion 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 Summary Judgment Motion and the expert reports and Appendix of 
Exhibits appended in support thereof.  See supra, pgs. 2–16. 
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, 466, 467, 477, 498, 516), Plaintiffs’ 
Motions to Seal (ECF 376, 384, 394, 463, 524, 527), BANA’s prior Motions to Seal 
(ECF 328, 337, 344, 347, 383, 418, 451, 470, 501, 511, 539, 542) and accompanying 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 587     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.36442     Page
21 of 24

 
 
 
 
18 
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 
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 Documents Filed In Support of its Motion 
for Partial Summary Judgment because compelling reasons exist that support the 
sealing thereof. 
 
 
Dated:   October 17, 2025 
Respectfully submitted, 
 
 
 
By: s/ Laura G. Brys_______________ 
 
 
 
 
 
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 
 
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 St. NW  
Washington, DC 20036  
Tel: +1 202 346 4000  
Fax: +1 202 346 4444 
 
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 
 
YVONNE W. CHAN (pro hac vice) 
YChan@jonesday.com 
JONES DAY 
100 High Street 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 587     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.36443     Page
22 of 24

 
 
 
 
19 
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 
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 587     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.36444     Page
23 of 24

 
 
 
 
20 
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/ Laura G. Brys 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 587     Filed 10/17/25     PageID.36445     Page
24 of 24

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.casd.709615.587.0.pdf

Size

338,305 bytes

SHA-256

09636f6d46d14a9c750d9311505c4a57b2d01eba72788f982f79fd620baebc54

Our copy

gov.uscourts.casd.709615.587.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)