Court filing
MOTION to File Documents Under Seal — Bofa Ca Unemployment (Dkt. 673)
Summary
Bank of America, N.A.'s motion to seal documents filed with its reply in support of its motion to exclude the expert opinions of Jay Minnucci, filed 02/20/26 as Document 673 in In re Bank of America California Unemployment Benefits Litigation, Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB, before Hon. Gonzalo P. Curiel. The bank seeks to seal portions of one exhibit to the declaration of Lindsay E. Hoyle and references to it in the reply. It also seeks to seal references in the reply to exhibits the court already sealed with the original motion to exclude. The bank says a party must show compelling reasons to seal documents filed with a motion to exclude expert testimony, because such rulings can be effectively dispositive of summary judgment.
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
Cite this document
“MOTION to File Documents Under Seal — Bofa Ca Unemployment (Dkt. 673).”
Original at ecf.casd.uscourts.gov, No. 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB, Doc. 673. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/court-filings/full-docket-bofa-ca-unemployment-casd-709615/2026-02-20-gov-uscourts-casd-709615-673-0-gov-uscourts-casd-709615-673-0/
, SHA-256 c936049ef5967b1f6179b662d5e258c47b90b0b36aa495d3504613bc1119bc61.Full text
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 673 Filed 02/20/26 PageID.58775 Page
1 of 7
1 JAMES W. MCGARRY (pro hac vice)
JMcGarry@goodwinlaw.com
2 GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
3 100 Northern Avenue
Boston, MA 02210
4 Tel.: +1 617 570 1000
Fax: +1 617 523 1231
5
SABRINA M. ROSE-SMITH (pro hac vice)
6 SRoseSmith@goodwinlaw.com
7 MATTHEW L. RIFFEE (pro hac vice)
MRiffee@goodwinlaw.com
8 GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
1900 N Street, NW
9 Washington, DC 20036
10 Tel.: +1 202 346 4000
Fax: +1 202 346 4444
11
Attorneys for Defendant
12 BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.
13 [ADDITIONAL COUNSEL LISTED IN SIGNATURE BLOCK]
14
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
15
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
16
SAN DIEGO DIVISION
17
18 IN RE: BANK OF AMERICA Case No. 21-MD-02992-GPC-MSB
CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT
19 BENEFITS LITIGATION DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA,
N.A.’S MOTION TO SEAL
20 DOCUMENTS FILED IN REPLY IN
SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO
21 EXCLUDE THE PURPORTED
EXPERT OPINIONS OF JAY
22 MINNUCCI
23
Ctrm: 12A – 12th Floor
24 Judge: Hon. Gonzalo P. Curiel
25
26
27
28
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
BANA’S MOT. TO SEAL MINNUCCI REPLY CASE NO. 3:21-MD-02992-GPC-MSB
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 673 Filed 02/20/26 PageID.58776 Page
2 of 7
1 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, pursuant to Local Civil Rule 79.2(c),
2 Defendant Bank of America, N.A. (Defendant or BANA) hereby submits this Notice
3 and Motion to Seal (Motion to Seal) portions of certain documents1 in connection
4 with BANA’s Reply in Support of its Motion to Exclude the Purported Expert
5 Opinions of Jay Minnucci (Minnucci Reply). In particular, BANA seeks to seal
6 portions of one Hoyle Declaration Exhibit because compelling reasons support
7 sealing of the identified document, as well as any references to that exhibit in the
8 Minnucci Reply filed in support. Consistent with the Court’s prior sealing Order
9 finding compelling reasons to seal certain exhibits filed with BANA’s Motion to
10 Exclude the Purported Expert Opinions of Jay Minnucci (ECF 599), BANA also
11 seeks to seal references within the Minnucci Reply to the contents of those already-
12 filed and sealed exhibits.2
13 As previously stated in BANA’s motions to seal submitted in connection with
14 class certification briefing and argument (ECF 328, 337, 344, 347, 383, 418, 451)
15 and BANA’s motions to seal submitted in connection with summary judgment
16 briefing (ECF 577, 579, 581, 583, 585, 587), the public’s right to inspect and copy
17 judicial records is not absolute, and a party faced with the disclosure of confidential
18 or proprietary information may seek to file the documents under seal to avoid
19 disclosure of business information that might result in competitive harm or be used
20 for improper purposes. See Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598
21 (1978) (denying disclosure); Local Civ. R. 79.2(c). A party seeking to seal documents
22 filed in connection with a motion to exclude expert testimony must show “compelling
23
1
BANA’s Exhibit to the Declaration of Lindsay E. Hoyle in Support of the Minnucci
24 Reply (Hoyle Declaration) shall be referred to as “HX” or “Hoyle Declaration
Exhibit” in this Motion and the forthcoming Minnucci Reply.
25 2
BANA incorporates by reference its Motion to File Documents Under Seal (ECF
26 579) in connection with its Motion to Exclude the Purported Expert Opinions of Jay
Minnucci (Minnucci Daubert Motion) (ECF 564) and the Declaration of Lindsay E.
27 Hoyle in Support thereof (ECF 564-2), and Plaintiffs’ Motion to File Documents
Under Seal (ECF 612) in connection with Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendant’s
28 Motion to Exclude Certain Expert Opinions of Jay Minnucci (ECF 614) and the
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
Declaration of Regina Wang in Support thereof (ECF 614-1).
ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1
BANA’S MOT. TO SEAL MINNUCCI REPLY CASE NO. 3:21-MD-02992-GPC-MSB
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 673 Filed 02/20/26 PageID.58777 Page
3 of 7
1 reasons” to seal, as such motions may be effectively “dispositive of a motion for
2 summary judgment.” Lust ex rel. Lust v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 89 F.3d 594, 597
3 (9th Cir. 1996) (noting that Daubert ruling was dispositive); see Rink v. Cheminova,
4 Inc., 400 F.3d 1286, 1288 (11th Cir. 2005) (affirming a grant of summary judgment
5 on grounds that plaintiff failed to prove causation after the plaintiff's expert was
6 excluded under Daubert).
7 Courts, including this Court, consistently seal documents where—as here—
8 disclosure of confidential business information risks competitive harm to the litigant
9 or improper use of the information such as to commit fraud. See, e.g., ECF 603; E.W.
10 Bank v. Shanker, 2021 WL 3112452, *18-19 (N.D. Cal. July 22, 2021) (finding
11 compelling reasons to seal confidential onboarding processes, verification of
12 customer identities, and fraud prevention measures); Soria v. U.S. Bank N.A., 2019
13 WL 8167925, *4 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 25, 2019) (finding compelling reasons to seal
14 internal fraud investigation procedures because there was a “significant danger that
15 someone could improperly use this information to commit fraud and avoid
16 detection.”). Indeed, this Court largely granted the Parties’ prior motions to seal,
17 finding good cause or compelling reasons to seal documents concerning the same
18 topics that BANA now seeks to seal, including BANA’s fraud detection and
19 prevention policies and strategies (including the fraud filter) and its call center
20 operations and strategies. See ECF 266, 293, 365, 381, 390, 391, 397, 421, 466, 467,
21 548, 598, 599, 600, 601, 602, 603 (Sealing Orders). Those prior rulings are sufficient
22 grounds alone to grant sealing here. See Lundstrom v. Young, 2022 WL 15524624,
23 *17 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 27, 2022) (J. Curiel) (considering prior sealing of exhibits when
24 granting motion to seal); Workplace Techs. Rsch., Inc. v. Project Mgmt. Inst., Inc.,
25 2021 WL 6091272, *3 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 20, 2021) (sealing references to document that
26 court already granted sealing of).
27 Consistent with this Court’s Sealing Orders, there are compelling reasons to
28 seal the confidential testimony at issue here (or references thereto), as well as
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
2
BANA’S MOT. TO SEAL MINNUCCI REPLY CASE NO. 3:21-MD-02992-GPC-MSB
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 673 Filed 02/20/26 PageID.58778 Page
4 of 7
1 substantive discussions of already sealed exhibits filed in connection with the
2 Minnucci Motion, because each reflects topics that are likely to cause particularized
3 competitive harm to BANA and which could potentially enable future fraud, and thus
4 pose a danger to BANA’s business and the public. See, e.g., EWB, 2021 WL
5 3112452, *18-19 (finding compelling reasons to seal where public disclosure of
6 EWB’s confidential onboarding processes, verification of customer identities and
7 fraud prevention measures would “harm [the bank’s] competitive standing”); Soria,
8 2019 WL 8167925, *4 (finding compelling reasons to seal bank’s internal procedures
9 for investigating fraud because there was a “significant danger that someone could
10 improperly use this information to commit fraud and avoid detection”). Each
11 document was also properly designated as “Confidential” or “Highly Confidential –
12 Attorneys’ Eyes Only” under the Protective Order entered by this Court. See BAE
13 Systems, 670 F. Supp. 3d at 1069 (finding good cause to seal certain exhibits filed in
14 connection with an apex discovery dispute because “information in the exhibits fits
15 within ‘confidential information’ in the protective order”).
16 Specifically, the excerpted expert testimony (HX 51) that BANA seeks to seal
17 includes discussions of BANA confidential documents, which pertain to confidential
18 topics, including but not limited to: BANA’s call center operations and strategies and
19 complaint escalation intake channels, which this Court has already found compelling
20 reasons to seal. See ECF 365, 381 (finding compelling reasons to seal).
21 BANA has also provisionally redacted and sealed portions of the Minnucci
22 Reply that quote, describe or reflect descriptions of the confidential documents
23 previously submitted or described in the Parties’ prior briefing and motions to seal
24 submitted in connection with the Minnucci Motion. Those confidential topics include
25 BANA’s fraud and claims analyses and strategies, BANA’s call center operations
26 and strategies, communications between EDD and BANA, among other topics. This
27 is consistent with the terms of the Stipulated Protective Order (ECF 82 § 3), with this
28 Court’s prior Sealing Orders (ECF 266, 293, 365, 381, 390, 391, 397, 421, 466, 467,
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
3
BANA’S MOT. TO SEAL MINNUCCI REPLY CASE NO. 3:21-MD-02992-GPC-MSB
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 673 Filed 02/20/26 PageID.58779 Page
5 of 7
1 548, 598, 599, 600, 601, 602, 603), and with rulings in this Circuit. See, e.g., Darisse
2 v. Nest Labs, Inc., 2016 WL 11474174, *2 (N.D. Cal. June 2, 2016) (sealing class
3 certification motion and declarations that quote or reference confidential exhibits).
4 For the reasons discussed above, there are compelling reasons to seal discussions of
5 those topics, testimony and documents discussed in the Parties’ briefing. See supra
6 at 3-4.
7 * * *
8 For the foregoing reasons and for the reasons set forth in the Court’s Sealing
9 Orders in connection with class certification briefing and argument (ECF 365, 381,
10 390, 391, 397, 421, 466, 467, 548), the Court’s Sealing Orders in connection with
11 BANA’s Daubert Motions (ECF 598, 599, 600, 601, 602), the Court’s Sealing Orders
12 in connection with BANA’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF 603),
13 Plaintiffs’ Motions to Seal (ECF 376, 384, 394, 463, 475, 524, 527, 569, 572, 609,
14 615, 618), BANA’s prior Motions to Seal (ECF 328, 337, 344, 347, 383, 418, 451,
15 577, 579, 581, 583, 585, 587) and accompanying declarations submitted in support
16 thereof (ECF 344-1, 344-2, 344-3, 347-1, 347-2), all of which are incorporated herein
17 by reference, BANA respectfully requests that the Court grant BANA’s Motion to
18 Seal because compelling reasons support sealing thereof.
19
20
21 Dated: February 20, 2026 Respectfully submitted,
22 By: /s/ Lindsay E. Hoyle
LINDSAY E. HOYLE (pro hac vice)
23 LHoyle@goodwinlaw.com
24 VALERIE A. HAGGANS (pro hac vice)
VHaggans@goodwinlaw.com
25 GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
620 Eighth Avenue
26 New York, NY 10018
Tel: +1 212 813-8800
27 Fax: +1 212 355-3333
28
JAMES W. MCGARRY (pro hac vice)
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
4
BANA’S MOT. TO SEAL MINNUCCI REPLY CASE NO. 3:21-MD-02992-GPC-MSB
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 673 Filed 02/20/26 PageID.58780 Page
6 of 7
1 JMcGarry@goodwinlaw.com
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
2 100 Northern Avenue
3 Boston, MA 02210
Tel.: +1 617 570 1000
4 Fax: +1 617 523 1231
5 SABRINA M. ROSE-SMITH (pro hac vice)
SRoseSmith@goodwinlaw.com
6 MATTHEW L. RIFFEE (pro hac vice)
7 MRiffee@goodwinlaw.com
KEITH LEVENBERG (pro hac vice)
8 KLevenberg@goodwinlaw.com
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
9 1900 N Street NW
10 Washington, DC 20036
Tel: +1 202 346 4000
11 Fax: +1 202 346 4444
12 LAURA G. BRYS (SBN 242100)
LBrys@goodwinlaw.com
13 GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
14 601 S. Figueroa St., Suite 4100
Los Angeles, CA 90017
15 Tel.: +1 213 426 2500
Fax: +1 617 346 4444
16
YVONNE W. CHAN (pro hac vice)
17 YChan@jonesday.com
18 JONES DAY
100 High Street
19 Boston, MA 02110
Tel.: +1 617 960 3939
20 Fax: +1 617 449 6999
21 JANICE P. BROWN (SBN 114433)
22 jbrown@myersnave.com
MATTHEW B. NAZARETH (SBN 278405)
23 mnazareth@myersnave.com
MEYERS NAVE
24 600 B Street, Suite 1650
San Diego, CA 92101
25
26 Attorneys for Defendant
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.
27
28
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
5
BANA’S MOT. TO SEAL MINNUCCI REPLY CASE NO. 3:21-MD-02992-GPC-MSB
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 673 Filed 02/20/26 PageID.58781 Page
7 of 7
1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
2 I hereby certify that I electronically filed the foregoing with the clerk of the
3 court for the United States District Court for the Southern District of California by
4 using the CM/ECF system on February 20, 2026. I further certify that all participants
5 in the case are registered CM/ECF users and that service will be accomplished by the
6 CM/ECF system. I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and
7 correct.
8
9 Dated: February 20, 2026 /s/ Lindsay E. Hoyle
10 LINDSAY E. HOYLE
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW 6
BANA’S MOT. TO SEAL MINNUCCI REPLY CASE NO. 3:21-MD-02992-GPC-MSB
File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.casd.709615.673.0.pdf
- Size
- 222,426 bytes
- SHA-256
- c936049ef5967b1f6179b662d5e258c47b90b0b36aa495d3504613bc1119bc61
- Original
- PACER (login required)