Court filing
Bank of America's Motion to Seal Documents Filed in Its Reply in Support of Its Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
Summary
Defendant Bank of America, N.A.'s Notice and Motion to Seal Documents Filed in Its Reply in Support of Its Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF 589), filed 02/20/26 as Document 687 in In re: Bank of America California Unemployment Benefits Litigation, Case No. 21-MD-02992-GPC-MSB in the Southern District of California. Under Local Civil Rule 79.2(c), the bank asks to seal certain Brys Declaration exhibits in whole or in part, and references to sealed exhibits in its reply and its responses to plaintiffs' additional facts and evidentiary objections. It argues that compelling reasons apply to summary judgment filings and that the Court largely granted earlier motions to seal material on its fraud detection and prevention policies.
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
“Bank of America's Motion to Seal Documents Filed in Its Reply in Support of Its Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.”
Original at ecf.casd.uscourts.gov, No. 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB, Doc. 687. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/court-filings/full-docket-bofa-ca-unemployment-casd-709615/2026-02-20-gov-uscourts-casd-709615-687-0-gov-uscourts-casd-709615-687-0/
, SHA-256 69b60cf942cf724372405becef3c4087e8a63f6cd45d3205cd4f7410b6b9d498.Full text
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 687 Filed 02/20/26 PageID.59115 Page
1 of 10
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 NOTICE AND MOTION TO
20 SEAL DOCUMENTS FILED IN ITS
REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS
21 MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY
JUDGMENT (ECF 589)
22
23 Ctrm: 12A – 12th Floor
Judge: Hon. Gonzalo P. Curiel
24
25
26
27
28
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
BANA’S MOT. TO SEAL PARTIAL SJ REPLY CASE NO. 3:21-MD-02992-GPC-MSB
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 687 Filed 02/20/26 PageID.59116 Page
2 of 10
1 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, pursuant to Local Civil Rule 79.2(c),
2 Defendant Bank of America, N.A. (BANA) hereby submits this Notice and Motion
3 to Seal (Motion to Seal) certain documents and portions of other documents in
4 connection with BANA’s Reply in Support of Its Motion for Partial Summary
5 Judgment (Reply). In particular, BANA seeks to seal certain Brys Declaration
6 Exhibits1 in their entirety and portions of certain Brys Declaration Exhibits because
7 compelling reasons supports sealing of the identified documents, as well as any
8 references to those exhibits in BANA’s Reply, BANA’s Response to Plaintiffs’
9 Additional Statement of Facts in Opposition to Its Motion for Partial Summary
10 Judgment (RAF), and BANA’s Response to Plaintiffs’ Objections to Evidence to Its
11 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (RO). Consistent with the Court’s prior
12 sealing Orders finding compelling reasons to seal certain exhibits filed with both
13 BANA’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF 603), as well as Plaintiffs’
14 Opposition to BANA’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (MSJ Opp.) (ECF
15 639, 654), BANA also seeks to seal references within its Reply, RAF, and RO to the
16 contents of those already-filed and sealed Brys and Chan Declaration Exhibits.2
17 As previously stated in BANA’s motions to seal submitted in connection with
18 class certification briefing and argument (ECF 328, 337, 344, 347, 383, 418, 451)
19 and BANA’s motions to seal submitted in connection with summary judgment
20 briefing (ECF 577, 579, 581, 583, 585, 587), the public’s right to inspect and copy
21
1
22 The exhibits submitted in support of BANA’s Reply are appended to the Brys
Declaration (Brys Decl.) and shall be referred to as “DX” or “Brys Declaration
23 Exhibits” in this Motion and the forthcoming Reply and supporting documents. DX
1-184 are exhibits to the Declaration of Laura G. Brys (ECF 591) in Support of
24 BANA’s Mot. for Partial Summary Judgment (MSJ) (ECF 589). DX 185-192 are
exhibits to the Declaration of Laura G. Brys in Support of the Reply. Plaintiffs’
25 Exhibits to the Declaration of Connie K. Chan in Opposition to BANA’s MSJ (ECF
26 634-1) shall be referred to as “PX” in the forthcoming Reply and supporting
documents.
2
27 BANA incorporates by reference its Motion to File Documents Under Seal (ECF
587) in connection with its Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF 589) and
28 Plaintiffs’ Motion to File Documents Under Seal (ECF 630, 650) in connection with
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
Plaintiffs’ Opposition to BANA’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF 652).
ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1
BANA’S MOT. TO SEAL PARTIAL SJ REPLY CASE NO. 3:21-MD-02992-GPC-MSB
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 687 Filed 02/20/26 PageID.59117 Page
3 of 10
1 judicial records is not absolute, and a party faced with the disclosure of confidential
2 or proprietary information may seek to file the documents under seal to avoid
3 disclosure of business information that might result in competitive harm or be used
4 for improper purposes. See Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598
5 (1978) (denying disclosure); Local Civ. R. 79.2(c). A party seeking to seal documents
6 filed in connection with a motion for summary judgment, a dispositive motion, must
7 show “compelling reasons” to seal documents. Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of
8 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006); see also Pintos v. Pacific Creditors
9 Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678-79 (9th Cir. 2010) (determining “compelling reasons”
10 standard applies to motion to seal documents attached to cross-motion for summary
11 judgment); EpicentRx, Inc. v. Carter, 2023 WL 4336695, *1 (S.D. Cal. May 16,
12 2023) (applying “compelling reasons” standard to request to seal certain exhibits
13 associated with motions for summary judgment).
14 Courts, including this Court, consistently seal documents where disclosure of
15 confidential business information risks competitive harm to the litigant or improper
16 use of the information such as to commit fraud. See, e.g., ECF 603; E.W. Bank v.
17 Shanker, 2021 WL 3112452, *18-19 (N.D. Cal. July 22, 2021) (finding compelling
18 reasons to seal confidential onboarding processes, verification of customer identities,
19 and fraud prevention measures); Soria v. U.S. Bank N.A., 2019 WL 8167925, at *4
20 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 25, 2019) (finding compelling reasons to seal internal fraud
21 investigation procedures because there was a “significant danger that someone could
22 improperly use this information to commit fraud and avoid detection.”). Indeed, this
23 Court largely granted the Parties’ prior motions to seal, finding good cause or
24 compelling reasons to seal documents concerning the same topics that BANA now
25 seeks to seal, including BANA’s fraud detection and prevention policies and
26 strategies (including the fraud filter), discussions or analyses of its state prepaid
27 unemployment program operations, including call center operations, prepaid fraud
28 losses, and cardholder complaints and escalations, among other topics. See ECF 266,
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2
BANA’S MOT. TO SEAL PARTIAL SJ REPLY CASE NO. 3:21-MD-02992-GPC-MSB
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 687 Filed 02/20/26 PageID.59118 Page
4 of 10
1 293, 365, 381, 390, 391, 397, 421, 466, 467, 548, 598, 599, 600, 601, 602, 603 (the
2 Sealing Orders). Those prior rulings are sufficient grounds alone to grant sealing
3 here. See Lundstrom v. Young, 2022 WL 15524624, *17 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 27, 2022)
4 (Curiel, J.) (considering prior sealing of exhibits when granting motion to seal);
5 Workplace Techs. Rsch., Inc. v. Project Mgmt. Inst., Inc., 2021 WL 6091272, *3
6 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 20, 2021) (sealing references to document that court already granted
7 sealing of).
8 Consistent with this Court’s Sealing Orders, there are compelling reasons to
9 seal the confidential documents, declaration and testimony at issue here (or
10 references thereto), as well as substantive discussions of already sealed exhibits filed
11 in connection with BANA’s MSJ and Plaintiffs’ MSJ Opp., because each reflects
12 topics that are likely to cause particularized competitive harm to BANA and which
13 could potentially enable future fraud, and thus pose a danger to BANA’s business
14 and the public. See, e.g., EWB, 2021 WL 3112452, *18-19 (finding compelling
15 reasons to seal where public disclosure of EWB’s confidential onboarding processes,
16 verification of customer identities and fraud prevention measures would “harm [the
17 bank’s] competitive standing”); Soria, 2019 WL 8167925, *4 (finding compelling
18 reasons to seal bank’s internal procedures for investigating fraud because there was
19 a “significant danger that someone could improperly use this information to commit
20 fraud and avoid detection”). Each document was also properly designated as
21 “Confidential” or “Highly Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only” under the Protective
22 Order entered by this Court. See BAE Systems, 670 F. Supp. 3d at 1069 (finding good
23 cause to seal certain exhibits filed in connection with an apex discovery dispute
24 because “information in the exhibits fits within ‘confidential information’ in the
25 protective order”).
26 Specifically, the Confidential documents, declaration and testimony that
27 BANA seeks to seal include, but are not limited to, the following categories of
28 documents and information, for which this Court has already found compelling
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW 3
BANA’S MOT. TO SEAL PARTIAL SJ REPLY CASE NO. 3:21-MD-02992-GPC-MSB
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 687 Filed 02/20/26 PageID.59119 Page
5 of 10
1 reasons to seal:
2 DX 186, 187, and 189 reflect confidential BANA fraud detection and
3 prevention strategies and policies, including the Claim Fraud Filter, and
4 other current and former fraud strategies that could be misused by
5 fraudsters to perpetrate future fraud or could be used by another
6 financial institution to BANA’s competitive disadvantage (see
7 Amended Sealing Order (ECF 365) at 5-6, 12; Sealing Order (ECF
8 603));
9 DX 188 reflects confidential BANA claims review policies and
10 strategies and the implementation thereof, including reviewing
11 complaint escalations and issuing provisional credits in compliance with
12 regulations that could also be misused by fraudsters to perpetrate fraud
13 or could be used by another financial institution to BANA’s competitive
14 disadvantage (see Amended Sealing Order (ECF 365) at 5-6, 12; Sealing
15 Order (ECF 603));
16 DX 191 and 192 reflect BANA’s confidential analyses of its state
17 prepaid unemployment program operations, including but not limited to,
18 contractual negotiations, fraud volume, claims and call center
19 operations, and operational risks and losses (see Amended Sealing
20 Order (ECF 365) at 10-13, n.14; Sealing Order (ECF 603));
21 DX 192 reflects confidential BANA fraud and operational losses in
22 connection with the unemployment insurance prepaid programs which
23 could be misused by fraudsters to perpetrate future fraud or could be
24 used by another financial institution to BANA’s competitive
25 disadvantage (see Amended Sealing Order (ECF 365) at 10-13, n.14;
26 Sealing Order (ECF 603));
27 DX 185 reflects an expert witness’s sworn declaration discussing
28 confidential BANA interrogatory responses and data provided therein
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW 4
BANA’S MOT. TO SEAL PARTIAL SJ REPLY CASE NO. 3:21-MD-02992-GPC-MSB
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 687 Filed 02/20/26 PageID.59120 Page
6 of 10
1 reflecting BANA’s use of the Claim Fraud Filter to decision
2 unauthorized transaction claims and to freeze or block EDD cardholder
3 accounts, and any reconsideration by BANA of those claims and any
4 compensation paid as a result which could be misused by fraudsters to
5 perpetrate future fraud or could be used by another financial institution
6 to BANA’s competitive disadvantage (see Amended Sealing Order
7 (ECF 365) at 5-9, 12; Sealing Order (ECF 603));
8 DX 190 reflects excerpts of an experts’ deposition testimony, which
9 includes discussions of BANA’s confidential documents, many of
10 which contain the confidential information described above, including
11 but not limited to: BANA’s handling of unauthorized transaction claims
12 and reconsiderations. This information could be misused by fraudsters
13 to perpetrate future fraud or could be used by another financial
14 institution to BANA’s competitive disadvantage (see Amended Sealing
15 Order (ECF 365) at 5-9, 12; Sealing Order (ECF 603)); and
16 DX 186, 187, 188, 189, 191, and 192 reflect excerpts of 30(b)(6) and
17 fact witnesses’ deposition testimony, which include discussions of
18 BANA’s confidential documents, many of which contain the
19 confidential information described above, including but not limited to:
20 BANA’s handling of unauthorized transaction claims and
21 reconsiderations; BANA’s contract with EDD and the responsibilities
22 thereunder; BANA’s communications with EDD regarding fraud-
23 related measures; BANA’s fraud strategies, including the use of EMV
24 chip technology and the freezing and blocking of accounts; and BANA’s
25 call center procedures and complaint escalation intake channels. This
26 information could be misused by fraudsters to perpetrate future fraud or
27 could be used by another financial institution to BANA’s competitive
28 disadvantage (see Amended Sealing Order (ECF 365) at 5-9, 12; Sealing
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW 5
BANA’S MOT. TO SEAL PARTIAL SJ REPLY CASE NO. 3:21-MD-02992-GPC-MSB
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 687 Filed 02/20/26 PageID.59121 Page
7 of 10
1 Order (ECF 603)).
2 BANA has also provisionally redacted and sealed portions of the Reply, RAF,
3 and RO that quote, describe or reflect descriptions of the confidential documents,
4 testimony and topics identified above, or those previously submitted or described in
5 the Parties’ prior briefing and motions to seal submitted in connection with BANA’s
6 MSJ and Plaintiffs’ MSJ Opp. Those confidential topics include: BANA analyses
7 pertaining to fraud, including card skimming, and potential fraud prevention and
8 detection strategies to combat that fraud; confidential BANA general services
9 agreements and statements of work between BANA and its call center vendors;
10 confidential BANA communications with EDD regarding BANA’s and/or EDD’s
11 fraud strategies, including the use of EMV chip technology and freezing and blocking
12 of accounts; confidential BANA documents and testimony pertaining to BANA’s
13 Remediation Plan and Addenda with the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency
14 (OCC) and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)—which were
15 designated Highly Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only at those regulators’
16 requests—which this Court has found compelling reasons to seal; and confidential
17 EDD cardholder account or personal information, including personal identifying
18 information, the disclosure of which could expose those cardholders to harm or
19 identity theft, as well as the types of claims files or information that BANA considers
20 in connection with investigating and processing unauthorized transaction and error
21 claims, disclosure of which could provide the public with insight into BANA’s
22 confidential claims processes or procedures, thereby enabling fraudsters to
23 circumvent them and perpetrate future fraud, and the disclosure of which could also
24 enable other financial institutions to use that information to BANA’s competitive
25 disadvantage, among other topics. This is consistent with the terms of the Stipulated
26 Protective Order (ECF 82 § 3), with this Court’s prior Sealing Orders in favor of
27 BANA (ECF 266, 293, 365, 381, 390, 391, 397, 421, 466, 467, 548, 598, 599, 600,
28 601, 602, 603) and in favor of Plaintiffs (ECF 376, 384, 394, 463, 475, 524, 527, 569,
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW 6
BANA’S MOT. TO SEAL PARTIAL SJ REPLY CASE NO. 3:21-MD-02992-GPC-MSB
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 687 Filed 02/20/26 PageID.59122 Page
8 of 10
1 572, 609, 615, 618 ,630, 650), and with rulings in this Circuit. See, e.g., Darisse v.
2 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) and BANA’s Motion for Partial Summary
11 Judgment (ECF 603), Plaintiffs’ prior Motions to Seal (ECF 376, 384, 394, 463, 475,
12 524, 527, 569, 572, 609, 615, 618 ,630, 650), BANA’s prior Motions to Seal (ECF
13 328, 337, 344, 347, 383, 418, 451, 577, 579, 581, 583, 585, 587) and accompanying
14 declarations submitted in support thereof (ECF 344-1, 344-2, 344-3, 347-1, 347-2),
15 all of which are incorporated herein by reference, BANA respectfully requests that
16 the Court grant BANA’s Motion to Seal because compelling reasons support sealing
17 thereof.
18
19 Dated: February 20, 2026 Respectfully submitted,
20 By: s/ Laura G. Brys
LAURA G. BRYS (SBN 242100)
21 LBrys@goodwinlaw.com
22 GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
601 S. Figueroa St., Suite 4100
23 Los Angeles, CA 90017
Tel.: +1 213 426 2500
24 Fax: +1 617 346 4444
25 JAMES W. MCGARRY (pro hac vice)
26 JMcGarry@goodwinlaw.com
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
27 100 Northern Avenue
Boston, MA 02210
28 Tel.: +1 617 570 1000
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW 7
BANA’S MOT. TO SEAL PARTIAL SJ REPLY CASE NO. 3:21-MD-02992-GPC-MSB
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 687 Filed 02/20/26 PageID.59123 Page
9 of 10
1 Fax: +1 617 523 1231
2 SABRINA M. ROSE-SMITH (pro hac vice)
3 SRoseSmith@goodwinlaw.com
MATTHEW L. RIFFEE (pro hac vice)
4 MRiffee@goodwinlaw.com
KEITH LEVENBERG (pro hac vice)
5 KLevenberg@goodwinlaw.com
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
6 1900 N Street NW
7 Washington, DC 20036
Tel: +1 202 346 4000
8 Fax: +1 202 346 4444
9 Lindsay E. Hoyle (pro hac vice)
LHoyle@goodwinlaw.com
10 VALERIE A. HAGGANS (pro hac vice)
11 VHaggans@goodwinlaw.com
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
12 620 Eighth Avenue
New York, NY 10018
13 Tel: +1 212 813-8800
14 Fax: +1 212 355-3333
15 YVONNE W. CHAN (pro hac vice)
YChan@jonesday.com
16 JONES DAY
100 High Street
17 Boston, MA 02110
18 Tel.: +1 617 960 3939
Fax: +1 617 449 6999
19
JANICE P. BROWN (SBN 114433)
20 jbrown@myersnave.com
MATTHEW B. NAZARETH (SBN 278405)
21 mnazareth@myersnave.com
22 MEYERS NAVE
600 B Street, Suite 1650
23 San Diego, CA 92101
24 Attorneys for Defendant
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.
25
26
27
28
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW 8
BANA’S MOT. TO SEAL PARTIAL SJ REPLY CASE NO. 3:21-MD-02992-GPC-MSB
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 687 Filed 02/20/26 PageID.59124 Page
10 of 10
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/ Laura G. Brys
10 LAURA G. BRYS
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW 9
BANA’S MOT. TO SEAL PARTIAL SJ REPLY CASE NO. 3:21-MD-02992-GPC-MSB
File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.casd.709615.687.0.pdf
- Size
- 200,347 bytes
- SHA-256
- 69b60cf942cf724372405becef3c4087e8a63f6cd45d3205cd4f7410b6b9d498
- Original
- PACER (login required)