MOTION to File Documents Under Seal (With attachments) — Bofa Ca Unemployment (Dkt. 650)

Summary

The plaintiffs' revised motion to file documents under seal regarding their opposition to the bank's motion for partial summary judgment, filed 02/03/26 as Document 650 in In re Bank of America California Unemployment Benefits Litigation, Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB, with a hearing set for April 17, 2026 before Hon. Gonzalo P. Curiel. It follows an order granting the parties' joint motion to withdraw earlier filed documents and adds to a sealing motion filed previously. Co-lead counsel seek to seal portions of their opposition, their response to the bank's separate statement and their additional statement of facts, based on the bank's assertions of confidentiality. They note the strong presumption in favor of public access to court records.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

 Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB       Document 650   Filed 02/03/26   PageID.55278    Page
                                        1 of 5


 1 JOSEPH W. COTCHETT (SBN 36324)               MICHAEL RUBIN (SBN 80618)
   jcotchett@cpmlegal.com                       mrubin@altber.com
 2 BRIAN DANITZ (SBN 247403)                    STACEY M. LEYTON (SBN 203827)
 3 bdanitz@cpmlegal.com                         sleyton@altber.com
   KARIN B. SWOPE (Pro Hac Vice)                CONNIE K. CHAN (SBN 284230)
 4 kswope@cpmlegal.com                          cchan@altber.com
 5 VASTI S. MONTIEL (SBN 346409)                JAMES BALTZER (SBN 332232)
   vmontiel@cpmlegal.com                        jbaltzer@altber.com
 6 CAROLINE A. YUEN (SBN 354388)                KATHERINE BASS (SBN 344748)
 7 cyuen@cpmlegal.com                           kbass@altber.com
   COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP ALTSHULER BERZON LLP
 8 840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200                  177 Post Street, Suite 300
 9 Burlingame, CA 94010                         San Francisco, CA 94108
   Telephone: (650) 697-6000                    Telephone: (415) 421-7151
10 Fax: (650) 697-0577                          Fax: (415) 362-8064
11
   Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs and the Class
12
13                        UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
14                      SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
15
   IN RE BANK OF AMERICA                     Case No. 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB
16 CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT
   BENEFITS LITIGATION                       REVISED MOTION TO FILE
17
                                             DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL RE:
18                                           PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO
                                             DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR
19
                                             PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
20
21                                           Date:       April 17, 2026
     This Document Relates to All Actions    Time:       1:30 p.m.
22                                           Judge:      Hon. Gonzalo P. Curiel
                                             Ctrm:       2D (2nd Floor)
23
24
25
26
27
28

     Revised Motion to File Documents Under Seal; Case No. 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB
 Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB         Document 650     Filed 02/03/26   PageID.55279      Page
                                          2 of 5


 1              REVISED MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL
 2         Pursuant to the Court’s Order Granting the Parties’ Joint Motion to Withdraw Filed
 3 Documents ECF 633, 633-1, 633-2 (ECF 649), Plaintiffs respectfully submit this Revised
 4 Motion to Seal, in addition to the Motion to Seal previously filed at ECF 630. Pursuant to
 5 Local Rule 79.2 and Section 12.5 of the Stipulated Protective Order (ECF 82) in this case
 6 and the Court’s Civil Pretrial & Trial Procedures, and the Parties’ various meet and confer
 7 exchanges regarding what additional material to provisionally redact and to ask the Court
 8 to seal based on Defendant’s assertions of confidentiality, Plaintiffs move to file under
 9 seal (1) portions of Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary
10 Judgment (“MPSJ Opposition”); (2) portions of Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendant Bank
11 of America, N.A. (the “Bank”) Separate Statement; and (3) portions of Plaintiffs’
12 Additional Statement of Facts in Opposition to MPSJ.
13         Plaintiffs tailored this motion pursuant to the guidance provided by the Court’s Order
14 granting in part and denying in part Motions to Seal materials relating to Plaintiffs’ Motion
15 for Class Certification (ECF 365), and in compliance with the Stipulated Protective Order
16 in this case and the Parties’ various meet and confer exchanges regarding what additional
17 material to provisionally redact and to ask the Court to seal based on Defendant’s assertions
18 of confidentiality. Portions of documents lodged provisionally under seal designated
19 Confidential are highlighted yellow, and those designated Highly Confidential are
20 highlighted green.
21 I.      LEGAL STANDARD
22         There is a strong presumption in favor of public access to court records. Nixon v.
23 Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978) (“[T]he courts of this country recognize
24 a general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records
25 and documents.” (cleaned up)); see also Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d
26 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (“Unless a particular court record is one ‘traditionally kept
27 secret,’ a ‘strong presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.”). The party seeking
28 to seal a court record has the burden of “articulat[ing] compelling reasons [to seal a

     Revised Motion to File Documents Under Seal;                                               1
     Case No. 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB
 Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB         Document 650     Filed 02/03/26   PageID.55280     Page
                                          3 of 5


 1 document] supported by specific factual findings . . . that outweigh the general history of
 2 access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in
 3 understanding the judicial process.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178-79 (cleaned up). “‘In
 4 general, ‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in disclosure and
 5 justify sealing court records exist when such ‘court files might have become a vehicle for
 6 improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote public
 7 scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at
 8 1178-79, citing Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598. “[T]he strong presumption of access to judicial
 9 records applies fully to dispositive pleadings, including motions for summary judgment
10 and related attachments.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179.
11 II.     SENSITIVE BANK INFORMATION
12         Plaintiffs seek to seal portions of their (1) Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for
13 Partial Summary Judgment (“MPSJ Opposition”); (2) Response to Defendant Bank of
14 America, N.A. (the “Bank”) Separate Statement; and (3) Additional Statement of Facts in
15 Opposition to MPSJ. These materials contain information the Bank designated as
16 Confidential and/or Highly Confidential, including material that reflect or analyze the risk
17 of future fraud to the Bank, pertain to internal analyses of fraud detection strategies, risk
18 competitor disadvantage to the Bank, refer to testimony by Rule 30(b)(6) witnesses that
19 the Bank has designated Confidential or Highly Confidential, contain deposition testimony
20 that the Bank has designated as “Confidential” pursuant to the Protective Order, and refer
21 to materials designated “Highly Confidential-Attorneys’ Eyes Only” by the Consumer
22 Finance Protection Board (“CFPB”) and Office of the Comptroller of Currency (“OCC”).
23 This Court has previously found compelling reasons to limit public access to such
24 documents because their disclosure could lead to the use of this information for an
25 improper purpose, such as future fraud, that poses harm not only to the Bank but also to
26 the public. See ECF 365, 381; See, also., Xifin, Inc. v. Sunshine Pathways, LLC, 2016 WL
27 5930313, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 12, 2016) (J. Curiel) (finding compelling reasons to seal
28 services agreement that contained detailed information about pricing structure, nature of

     Revised Motion to File Documents Under Seal;                                             2
     Case No. 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB
 Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB          Document 650      Filed 02/03/26   PageID.55281      Page
                                           4 of 5


 1 services, system security requirements, and how to use the cloud-based billing system “that
 2 could expose Plaintiff to a competitive disadvantage if revealed”); Brady v. Grendene USA,
 3 Inc., 2015 WL 6828400, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2015) (J. Curiel) (sealing confidential
 4 business information that might harm the litigants’ competitive standing including profit
 5 and loss data and contractual agreements).
 6      III.   CONCLUSION
 7      For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court grant Plaintiffs’
 8 Revised Motion to Seal Documents Filed In Support of their Opposition to Defendant’s
 9 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.
10
11                                           Respectfully submitted,
12
     Dated: February 3, 2026          COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP
13
                                             By:    /s/ Brian Danitz
14                                                  JOSEPH W. COTCHETT
                                                    BRIAN DANITZ
15                                                  KARIN B. SWOPE
                                                    BLAIR V. KITTLE
16                                                  VASTI S. MONTIEL
                                                    CAROLINE A. YUEN
17                                                  REGINA WANG
18
     Dated: February 3, 2026          ALTSHULER BERZON LLP
19
20                                           By:    /s/ Michael Rubin
                                                    MICHAEL RUBIN
21                                                  STACEY M. LEYTON
                                                    CONNIE K. CHAN
22                                                  JAMES BALTZER
                                                    KATHERINE BASS
23
                                             Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs and
24                                           the Class
25
26
27
28

     Revised Motion to File Documents Under Seal;                                                3
     Case No. 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB
 Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB         Document 650      Filed 02/03/26   PageID.55282     Page
                                          5 of 5


 1                               SIGNATURE ATTESTATION
 2         Pursuant to section 2(f)(4) of the Electronic Case Filing Administrative Policies and
 3 Procedures Manual, I, Brian Danitz, attest that the other signatories listed, and on whose
 4 behalf this filing is submitted, concur in the filing content and have authorized this filing.
 5
 6 Dated: February 3, 2026                        /s/ Brian Danitz
 7                                                BRIAN DANITZ

 8
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

     Revised Motion to File Documents Under Seal;                                              4
     Case No. 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB


File and source

File

gov.uscourts.casd.709615.650.0.pdf

Size

449,997 bytes

SHA-256

f8ba6786ca94edccea39ec4074993399f76de9c65e895e8dabe9020f2e6dba26

Our copy

gov.uscourts.casd.709615.650.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)