Full text
DEFENDANT’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
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN DIEGO DIVISION
IN RE: BANK OF AMERICA
CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT
BENEFITS LITIGATION
Case No. 21-MD-02992-GPC-MSB
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO
FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER
SEAL IN SUPPORT OF ITS
MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE
ORDER
Ctrm:
2D – 2nd Floor
Judge:
Hon. Gonzalo P. Curiel
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 451 Filed 04/11/25 PageID.25810 Page
1 of 10
1
DEFENDANT’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
Motion to File Documents Under Seal (the “Motion”) in connection with Defendant’s
Motion for a Protective Order (“Motion for Protective Order”). In particular, BANA
seeks to seal Riffee Declaration Exhibits 5–9, 11–14 and 16–17 in their entirety and
portions of Riffee Declaration Exhibits 1–4, 10 and 151 because good cause supports
sealing of the identified documents, as well as any references to the contents of those
exhibits in BANA’s Motion for Protective Order and the Parties’ prior briefing on
apex depositions.2
As previously stated in BANA’s motions to seal submitted in connection with
class certification briefing and argument (ECF 328, 337, 344, 347, 383, 418), 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). A party
1 The exhibits submitted in support of BANA’s Motion for Protective Order are
appended to the Declaration of Matthew L. Riffee (“Riffee Decl.”) and are referred
to herein as the “Riffee Declaration Exhibits.”
2 In support of BANA’s Motion for Protective Order, BANA appends as Riffee
Declaration Exhibits 1-4 the Parties’ prior informal letter briefs regarding apex
depositions submitted to Judge Berg, including:
1) BANA’s initial informal letter brief, submitted December 16, 2024, is “BANA
Apex IDC Letter 1,” which is attached as Exhibit 1 to the Riffee Decl.;
2) Plaintiffs’ initial informal letter brief, submitted December 16, 2024, is “Pls.
Apex IDC Letter 1,” which is attached as Exhibit 2 to the Riffee Decl.;
3) BANA’s second informal letter brief, submitted March 7, 2025, is “BANA Apex
IDC Letter 2,” which is attached as Exhibit 3 to the Riffee Decl. The 11 exhibits
attached to BANA Apex IDC Letter 2 are included in Exhibit 3 to the Riffee
Decl., and referred to herein as “BANA’s Exhibits”; and
4) Plaintiffs’ second informal letter brief, submitted March 7, 2025, is “Pls. Apex
IDC Letter 2,” which is attached as Exhibit 4 to the Riffee Decl. The 53 exhibits
attached to Pls. Apex IDC Letter 2 are included in Exhibit 4 to the Riffee Decl.,
and referred to herein as “Plaintiffs’ Exhibits.”
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 451 Filed 04/11/25 PageID.25811 Page
2 of 10
2
DEFENDANT’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
seeking to seal documents filed in connection with a discovery dispute must show
“good cause” to seal documents. Courts in this district have held that the good cause
standard applies even where the underlying dispute concerns so-called “apex”
depositions of high-level executives, as is the case here. See, e.g., BAE Sys. San
Diego Ship Repair Inc. v. United States, 670 F. Supp. 3d 1064, 1069 (S.D. Cal. 2023)
(hereinafter “BAE Systems”) (finding “good cause” to seal exhibits filed with motion
for protective order).
Courts consistently seal documents where—as here—disclosure of the
confidential business information risks competitive harm to the litigant or improper
use of the information such as to commit fraud. E.g., E.W. Bank v. Shanker, 2021
WL 3112452, at *18–19 (N.D. Cal. July 22, 2021) (finding compelling reasons to
seal confidential onboarding processes, verification of customer identities, and fraud
prevention measures); Soria v. U.S. Bank N.A., 2019 WL 8167925, at *4 (C.D. Cal.
Apr. 25, 2019) (finding compelling reasons to seal internal fraud investigation
procedures because there was a “significant danger that someone could improperly
use this information to commit fraud and avoid detection.”). Indeed, this Court
largely granted the Parties’ prior motions to seal, finding good cause or compelling
reasons to seal documents concerning the same topics that BANA now seeks to seal,
including BANA’s fraud detection and prevention policies and strategies (including
the fraud filter), call center operations, prepaid fraud losses, state contract issues,
cardholder complaints and escalations, and certain of BANA’s interrogatory
responses. See ECF 266, 293, 365, 381, 390, 391, 397, 421 (the “Sealing Orders”).
Notably, this Court has previously sealed 13 of the exact same documents at issue
here (sealing Pls. Exs. 1, 14, 18, 19, 20, 25 at ECF 266; Pls. Exs. 10, 11, 45, 46, 47,
48 at ECF 293; Pls. Exs. 7, 10, 11, 46, 14, 45, 47 and 48 at ECF 365), as well as
portions of the deposition transcripts at issue here (sealing portions of Daniels Dep.
Tr. (PX 14, DX 98) at ECF 365, 381; Johnson Dep. Tr. (PX 20, DX 29) at ECF 365,
381; Letson Dep. Tr. (PX 17, DX 97) at ECF 365, 381; Martin Dep. Tr. (PX 16, DX
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 451 Filed 04/11/25 PageID.25812 Page
3 of 10
3
DEFENDANT’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
122) at ECF 365, 381). 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).
Consistent with this Court’s Sealing Orders, there is good cause to seal each
of the confidential documents, discovery responses and testimony (or portions
thereof) filed in connection with BANA’s Motion for Protective Order, and any
substantive discussion of those documents contained in BANA’s Memorandum of
Points and Authorities in Support of its Motion for Protective Order and the Parties’
prior informal briefing of this issue before Judge Berg because each reflects topics
that are likely to cause particularized competitive harm to BANA and which could
potentially enable future fraud, and thus pose a danger to BANA’s business and the
public. See, e.g., EWB, 2021 WL 3112452, at *18–19 (finding compelling reasons
to seal where public disclosure of EWB’s confidential onboarding processes,
verification of customer identities and fraud prevention measures would “harm [the
bank’s] competitive standing”); Soria, 2019 WL 8167925, at *4 (finding compelling
reasons to seal bank’s internal procedures for investigating fraud because there was
a “significant danger that someone could improperly use this information to commit
fraud and avoid detection”). Each document was also properly designated as
“Confidential” or “Highly Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only” under the Protective
Order entered by this Court. See BAE Systems, 670 F. Supp. 3d at 1069 (finding good
cause to seal certain exhibits filed in connection with an apex discovery dispute
because “information in the exhibits fits within ‘confidential information’ in the
protective order”).
Specifically, the Confidential and Highly Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only
documents and testimony that BANA seeks to seal, include but are not limited to, the
following categories of documents and information:
Riffee Declaration Exhibits 1–17, Plaintiffs’ Exhibits 3, 11, 15, 20, 41,
44, 46, 49 and 51–53, and BANA’s Exhibits 1–4, 6, 8–9 and 11 reflect
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 451 Filed 04/11/25 PageID.25813 Page
4 of 10
4
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SEAL
CASE NO. 21-MD-02992-GPC-MSB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
confidential BANA fraud prevention strategies and policies that 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; Robart Decl. (ECF 347-
2) ¶¶ 3–5; Martin Decl. (ECF 347-1) ¶¶ 4–6; see also 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);
Riffee Declaration Exhibits 3–4, 9, 11 and 16, Plaintiffs’ Exhibits 7–9,
14, 21, 31, 47–48 and 50, and BANA’s Exhibit 7 reflect confidential
BANA analyses pertaining to fraud on prepaid unemployment cards 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;
Robart Decl. (ECF 347-2) ¶¶ 3–5; Martin Decl. (ECF 347-1) ¶¶ 4–6; see
also Cowan, 2015 WL 1324848, at *2–3 (compelling reasons to seal
bank’s internal procedures for investigating fraud and addressing
cardholder fraud notifications);
Riffee Declaration Exhibits 2–5 and 13, Plaintiffs’ Exhibits 1, 2, 4–6,
10, 12–13, 16–19 and 43–45, and BANA’s Exhibits 5 and 10 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; Martin Decl. (ECF 344-1) ¶¶ 5, 7–10; Martin Decl. (ECF
347-1) ¶¶ 10–12; Robart Decl. (ECF 344-2) ¶ 4; see 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’
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 451 Filed 04/11/25 PageID.25814 Page
5 of 10
5
DEFENDANT’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
competitive standing including profit and loss data and contractual
agreements);
Riffee Declaration Exhibit 4 and Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 40 reflects
confidential BANA testimony pertaining to BANA’s Remediation Plans
with the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (“OCC”) and the
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. Amended Sealing Order (ECF 365) at 14–16; see also Lennon
Decl. (ECF 344-3) ¶¶ 3–6; see also 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); and
Riffee Declaration Exhibit 4 and Plaintiffs’ Exhibits 22-30 and 32-39
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; Sealing Order (ECF 381) at 1; see also
Robart Decl. (ECF 347-2) ¶¶ 3–8; see also Stiner v. Brookdale Senior
Living, Inc., 2022 WL 1180216, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2022) (sealing
documents containing employees’ personally identifying information
like names, email addresses, and phone numbers). 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
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 451 Filed 04/11/25 PageID.25815 Page
6 of 10
6
DEFENDANT’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
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.
BANA has also provisionally redacted and sealed portions of the Parties’
briefing (see Motion for Protective Order; Riffee Decl. Exs. 1–4) and excerpted
deposition testimony in whole or in part (see Riffee Decl. Exs. 5–6, 8–17) that quote
or describe the confidential documents, testimony and topics identified above,
including BANA’s fraud analyses and strategies and BANA’s analyses of its state
prepaid unemployment program operations, including contractual negotiations, fraud
volume, claims and call center operations, and operational risks and losses, among
other topics. See supra at 3-6. This is consistent with the terms of the Stipulated
Protective Order (ECF 82, § 3), with this Court’s prior Sealing Orders (ECF 365,
381, 390), and with rulings in this Circuit. 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). For the reasons discussed
above, there is good cause to seal discussions of those topics, testimony and
documents discussed in the Parties’ briefing. See supra at 1–3.
*
*
*
For the foregoing reasons and for the reasons set forth in the Court’s Sealing
Orders in connection with class certification briefing and argument (ECF Nos. 365,
381, 390, 391, 397, 421), Plaintiffs’ Motions to Seal (ECF Nos. 376, 384, 394),
BANA’s prior Motions to Seal (ECF Nos. 328, 337, 344, 347, 383, 418) and
accompanying declarations submitted in support thereof (ECF Nos. 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 Protective Order because good cause supports
sealing thereof.
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 451 Filed 04/11/25 PageID.25816 Page
7 of 10
7
DEFENDANT’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
Dated: April 11, 2025
Respectfully submitted,
By: s/ Matthew L. Riffee__________________
MATTHEW L. RIFFEE (pro hac vice)
MRiffee@goodwinlaw.com
THOMAS M. HEFFERON (pro hac vice)
THefferon@goodwinlaw.com
SABRINA M. ROSE-SMITH (pro hac vice)
SRoseSmith@goodwinlaw.com
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
1900 N St. NW
Washington, DC 20036
Tel: +1 202 346 4000
Fax: +1 202 346 4444
JAMES W. MCGARRY (pro hac vice)
JMcGarry@goodwinlaw.com
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
100 Northern Avenue
Boston, MA 02210
Tel.: +1 617 570 1000
Fax: +1 617 523 1231
LAURA G. BRYS (SBN 242100)
LBrys@goodwinlaw.com
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
601 S Figueroa St., Suite 4100
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Tel.: +1 213 426 2500
Fax: +1 617 346 4444
VALERIE A. HAGGANS (pro hac vice)
VHaggans@goodwinlaw.com
LINDSAY E. HOYLE (pro hac vice)
LHoyle@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
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
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 451 Filed 04/11/25 PageID.25817 Page
8 of 10
8
DEFENDANT’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
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 451 Filed 04/11/25 PageID.25818 Page
9 of 10
9
DEFENDANT’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 April 11, 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:
April 11, 2025
s/ Matthew L. Riffee
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 451 Filed 04/11/25 PageID.25819 Page
10 of 10