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 TO RECONSIDER MAY
29, 2025 ORDER GRANTING IN
PART AND DENYING IN PART
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR
PROTECTIVE ORDER
Ctrm:
2D – 2nd Floor
Judge:
Hon. Gonzalo P. Curiel
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 501 Filed 06/26/25 PageID.29274 Page
1 of 8
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 to Reconsider the Court’s May 29, 2025 Order Granting in Part and Denying
in Part Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order (“Motion to Reconsider”).
Consistent with the Court’s prior sealing orders finding good cause to seal certain
exhibits filed with BANA’s Motion for Protective Order (ECF 453, 466), Plaintiffs’
Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order (“Plaintiffs’ Opposition”)
(ECF 465, 467), and BANA’s Reply in Support of Motion for Protective Order
(“Reply”) (ECF 472, 477), BANA seeks to seal references within its Motion to
Reconsider relating to the contents of those already-filed and sealed exhibits.1
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) and
protective order briefing and argument (ECF 451, 463, 470), 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 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
1 BANA incorporates by reference its Motion to File Documents Under Seal (ECF
451) in connection with its Motion for a Protective Order (ECF 453), Plaintiffs’
Motion to File Documents Under Seal (ECF 463) in connection with Plaintiffs’
Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order (ECF 465), and BANA’s
Motion to File Documents Under Seal (ECF 470) in connection with its Reply in
Support of Motion for Protective Order (ECF 472).
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 501 Filed 06/26/25 PageID.29275 Page
2 of 8
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
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, 466, 467, 477, 498 (the
“Sealing Orders”).
Consistent with this Court’s Sealing Orders, there is good cause to seal the
confidential documents and testimony at issue here (or references thereto), as well as
substantive discussions of already sealed exhibits filed in connection with BANA’s
Motion for Protective Order, Plaintiffs’ Opposition, or BANA’s Reply, because each
reflect 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
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 501 Filed 06/26/25 PageID.29276 Page
3 of 8
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
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:
Portions of the Motion to Reconsider reflect discussions of 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 ECF 365
at 5–6, 12; ECF 466 at 1; ECF 467 at 1; ECF 477 at 1; 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 exist to seal bank’s internal procedures for
investigating fraud and addressing cardholder fraud notifications);
Portions of the Motion to Reconsider show how BANA structures the
group responsible for fraud detection and monitoring strategies, among
other banking responsibilities. See ECF 365 at 13-14; ECF 466 at 1;
ECF 467 at 1; ECF 477 at 1; Robart Decl. (ECF 344-2) ¶ 5; Dkt. No.
344-1, Martin Decl. ¶ 9; see also EWB, 2021 WL 3112452, at *18-19
(sealing confidential onboarding processes, digital banking platform,
fraud management techniques, and verification of customer identities);
and
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 501 Filed 06/26/25 PageID.29277 Page
4 of 8
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
Portions of the Motion to Reconsider reflect BANA’s confidential
discussions or analyses of its state prepaid unemployment program
operations, including but not limited to, fraud volume, claims and call
center operations, operational risks and losses, and approval of fraud
strategies. See ECF 365 at 10–13, n. 14; ECF 466 at 1; ECF 467 at 1;
ECF 477 at 1; 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’
competitive standing including profit and loss data and contractual
agreements).
BANA has also provisionally redacted and sealed portions of the Motion to
Reconsider that quote or describe the confidential topics identified above, or those
previously submitted or described in the Parties’ prior briefing and motions to seal
submitted in connection with BANA’s Motion for Protective Order (ECF 451, 453,
463, 465, 470, 472). Those confidential topics include 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 3-4.
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, 466, 467, 477, 498), 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 1-4.
*
*
*
For the foregoing reasons and for the reasons set forth in the Court’s Sealing
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 501 Filed 06/26/25 PageID.29278 Page
5 of 8
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
Orders in connection with class certification briefing and argument (ECF Nos. 365,
381, 390, 391, 397, 421, 498) and protective order briefing and argument (ECF 466,
467, 477), Plaintiffs’ Motions to Seal (ECF Nos. 376, 384, 394, 463), BANA’s prior
Motions to Seal (ECF Nos. 328, 337, 344, 347, 383, 418, 451, 470) 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 to Reconsider the Court’s May 29, 2025 Order
Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order
because good cause supports sealing thereof.
Dated: June 26, 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
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 501 Filed 06/26/25 PageID.29279 Page
6 of 8
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
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
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 501 Filed 06/26/25 PageID.29280 Page
7 of 8
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
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 June 26, 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:
June 26, 2025
s/ Matthew L. Riffee
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 501 Filed 06/26/25 PageID.29281 Page
8 of 8