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 STAY PENDING
RESOLUTION OF RULE 23(f)
PETITION
Ctrm:
2D – 2nd Floor
Judge:
Hon. Gonzalo P. Curiel
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 511 Filed 07/03/25 PageID.29615 Page
1 of 7
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 Stay Pending Resolution of Rule 23(f) Petition (“Stay Motion”). In
particular, BANA seeks to seal portions of Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Valerie
Haggans in Support of Defendant’s Motion to Stay Pending Resolution of Rule 23(f)
Petition and references within its Stay Motion relating to the sealed contents of
Exhibit 1 because good cause and compelling reasons support the sealing of the
identified document.
As previously stated in BANA’s motions to seal submitted in connection with
class certification briefing, argument, and the Court’s order (ECF 328, 344, 347,
495), 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. Provide Com., Inc. v. Hartford
Fire Ins. Co., 2014 WL 1877438, at *2 (S.D. Cal. May 9, 2014) (applying the good
cause standard in granting motion to seal portions of motion to stay).
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
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 511 Filed 07/03/25 PageID.29616 Page
2 of 7
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
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 but not limited to, BANA’s fraud detection and prevention policies and
strategies; claims review policies and strategies and their implementation; analyses
of transactional fraud; analyses of claims fraud and potential strategies to combat that
fraud; and BANA’s implementation of the Remediation Plans. See ECF 365, 381,
498 (the “Sealing Orders”).
Consistent with this Court’s Sealing Orders, there is good cause to seal
portions of the document filed in connection with BANA’s Stay Motion (or
references thereto) because they 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 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 underlying document was also properly designated as
“Confidential” or “Highly Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only” under the Protective
Order entered by this Court.
Specifically, the Confidential and Highly Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only
documents and testimony that BANA relied upon in drafting Exhibit 1
(Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion for Class
Certification; Order Granting Class Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification; Expert
Declaration of Teresa A. Pesce; Declarations of Michael J. Letson, William Martin,
and Jennifer Lennon; Bank of America’s Responses and Objections to Plaintiff
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 511 Filed 07/03/25 PageID.29617 Page
3 of 7
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
Yick’s Fourth Set of Interrogatories and Second Set of Responses (ROG Nos. 28 and
29); Bank of America’s Second Set of Responses and Objections to Plaintiff Yick’s
Seventh Set of Interrogatories (ROG Nos. 39); and the Remediation Plan and
Addenda were previously sealed by this Court.1 See ECF 365, 381 and 498. The
document (and references thereto) BANA seeks to seal now include the following
categories of documents and information:
Exhibit 1 (and portions of the Stay Motion) reflect 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; 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);
Exhibit 1 (and portions of the Stay Motion) 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; 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);
Exhibit 1 (and portions of the Stay Motion) 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
1 After consent from Plaintiffs’ Counsel, BANA previously filed an Unopposed Motion to Seal
the very Petition that is the subject of this Motion in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. See
Chong, et al. v. Bank of America, N.A., No. 25-4072, ECF 3.
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 511 Filed 07/03/25 PageID.29618 Page
4 of 7
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
Amended Sealing Order (ECF 365) at 10–13, n. 14; 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);
Exhibit 1 (and portions of the Stay Motion) reflect 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 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).
*
*
*
For the foregoing reasons and for the reasons set forth in the Court’s Sealing
Orders (365, 381, 498), 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,
501) 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 Stay Pending Resolution of the Rule
23(f) Petition because good cause supports sealing thereof.
Dated: July 3, 2025
Respectfully submitted,
By: s/ James W. McGarry__________________
MATTHEW L. RIFFEE (pro hac vice)
MRiffee@goodwinlaw.com
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 511 Filed 07/03/25 PageID.29619 Page
5 of 7
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
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
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 511 Filed 07/03/25 PageID.29620 Page
6 of 7
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
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 July 3, 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:
July 3, 2025
s/ James W. McGarry
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 511 Filed 07/03/25 PageID.29621 Page
7 of 7