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 ITS REPLY 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 539 Filed 08/08/25 PageID.30164 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
Reply in Support of its Motion to Stay Pending Resolution of Rule 23(f) Petition
(“Reply”). In particular, BANA seeks to seal portions of the Reply and Exhibit 1 of
the Declaration of Valerie Haggans (“Haggans Decl.”), which is Defendant’s Reply
in Support of its Rule 23(f) Petition, because good cause and compelling reasons
support the sealing of the identified document. All portions of the Reply and Exhibit
1 of the Haggans Decl. that BANA seeks to seal reference documents already found
to warrant sealing by this Court.1 See ECF 365, 381, 390, 391, 498, and 516 (the
“Sealing Orders”).
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
1 BANA incorporates by reference its Motion to File Documents Under Seal (ECF
511) in connection with its Motion to Stay Pending Resolution of Rule 23(f)
Petition (ECF 513).
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 539 Filed 08/08/25 PageID.30165 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
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 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,
390, 391, 498, and 516.
Consistent with this Court’s Sealing Orders, there is good cause to seal
portions of the Reply and Exhibit 1 filed therewith 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 of the
Haggans Decl. (Expert Class Certification Report of Greg J. Regan; Declaration of
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 539 Filed 08/08/25 PageID.30166 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
William M. Martin; the Remediation Plans and Addenda; Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class
Certification; Plaintiffs’ Reply in Support of Motion for Class Certification; and
District Court’s Order Granting Class Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification) were
previously sealed by this Court. See ECF 365, 381, 390, 391, 498, 516. The portions
of the Reply and Exhibit 1 that BANA seeks to seal now include references to and
discussions of the following categories of documents and information:
Portions of Exhibit 1 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);
Portions of the Reply and Exhibit 1 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);
Portions of Exhibit 1 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; see Brady v. Grendene USA, Inc., 2015
WL 6828400, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2015) (J. Curiel) (sealing
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 539 Filed 08/08/25 PageID.30167 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
confidential business information that might harm the litigants’
competitive standing including profit and loss data and contractual
agreements);
Portions of the Reply and Exhibit 1 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—and
BANA’s implementation of the Plans, 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 (ECF 365, 381, 390, 391, 498, 516), Plaintiffs’ Motions to Seal (ECF 376,
384, 394, 463), BANA’s prior Motions to Seal (ECF 328, 347, 376, 383, 495, 511)
and accompanying declarations submitted in support thereof (ECF 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 portions of
Defendant’s Reply in Support of its Motion to Stay Pending Resolution of the Rule
23(f) Petition and Exhibit 1 filed therewith because good cause supports sealing
thereof.
Dated: August 8, 2025
Respectfully submitted,
By: s/ Valerie A. Haggans_____________
MATTHEW L. RIFFEE (pro hac vice)
MRiffee@goodwinlaw.com
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 539 Filed 08/08/25 PageID.30168 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 539 Filed 08/08/25 PageID.30169 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 August 8, 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:
August 8, 2025
s/ Valerie A. Haggans
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 539 Filed 08/08/25 PageID.30170 Page
7 of 7