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 BRIEF IN
SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO
RECONSIDER THE 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 542 Filed 08/08/25 PageID.30248 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
Reply Brief 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 (the
“Reply”). Consistent with the Court’s prior sealing orders finding good cause to seal
certain exhibits filed with BANA’s Motion for Protective Order (ECF 452, 466),
Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order (ECF 464, 467),
BANA’s Reply in Support of Motion for Protective Order (ECF 471, 477), BANA’s
Motion to Reconsider (ECF 502, 507), and Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendant’s
Motion to Reconsider (ECF 525, 531), BANA seeks to seal portions of the Reply that
discuss, reference or reflect the contents of those already-filed and sealed exhibits
and portions of the Declaration of Lindsay Hoyle in Support of Defendant’s Reply
Brief in Support of Motion to Reconsider the Court’s May 29, 2025 Order Granting
in Part and Denying in Part Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order (“Hoyle
Decl.”).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,
1 BANA incorporates by reference its Motion to File Documents Under Seal (ECF
451) in connection with its Motion for a Protective Order (ECF 452), Plaintiffs’
Motion to File Documents Under Seal (ECF 463) in connection with Plaintiffs’
Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order (ECF 464), BANA’s Motion
to File Documents Under Seal (ECF 470) in connection with its Reply in Support of
Motion for Protective Order (ECF 471), BANA’s Motion to File Documents under
Seal (ECF 501) in connection with its Motion to Reconsider (ECF 502), and
Plaintiffs’ Motion to File Documents Under Seal (ECF 524) in connection with
Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Reconsider (ECF 525).
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 542 Filed 08/08/25 PageID.30249 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
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
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, 507,
531 (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 to Defendant’s Motion for
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 542 Filed 08/08/25 PageID.30250 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
Protective Order, BANA’s Reply in Support of Protective Order, BANA’s Motion to
Reconsider, or Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Reconsider 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
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 portions of the Reply and Hoyle Declaration that BANA seeks
to seal refer to or discuss Confidential and Highly Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes
Only documents and testimony pertaining to the following categories of documents
and information:
Portions of the Reply 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
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 542 Filed 08/08/25 PageID.30251 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
investigating fraud and addressing cardholder fraud notifications);
Portions of the Reply and the Hoyle Declaration 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; Martin Decl. (ECF 344-1) ¶ 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
Portions of the Reply 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’s requested sealing of portions of the Reply and Hoyle Declaration 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, 507, 531), 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.
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 542 Filed 08/08/25 PageID.30252 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
*
*
*
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 365, 381,
390, 391, 397, 421, 498), protective order briefing and argument (ECF 466, 467,
477), and reconsideration briefing and argument (ECF 507, 531), Plaintiffs’ Motions
to Seal (ECF 376, 384, 394, 463, 524), BANA’s prior Motions to Seal (ECF 328,
337, 344, 347, 383, 418, 451, 470, 501) 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 Documents Filed In Support of its Reply Brief 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: August 8, 2025
Respectfully submitted,
By: s/ Lindsay E. Hoyle_________________
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
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 542 Filed 08/08/25 PageID.30253 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
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 542 Filed 08/08/25 PageID.30254 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 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/ Lindsay E. Hoyle
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 542 Filed 08/08/25 PageID.30255 Page
8 of 8