Full text
BANA’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
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN DIEGO DIVISION
IN RE: BANK OF AMERICA
CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT
BENEFITS LITIGATION
Case No. 21-MD-02992-GPC-MSB
DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA,
N.A.’S NOTICE AND MOTION TO
SEAL DOCUMENTS FILED IN
SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR
PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Ctrm:
12A – 12th Floor
Judge:
Hon. Gonzalo P. Curiel
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 587 Filed 10/17/25 PageID.36422 Page
1 of 24
i
CASE NO. 21-MD-02992-GPC-MSB
BANA’S MOTION TO SEAL
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
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I.
STANDARD TO SEAL DOCUMENTS ........................................................ 1
II.
COMPELLING REASONS EXIST TO SEAL THE CONFIDENTIAL
DOCUMENTS ................................................................................................ 2
Documents that risk future fraud. .................................................................... 8
Documents that risk competitive harm. ........................................................ 11
Cardholders’ personal account, transaction and claim information. ............. 14
Confidential regulator materials. ................................................................... 15
BANA’s Summary Judgment Motion, expert reports, and Appendix of
Exhibits that quote and summarize confidential exhibits. ............................ 16
III.
CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 17
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 587 Filed 10/17/25 PageID.36423 Page
2 of 24
ii
BANA’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
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)
Cases
Adtrader, Inc. v. Google LLC,
2020 WL 6391210 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2020) ................................................... 11
Bohannon v Facebook, Inc.,
2019 WL 188671 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2019) ........................................................ 9
Brady v. Grendene USA, Inc.,
2015 WL 6828400 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2015) ............................................... 13, 14
Cowan v. GE Cap. Retail Bank,
2015 WL 1324848 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2015) ................................................... 12
Darisse v. Nest Labs, Inc.,
2016 WL 11474174 (N.D. Cal. June 2, 2016) ................................................... 17
E.W. Bank v. Shanker,
2021 WL 3112452 (N.D. Cal. July 22, 2021) ............................................ 2, 3, 11
EpicentRx, Inc. v. Carter,
2023 WL 4336695 (S.D. Cal. May 16, 2023) ...................................................... 1
Erhart v. BofI Fed. Bank,
2019 WL 4534701 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 19, 2019) ................................................... 16
Jasso v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,
2022 WL 2665979 (D. Nev. July 8, 2022) ..................................................... 9, 10
Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu,
447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006) .............................................................................. 1
Lundstrom v. Young,
2022 WL 15524624 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 27, 2022) ..................................................... 4
McAfee v. Experian Info. Sols.,
2023 WL 8237364 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 28, 2023) .................................................. 14
Medimpact Healthcare Sys., Inc. v. IQVIA Holdings, Inc.,
No. 3:19-cv-01865-GPC (DEB), ECF 875 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2023)................ 11
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 587 Filed 10/17/25 PageID.36424 Page
3 of 24
iii
BANA’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
Nia v. Bank of Am., N.A.,
2024 WL 171659 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 12, 2024) ....................................................... 14
Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc.,
435 U.S. 589 (1978) ............................................................................................. 1
Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass'n,
605 F.3d 665 (9th Cir. 2010) ................................................................................ 1
Pryor v. City of Clearlake,
2012 WL 3276992 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2012) ..................................................... 15
Shelley v. Cnty. of San Joaquin,
2015 WL 2082370 (E.D. Cal. May 4, 2015) ........................................................ 3
Soria v. U.S. Bank N.A.,
2019 WL 8167925 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 25, 2019) ............................................. passim
Workplace Techs. Rsch., Inc. v. Project Mgmt. Inst., Inc.,
2021 WL 6091272 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 20, 2021) ....................................................... 4
Xifin, Inc. v. Sunshine Pathways, LLC,
2016 WL 5930313 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 12, 2016) ............................................... 12, 13
Other Authorities
Local Civ. R. 79.2(c) ................................................................................................. 1
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 587 Filed 10/17/25 PageID.36425 Page
4 of 24
1
BANA’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
Notice and Motion to Seal (the “Motion”) certain documents and portions of other
documents in connection with BANA’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
(“Summary Judgment Motion”).1
I.
STANDARD TO SEAL DOCUMENTS
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). The documents that BANA seeks to seal each contain information that
qualifies as “Protected Material” pursuant to the Parties’ Stipulated Protective Order
(“Protective Order”), entered by the Court on September 24, 2021 (ECF 82).
It is acknowledged by courts, including many courts in this district, that a party
seeking to seal documents filed in connection with a motion for summary judgment,
a dispositive motion, must show “compelling reasons” to seal. Kamakana v. City
and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006); see Pintos v. Pacific
Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678-79 (9th Cir. 2010) (determining “compelling
reasons” standard applies to motion to seal documents attached to cross-motion for
summary judgment); see also EpicentRx, Inc. v. Carter, 2023 WL 4336695, at 1 (S.D.
Cal. May 16, 2023) (applying “compelling reasons” standard to request to seal certain
exhibits associated with motions for summary judgment).
In applying the “compelling reasons” standard, courts, including this Court,
1 This Motion is based on Defendant’s Notice of Motion and Motion to Seal, the
documents filed in support of Defendant’s Summary Judgment Motion, including the
Declaration of Laura G. Brys (“Brys Decl.”) submitted herewith, all pleadings and
papers on file in this action, oral argument if requested by the Court, and any such
other matters that the Court deems appropriate. Should the Court desire more detailed
briefing to decide Defendant’s Motion to Seal, BANA respectfully requests the
opportunity to submit additional briefing in support of sealing.
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 587 Filed 10/17/25 PageID.36426 Page
5 of 24
2
BANA’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
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. See 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”); see also ECF 266, 293, 365, 381,
390, 391, 397, 421, 466, 467, 548 (the “Sealing Orders”).
II.
COMPELLING REASONS EXIST TO SEAL THE CONFIDENTIAL
DOCUMENTS.
Compelling reasons exist to file under seal each of the confidential documents
(or portions thereof) filed in connection with BANA’s Summary Judgment Motion,
and any substantive discussion of those documents contained therein or in the
documents filed in support thereof. Each of those documents were properly
designated as “Confidential” or “Highly Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only” under
the Protective Order entered by this Court because each pertains to topics that are
likely to cause particularized competitive harm to BANA and which could potentially
enable future fraud, which poses a danger to BANA’s business and the public. Many
of the documents were also designated Confidential pursuant to the terms of BANA’s
contract and confidentiality agreement with the EDD (see infra at 13–14), because
BANA was explicitly instructed by its regulators to keep the documents confidential
because they implicate regulatory protections and concern ongoing remediation
efforts (see infra at 15–16), and/or because their disclosure could implicate or
interfere with potential or ongoing law enforcement investigations (see infra at 3).
All are compelling reasons which outweigh the public disclosure factors, and
thus permit sealing of those documents. For example, in East West Bank v. Shanker,
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 587 Filed 10/17/25 PageID.36427 Page
6 of 24
3
BANA’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
a California district court granted a motion to seal portions of exhibits concerning
“confidential onboarding processes, digital banking platform[s], fraud management
techniques, and verification of customer identities, which if made public would harm
[the bank’s] business,” and found that public disclosure of EWB’s confidential fraud
prevention measures would “harm EWB’s business.” 2021 WL 3112452, at *18-19.
Similarly, in Soria v. U.S. Bank, N.A., another California district court found
compelling reasons to file under seal information related to a bank’s internal
procedures for investigating incidents of fraud, explaining that “[a]lthough there is a
public interest in [the b]ank’s procedures concerning its fraud investigations, public
disclosure of this information may impede [the b]ank’s ability to identify and combat
future instances of fraud” and that “[t]here is a significant danger that someone could
improperly use this information to commit fraud and avoid detection.” 2019 WL
8167925, at *4. Further, in Shelley v. Cnty. of San Joaquin, yet another California
district court protected materials where “the public release of those documents could
negatively impact” law enforcement investigations. 2015 WL 2082370, at *7 (E.D.
Cal. May 4, 2015).
Similar compelling reasons exist here. Indeed, this court has already found,
compelling reasons to seal documents just like those at issue here, which each relate
to confidential business practices and fraud prevention measures that could be
misused to commit future fraud or used by competitor banks to BANA’s
disadvantage. Earlier this year, Judge Berg determined that there are “compelling
reasons” to seal a number of exhibits previously submitted with Plaintiffs’ motion to
compel discovery that concern the very same categories of confidential information
that BANA seeks to seal here. See ECF 266. In doing so, Judge Berg found that
compelling reasons existed to seal information concerning: the Claim Fraud Filter,
other fraud and claims strategies, call center operations, prepaid fraud losses, state
contract issues, prepaid updates and trackers, cardholder complaints and escalations,
and certain of BANA’s interrogatory responses—which are precisely the types of
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 587 Filed 10/17/25 PageID.36428 Page
7 of 24
4
BANA’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
documents BANA seeks to seal here.
This Court also found compelling reasons to seal the same or similar
documents related to analyses of claims fraud and potential strategies to combat that
fraud including the Claim Fraud Filter and other fraud strategies, operational fraud
losses, trainings for claims investigations, fraud detection and prevention policies and
strategies, claims review policies and strategies and their implementation, BANA’s
analyses of transactional fraud, risk of competitor advantage concerning how BANA
structures its claims and fraud teams and the review procedures, protocols and
systems therein, its analyses of state prepaid unemployment program operations and
contractual negotiations with vendors, fraud prevention programs, organizational
charts, confidential regulator materials, and quotes or summary descriptions from
sealed exhibits. See ECF 365, 381, 390. Those prior rulings are sufficient grounds
alone to grant sealing here. 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); Workplace Techs. Rsch., Inc. v. Project Mgmt. Inst., Inc.,
2021 WL 6091272, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 20, 2021) (sealing references to document
that court already granted sealing of).
Specifically, the Confidential and Highly Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only
documents, testimony and declarations that BANA seeks to seal, include but are not
limited to, the following categories of documents and information, which this Court
has already found compelling reasons to seal:
DX2 1, 4, 5, 12.A, 71, 85, 86, 90, 101, 104, 132, 133, 143, 144, 145, 149,
158, 159, 165, 168, 169, 176, and 184 reflect confidential BANA fraud
detection and prevention strategies and policies, including the Claim
Fraud Filter, and other current and former fraud strategies that could be
misused by fraudsters to perpetrate future fraud or could be used by
2 Exhibits to the Brys Declaration submitted in support of BANA’s Summary
Judgment Motion are referred to as “DX.”
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 587 Filed 10/17/25 PageID.36429 Page
8 of 24
5
BANA’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
another financial institution to BANA’s competitive disadvantage (see
Amended Sealing Order (ECF 365) at 5–6, 12);
DX 50, 51, 59, 60, 61, 64, 91, 92, 98, 120, 122, 126, 128, 135, 176, 177,
and 178 reflect confidential BANA claims review policies and strategies
and the implementation thereof, including reviewing complaint
escalations and issuing provisional credits in compliance with
regulations that could also be misused by fraudsters to perpetrate fraud
or could be used by another financial institution to BANA’s competitive
disadvantage (see Amended Sealing Order (ECF 365) at 5–6, 12);
DX 4, 5, 12.A, 62, 75, 76, 79, 83, 87, 88, 102, 105, 113, 114, 118, 121,
136, 140, and 183 reflect confidential BANA analyses pertaining to
fraud, including card skimming, and potential fraud prevention and
detection strategies to combat that fraud 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;
DX 1, 2, 4, 5, 12.A, 24, 25, 63, 72, 84, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 99, 106, 107,
108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 116, 119, 124, 125, 127, 134, 137, 138, 139,
146, 147, 148, 150, 151, 152, 154, 155, 156, 157, 166, 167, 168, 169,
170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 178, 179, 180, 181, 183 and 184 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);
DX 2, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48 and 49 reflect confidential BANA general
services agreements and statements of work between BANA and its call
center vendors, which could be used to harm BANA’s competitive
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 587 Filed 10/17/25 PageID.36430 Page
9 of 24
6
BANA’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
standing (see Amended Sealing Order (ECF 365) at 10–13, n. 14);
DX 1, 12.A, 53, 54, 55, 70, 73, 74, 77, 78, 80, 81, 100, 115, 117, 123,
129, 130, 131, 134, 141, 142, 153, 161, 162, 163, 164 and 182 reflect
confidential BANA communications with EDD regarding BANA’s
and/or EDD’s fraud strategies, including the use of EMV chip
technology and freezing and blocking of accounts which 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);
DX 1, 55, 125, 134, 154, 155 and 170 reflect confidential BANA fraud
and operational losses in connection with the unemployment insurance
prepaid programs which 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
10–13, n. 14);
DX 3, 7, 26, 27, 27.A, 27.B, 27.C, 27.D, 28, 28.A, 28.A.1, 29, 30, 30.A,
30.B, 31, 31.A, 31.B and 31.B.1 reflect confidential BANA
interrogatory responses and data provided therein reflecting BANA’s
use of the Claim Fraud Filter to decision unauthorized transaction claims
and to freeze or block EDD cardholder accounts, and any
reconsideration by BANA of those claims and any compensation paid
as a result which 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);
DX 3, 14.P, 43.A, 43.B and 43.C reflect confidential BANA documents
and testimony pertaining to BANA’s Remediation Plan and Addenda
with the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (“OCC”) and the
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 587 Filed 10/17/25 PageID.36431 Page
10 of 24
7
BANA’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
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 (see Amended Sealing Order (ECF 365) at 14–16);
DX 14.AC, 14.AD, 14.AE, 14.T, 14.W, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22,
23, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 82, 148 and 177 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 16–17; Sealing Order (ECF 381) at 1. 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
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.);
DX 7.A, 8.A, 9.A, 10.A, 11.A, 11.B, 12.A, 12.B, 13.A, 14.AB, 14.AB.1,
14.AG, 14.C, 14.C.1, 14.C.2, 14.D, 14.F, 14.K, 14.N, 14.O.1, 14.R,
14.U, 14.U.1 and 14.Z reflect expert reports and excerpts of experts’
deposition testimony, which include discussions of BANA’s
confidential documents, many of which contain the confidential
information described above, including but not limited to: BANA’s
handling of unauthorized transaction claims and reconsiderations;
BANA’s contract with EDD and the responsibilities thereunder;
BANA’s communications with EDD regarding fraud-related measures;
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 587 Filed 10/17/25 PageID.36432 Page
11 of 24
8
BANA’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
BANA’s fraud strategies, including the use of EMV chip technology
and the freezing and blocking of accounts; and BANA’s call center
procedures and complaint escalation intake channels. This information
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); and
DX 6, 14.A, 14.AA, 14.B, 14.E, 14.G, 14.H, 14.I, 14.J, 14.L, 14.M,
14.P, 14.Q, 14.S, 14.V, 14.X and 14.Y reflect excerpts of 30(b)(6) fact
witnesses and EDD’s deposition testimony, which include discussions
of BANA’s confidential documents, many of which contain the
confidential information described above, including but not limited to:
BANA’s
handling
of
unauthorized
transaction
claims
and
reconsiderations; BANA’s contract with EDD and the responsibilities
thereunder; BANA’s communications with EDD regarding fraud-
related measures; BANA’s fraud strategies, including the use of EMV
chip technology and the freezing and blocking of accounts; and BANA’s
call center procedures and complaint escalation intake channels. which
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);
Documents that risk future fraud. BANA moves to seal BANA’s fraud and
claims review policies, practices and strategies and any analyses thereof (see DX 4,
5, 12.A, 50, 51, 59, 60, 61, 62, 64, 71, 75, 76, 79, 83, 85, 86, 87, 88, 90, 91, 92, 98,
101, 102, 104, 105, 113, 114, 118, 120, 121, 122, 126, 128, 132, 133, 135, 136, 140,
143, 144, 145, 149, 158, 159, 165, 169, 176, 177, 183 and 184) because they could
be misused to perpetrate future fraud against BANA and the public. As courts
routinely find, and this court has previously found in this case (see ECF 266, 365,
381, 390, 391, 498), there are compelling reasons to limit public access to such
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 587 Filed 10/17/25 PageID.36433 Page
12 of 24
9
BANA’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
documents because their disclosure could lead to future fraud that poses a harm not
only to the Bank, but also the public. See Soria, 2019 WL 8167925, at *4 (granting
sealing of bank’s fraud investigations procedures); see also Bohannon v Facebook,
Inc., 2019 WL 188671, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2019) (finding compelling reasons
to seal references to policies and methods used for refunds and to confirm identities
because disclosure “might allow a third party to…undermine… protections against
fraud, in turn causing harm to both Facebook and its users”).
Public access to BANA’s fraud and claims review strategies and any analyses
of fraud and possible strategies to combat fraud (see DX 4, 5, 12.A, 50, 51, 59, 60,
61, 62, 64, 71, 75, 76, 79, 83, 85, 86, 87, 88, 90, 91, 92, 98, 101, 102, 104, 105, 113,
114, 118, 120, 121, 122, 126, 128, 132, 133, 135, 136, 140, 143, 144, 145, 149, 158,
159, 165, 169, 176, 177, 178, 183 and 184) could provide insight into BANA’s fraud
detection and prevention measures. ECF 344-2 (Robart Decl.) ¶¶ 4-5; ECF 344-1
(Martin Decl.) ¶¶ 7-10. That insight could be used by fraudsters to perpetrate future
fraud and to circumvent BANA’s security and fraud prevention procedures, and to
otherwise cause harm to the Bank and its customers, which are compelling reasons
to seal these documents. ECF 344-2 (Robart Decl.) ¶¶ 4-5; ECF 344-1 (Martin Decl.)
¶¶ 7-10. See, e.g., Soria, 2019 WL 8167925, at *4 (granting motion to seal because,
“[a]lthough there is a public interest in [the b]ank’s procedures concerning its fraud
investigations, public disclosure of this information may impede [the b]ank’s ability
to identify and combat future instances of fraud” and that “[t]here is a significant
danger that someone could improperly use this information to commit fraud and
avoid detection”); see also Jasso v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2022 WL 2665979, at
*2 (D. Nev. July 8, 2022) (granting motion to seal documents that “contain sensitive
information . . . regarding Wells Fargo’s business practices and procedures that could
be used for an improper purpose if allowed into the public record”). This Court has
previously found compelling reasons to limit public access to such documents
because their disclosure could lead to future fraud that poses a harm not only to the
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 587 Filed 10/17/25 PageID.36434 Page
13 of 24
10
BANA’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
Bank, but also the public. See ECF 365, 381, 498, 516.
Similarly, BANA’s communications with EDD regarding fraud strategies
utilized in the EDD program, including the use of EMV chip technology and the
freezing and blocking of accounts (see DX 1, 5, 12.A, 53, 54, 55, 70, 73, 74, 77, 78,
80, 81, 100, 115, 117, 123, 129, 130, 131, 134, 141, 142, 153, 161, 162, 163, 164 and
182) could also be misused by fraudsters to perpetrate future fraud and avoid
detection. ECF 344-1 (Martin Decl.) ¶ 8. See, e.g., Soria, 2019 WL 8167925, at *4;
Jasso, 2022 WL 2665979, at *2. For example, BANA’s internal analyses concerning
the costs associated with and types of fraud that EMV chips may or may not prevent
are not public knowledge (see DX 1, 12.A, 73, 74, 77, 78, 117, 123, 129, 131, 134,
141, 142, 164 and 182), and could still be misused by fraudsters to perpetrate fraud
on cards with or without EMV chips. See ECF 344-1 (Martin Decl.) ¶ 8. This Court
has previously found compelling reasons to limit public access to such documents
because their disclosure could lead to future fraud that poses a harm not only to the
Bank, but also the public. See ECF 365, 381.
Additionally, public access to information regarding BANA’s call center
operations and strategies, including its authentication procedures, trainings, and
business controls and processes (see DX 2, 12.A, 24, 25, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 63,
72, 84, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 116, 119, 124, 125, 127,
134, 137, 138, 139, 146, 147, 148, 150, 151, 152, 154, 155, 156, 157, 166, 167, 169,
170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 178, 179, 180, 181, 183 and 184) could be used by fraudsters
to perpetrate future fraud and to circumvent BANA’s call center authentication and
fraud prevention procedures See, e.g., Soria, 2019 WL 8167925, at *4.3 ECF 344-1
3 There are compelling reasons to seal discontinued fraud and claim strategies, like
the Claim Fraud Filter, because different indicators, features or components of those
strategies could be used now or in the future, as part of BANA’s many fraud
prevention strategies. Moreover, BANA’s past and present fraud strategies, and
related rationales or analysis, could be misused by fraudsters and criminals to gain
insight into BANA’s inner workings to circumvent future fraud strategies to
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 587 Filed 10/17/25 PageID.36435 Page
14 of 24
11
BANA’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
(Martin Decl.) ¶ 10. This Court has previously found compelling reasons to limit
public access to such documents because their disclosure would be used to execute
fraud against BANA and its customers. See ECF 365, 381, 498.
Documents that risk competitive harm. The aforementioned categories of
documents and testimony also contain sensitive business information that could be
used to BANA’s competitive or commercial disadvantage, which is yet another
compelling reason to seal the documents. See, e.g., E.W. Bank, 2021 WL 3112452,
at *18-19 (granting motion to seal where public disclosure of EWB’s confidential
fraud prevention measures would “harm EWB’s competitive standing”); Adtrader,
Inc. v. Google LLC, 2020 WL 6391210, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2020) (sealing
references to internal strategic decisions, policies, and processes related to detecting
and responding to advertising fraud).
For example, documents, testimony or discovery responses demonstrating how
BANA structures its claims and fraud teams and the review procedures, protocols,
and systems used and implemented by those teams (see DX 6, 7.A, 8.A, 9.A, 10.A,
11.A, 11.B, 12.A, 12.B, 13.A, 14.A, 14. AA. 14.AB, 14.AB.1, 14.AG, 14.B, 14.C,
14.C.1, 14.C.2, 14.D, 14.E, 14.F, 14.G, 14.H, 14.I, 14.J, 14.K, 14.L, 14.M, 14.N,
14.O.1, 14.P, 14.Q, 14.R, 14.S, 14.U, 14.U.1, 14.V, 14.X, 14.Y, 14.Z, 50, 51, 59, 60,
61, 64, 91, 92, 98, 120, 122, 126, 128, 135, 176, 177, and 178) is sensitive business
information that, if disclosed to the public, could be replicated by a competitor
financial institution to BANA’s competitive disadvantage (ECF 344-1 (Martin Decl.)
¶¶ 5, 7-10; ECF 344-2 (Robart Decl.) ¶¶ 4-5), and accordingly, compelling reasons
exist to seal that information. See, e.g., E.W. Bank, 2021 WL 3112452, at *18-19
(permitting sealing of confidential onboarding processes, digital banking platform,
fraud management techniques, and verification of customer identities); Medimpact
Healthcare Sys., Inc. v. IQVIA Holdings, Inc., No. 3:19-cv-01865-GPC (DEB), ECF
perpetrate future fraud or crimes. ECF 344-3 (Lennon Dec.) ¶¶ 3-4; ECF 344-1
(Martin Decl.) ¶¶ 4–5, 7. See, e.g., Soria, 2019 WL 8167925, at *4.
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 587 Filed 10/17/25 PageID.36436 Page
15 of 24
12
BANA’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
875 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2023) (J. Curiel) (finding compelling reasons to seal testimony
on “policies and procedures regarding the preservation of electronic information”
where party “d[id] business in an industry where the preservation and confidentiality
of information is highly regulated”) (ECF 344-7). This Court has previously found
compelling reasons to limit public access to such documents because their disclosure
could lead to future fraud that poses a harm not only to BANA’s competitive
advantage, but also the public. See ECF 365, 381.
Notably, certain claims review processes and trainings (e.g., DX 1, 4, 5, 12.A,
71, 85, 86, 90, 101, 104, 132, 133, 143, 144, 145, 149, 158, 159, 165, 168, 169, 176,
and 184) are utilized in the same or similar fashion for many of BANA’s lines of
business, not simply prepaid, and are still being utilized today. See ECF 344-2
(Robart Decl.) ¶ 3. Thus, compelling reasons exist to seal those procedures because
their disclosure to other financial institutions or potential fraudsters could place
BANA at a competitive disadvantage or risk future fraud. See, e.g., 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). This Court has previously found compelling reasons
to limit public access to such documents because their disclosure could be used by
other financial institutions to BANA’s competitive disadvantage. See ECF 365, 381.
Additionally, documents or testimony reflecting BANA’s analyses of its state
prepaid unemployment program operations, including but not limited to, contractual
negotiations with the states, contracts with call center vendors, card and fraud
volumes, and operational risks and losses (see DX 1, 2, 12.A, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49,
53, 54, 55, 70, 73, 74, 77, 78, 80, 81, 100, 115, 117, 123, 129, 130, 131, 134, 141,
142, 153, 161, 162, 163, 164 and 182) could similarly be used by a competitor
financial institution to BANA’s competitive disadvantage (ECF 344-1 (Martin Decl.)
¶¶ 7–10; ECF 344-2 (Robart Decl.) ¶ 5; ECF 347-1 (Martin Decl.) ¶ 4), and thus
require sealing. See, e.g., Xifin, Inc. v. Sunshine Pathways, LLC, 2016 WL 5930313,
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 587 Filed 10/17/25 PageID.36437 Page
16 of 24
13
BANA’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
at *3 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 12, 2016) (J. Curiel) (finding compelling reasons to seal services
agreement that contained detailed information about pricing structure, nature of
services, system security requirements, and how to use the cloud-based billing system
“that could expose Plaintiff to a competitive disadvantage if revealed”); 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). This Court has
previously found compelling reasons to limit public access to such documents
because their disclosure could be used by other financial institutions to BANA’s
competitive disadvantage. See ECF 365, 381, 516.
As another example, BANA continues to operate call centers to answer
cardholders’ calls, both within prepaid and other lines of business (ECF 344-1
(Martin) ¶ 10), and thus details regarding BANA’s call center operations and
strategies, including the different types of call centers utilized by BANA, the roles
and responsibilities of each, BANA’s call center authentication procedures, and call
center metrics (see DX 1, 2, 12.A, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 53, 54, 55, 70, 73, 74, 77,
78, 80, 81, 100, 115, 117, 123, 129, 130, 131, 134, 141, 142, 153, 161, 162, 163, 164
and 182), are still commercially sensitive and warrant sealing. See Xifin, Inc., 2016
WL 5930313, at *3. This Court has previously found compelling reasons to limit
public access to such documents because their disclosure could lead to future fraud
that poses a harm not only to the Bank, but also the public. See ECF 365, 381, 498.
Moreover, aggregated account statistics regarding the number of active EDD
accounts, the balances on those cards, the fraud claims filed by EDD cardholders,
and the combined monetary amounts of fraud associated therewith (see DX 1, 2, 4,
5, 12.A, 24, 25, 63, 72, 84, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 99, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112,
116, 119, 124, 125, 127, 134, 137, 138, 139, 146, 147, 148, 150, 151, 152, 154, 155,
156, 157, 166, 167, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 178, 179, 180, 181, 183 and 184)
are proprietary, confidential business information of EDD and/or BANA. ECF 344-
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 587 Filed 10/17/25 PageID.36438 Page
17 of 24
14
BANA’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
1 (Martin Decl.) ¶¶ 10-12. Public disclosure of the number of active EDD accounts,
account balances and first party fraud could violate BANA’s confidentiality
agreement with EDD. Additionally, aggregated account statistics related to customer
account balances, activity, and fraud claims is also commercially sensitive
information, from which certain of BANA’s revenues and fraud losses could be
derived, and if disclosed, could be used by another financial institution to compete
against BANA, which warrants sealing. See, e.g., Brady, 2015 WL 6828400, at *3.
This Court has previously found compelling reasons to limit public access to such
documents because their disclosure could harm BANA’s competitive advantage. See
ECF 381.
Cardholders’ personal account, transaction and claim information.
Additional compelling reasons and good cause exist to seal DX 14.AC, 14.AD,
14.AE, 14.T, 14.W, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 65, 66,
67, 68, 69, 82, 148 and 177 because they reflect EDD cardholder account, transaction
and claim information, which often include personal, sensitive and financial
information that the customers did not intend to appear on a public docket. See Nia
v. Bank of Am., N.A., 2024 WL 171659, at *6 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 12, 2024) (permitting
sealing of exhibit reflecting customer data such as internal deposit account and credit
account closure data); see also McAfee v. Experian Info. Sols., 2023 WL 8237364, at
*2 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 28, 2023) (finding compelling reasons to seal documents in order
to “protect Plaintiff’s credit history and financial account information from public
disclosure to maintain Plaintiff’s privacy . . . [and] guard against the threat of
identi[t]y theft…”).4 Moreover, BANA is obligated to keep such information
confidential pursuant to the terms of its contract and confidentiality agreement with
EDD. See ECF 324-106 at 5 (prohibiting “disclosure of the EDD’s confidential
4 BANA is provisionally sealing sensitive financial information of both named
Plaintiffs and absent class members. If Plaintiffs request that their personal and
financial information be made public, BANA can remove sealing over Plaintiffs’
account, transaction and claims information, but not with respect to non-plaintiffs.
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 587 Filed 10/17/25 PageID.36439 Page
18 of 24
15
BANA’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
information to the public”); Robart Decl. ¶ 5.
For example, EDD cardholders’ claim details and correspondence, account
and transaction histories, ATM footage and call recordings (see DX 14.AC, 14.AD,
14.AE, 14.T, 14.W, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 65, 66,
67, 68, 69, 82 and 177) reflect not only personal identifying information, but also
personal, transactional and claims information, such as cardholders’ personal
purchases, their telephone discussions with customer service, their receipt of
unemployment benefits, the denial of their claims, suspicion of fraudulent behavior,
repossession of property, foreclosure and eviction (Robart Decl., ¶¶ 3-8), which is
sensitive, personal information that warrants sealing. See, e.g., Pryor v. City of
Clearlake, 2012 WL 3276992, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2012) (sealing non-litigant’s
prior arrest record). Similarly, BANA’s responses and objections to Plaintiffs’
interrogatories (and the exhibits thereto), including Exhibits 3, 7, 26, 27, 27.A, 27.B,
27.C, 27.D, 28, 28.A, 28.A.1 29, 30, 30.A, 30.B, 31, 31.A, 31.B, and 31.B.1, also
reflect highly sensitive, personal and financial information of EDD cardholders. ECF
344-3 (Lennon Decl.) ¶¶ 4-5. This Court has previously found compelling reasons
to limit public access to such documents. See ECF 381.
Finally, Plaintiffs themselves designated their own claim files and
correspondence and deposition testimony as Confidential in many instances (see,
e.g., DX 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23), and under the Protective Order, BANA
is required to file under seal documents or testimony that Plaintiffs designated
confidential (ECF 82 § 12.5). Accordingly, cardholder claim and account details
contain sensitive, personal information that overcomes the presumption of public
access and warrants sealing.
Confidential regulator materials. Compelling reasons exist to seal Exhibits
3, 14.P, 43.A, 43.B and 43.C, which contain documents and information regarding
BANA’s implementation of its Remediation Plan and Addenda with the OCC and
CFPB. The regulators designated the Plans “Highly Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 587 Filed 10/17/25 PageID.36440 Page
19 of 24
16
BANA’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
Only” as a condition to BANA producing them to Plaintiffs, and they contain
information the OCC deemed privileged and confidential under its statutes and
regulations. Standing alone, the regulators’ determination and designation—which
Plaintiffs readily agreed to when they accepted the documents last year—should be
a sufficient, compelling reason to seal the Plans and any documents quoting from or
referencing those Plans. See, e.g., 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). See also ECF 344-3 (Lennon Decl.) ¶¶ 3–4, 6. This Court has
previously found compelling reasons to limit public access to such documents
because they contain highly sensitive, and confidential information that would
subject any disclosure to potential fraud. ECF 381, 498.
Moreover, notwithstanding the regulators’ views, the details within the Plans
and how BANA continues to implement the Plans are highly sensitive because they
could provide fraudsters with a roadmap for how to fraudulently seek additional
payments under the Plans. ECF 344-3 (Lennon) ¶ 3. Similarly, the data that BANA
compiled to respond to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests regarding BANA’s
implementation of the Remediation Plans (DX 3, 7, 26, 27, 27.A, 27.B, 27.C, 27.D,
28, 28.A, 28.A.1 29, 30, 30.A, 30.B, 31, 31.A, 31.B and 31.B.1) should also be sealed
because BANA’s efforts to implement the Plans is ongoing, and such data could be
used to potentially back into the confidential formulas in the Plans, and because they
contain sensitive personal information regarding cardholders. ECF 344-3 (Lennon
Decl. ) ¶ 4.
BANA’s Summary Judgment Motion, expert reports, and Appendix of
Exhibits that quote and summarize confidential exhibits. BANA has
provisionally redacted and sealed portions of its Summary Judgment Motion, expert
reports appended in support thereof, and Appendix of Exhibits to the Summary
Judgment Motion that quote or describe the confidential documents, testimony and
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 587 Filed 10/17/25 PageID.36441 Page
20 of 24
17
BANA’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
topics identified above, including BANA’s fraud, claims and call center policies,
strategies and practices, as well as BANA’s implementation of the Remediation Plan
and Addenda (see DX 5, 6, 7.A, 8.A, 9.A, 10.A, 11.A, 11.B, 12.A, 12.B, 13.A, 14.A,
14.AA, 14.AB, 14.AB.1, 14.AG, 14.B, 14.C, 14.C.1, 14.C.2, 14.D, 14.E, 14.F, 14.G,
14.H, 14.I, 14.J, 14.K, 14.L, 14.M, 14.N, 14.O.1, 14.P, 14.Q, 14.R, 14.S, 14.U,
14.U.1, 14.V, 14.X, 14.Y and 14.Z). See supra, pgs. 4–16. This is consistent with
the terms of the Stipulated Protective Order (ECF 82, § 3), and with rulings in this
circuit including by this Court. 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); ECF 365, 381.
For example, portions of the Summary Judgment Motion reference
confidential deposition testimony of BANA’s expert witnesses and provisionally
sealed portions of Plaintiffs’ expert reports pertaining to the details of the Claim
Fraud Filter and other BANA claim investigation processes, as well as the
Remediation Plan and Addenda; reference confidential documents and testimony
related to the Claim Fraud Filter, the Remediation Plan and Addenda, and
provisionally sealed portions of Plaintiffs’ expert reports, among other confidential
topics; and quote from or describe the Highly Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only
Remediation Plan and Addenda summarize BANA’s implementation of the Plans.
For the reasons discussed above, there are compelling reasons to seal
discussions of those topics, testimony and documents, as well as others discussed in
BANA’s Summary Judgment Motion and the expert reports and Appendix of
Exhibits appended in support thereof. See supra, pgs. 2–16.
III.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons and for the reasons set forth in the Court’s Sealing
Orders (ECF 365, 381, 390, 391, 397, 421, 466, 467, 477, 498, 516), Plaintiffs’
Motions to Seal (ECF 376, 384, 394, 463, 524, 527), BANA’s prior Motions to Seal
(ECF 328, 337, 344, 347, 383, 418, 451, 470, 501, 511, 539, 542) and accompanying
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 587 Filed 10/17/25 PageID.36442 Page
21 of 24
18
BANA’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
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 Motion
for Partial Summary Judgment because compelling reasons exist that support the
sealing thereof.
Dated: October 17, 2025
Respectfully submitted,
By: s/ Laura G. Brys_______________
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
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 St. NW
Washington, DC 20036
Tel: +1 202 346 4000
Fax: +1 202 346 4444
LINDSAY E. HOYLE (pro hac vice)
LHoyle@goodwinlaw.com
VALERIE A. HAGGANS (pro hac vice)
VHaggans@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
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 587 Filed 10/17/25 PageID.36443 Page
22 of 24
19
BANA’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
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 587 Filed 10/17/25 PageID.36444 Page
23 of 24
20
BANA’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 October 17, 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:
October 17, 2025
s/ Laura G. Brys
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 587 Filed 10/17/25 PageID.36445 Page
24 of 24