Full text
BANA’S MOTION TO SEAL RE MINNUCCI
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 TO EXCLUDE THE
EXPERT TESTIMONY OF JAY
MINNUCCI
Ctrm:
12A – 12th Floor
Judge:
Hon. Gonzalo P. Curiel
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 579 Filed 10/17/25 PageID.35074 Page
1 of 20
i
BANA’S MOTION TO SEAL RE MINNUCCI
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 CONTENTS
Page
I.
STANDARD TO SEAL DOCUMENTS ........................................................ 1
II.
COMPELLING REASONS EXIST TO SEAL THE CONFIDENTIAL
DOCUMENTS. ............................................................................................... 2
Documents that risk future fraud. .................................................................... 7
Documents that risk competitive harm. .......................................................... 9
Confidential regulator materials. ................................................................... 12
BANA’s Motion to Exclude, expert reports and appendix of exhibits
that quote and summarize confidential exhibits. ........................................... 12
III.
CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 13
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ................................................................................ 16
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 579 Filed 10/17/25 PageID.35075 Page
2 of 20
ii
BANA’S MOTION TO SEAL RE MINNUCCI
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) ..................................................... 9
Bohannon v Facebook, Inc.,
2019 WL 188671 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2019) ........................................................ 7
Brady v. Grendene USA, Inc.,
2015 WL 6828400 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2015) (J. Curiel) .............................. 11, 12
Cowan v. GE Cap. Retail Bank,
2015 WL 1324848 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2015) ................................................... 10
Darisse v. Nest Labs, Inc.,
2016 WL 11474174 (N.D. Cal. June 2, 2016) ................................................... 13
E.W. Bank v. Shanker,
2021 WL 3112452 (N.D. Cal. July 22, 2021) .............................................. 2, 3, 9
Erhart v. BofI Fed. Bank,
2019 WL 4534701 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 19, 2019) ................................................... 12
Hill v. City of Chicago,
2011 WL 320204 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 31, 2011) .......................................................... 5
Jasso v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,
2022 WL 2665979 (D. Nev. July 8, 2022) ........................................................... 8
Lundstrom v. Young,
2022 WL 15524624 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 27, 2022) (J. Curiel) ................................... 4
Lust ex rel. Lust v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc.,
89 F.3d 594 (9th Cir. 1996) .................................................................................. 1
Medimpact Healthcare Sys., Inc. v. IQVIA Holdings, Inc.,
No. 3:19-cv-01865-GPC (DEB), ECF 875 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2023)
(J. Curiel) (ECF 344-7) ......................................................................................... 9
Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc.,
435 U.S. 589 (1978) ............................................................................................. 1
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 579 Filed 10/17/25 PageID.35076 Page
3 of 20
iii
BANA’S MOTION TO SEAL RE MINNUCCI
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
Rink v. Cheminova, Inc.,
400 F.3d 1286 (11th Cir. 2005) ............................................................................ 1
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) (J. Curiel) ............................. 10, 11
Other Authorities
Local Civ. R. 79.2(c) ................................................................................................. 1
Local Civil Rule 79.2(c) ............................................................................................ 1
Plans “Highly Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only” ............................................. 12
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 579 Filed 10/17/25 PageID.35077 Page
4 of 20
1
BANA’S MOTION TO SEAL RE MINNUCCI
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 to Seal”) certain documents and portions of
other documents submitted in connection with BANA’s Motion to Exclude the
Expert Opinions of Jay Minnucci (the “Motion to Exclude”).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).
Courts in this district have held that a party seeking to seal documents filed in
connection with a motion to exclude expert testimony must show “compelling
reasons” to seal, as such motions may be effectively “dispositive of a motion for
summary judgment.” Lust ex rel. Lust v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 89 F.3d 594, 597
(9th Cir. 1996) (noting that Daubert ruling was dispositive); see Rink v. Cheminova,
Inc., 400 F.3d 1286, 1288 (11th Cir. 2005) (affirming a grant of summary judgment
on grounds that plaintiff failed to prove causation after the plaintiff's expert was
excluded under Daubert).
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 Motion to Exclude, including the
Declarations of Lindsay E. Hoyle (“Hoyle 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.
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 579 Filed 10/17/25 PageID.35078 Page
5 of 20
2
BANA’S MOTION TO SEAL RE MINNUCCI
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. 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 Motion to Exclude, and any
substantive discussion of those documents contained in BANA’s Motion to Exclude
or the declarations or testimony filed in support thereof. Each of those documents
and testimony 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 11-12), 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 12), and/or because their disclosure
could implicate or interfere with potential or ongoing law enforcement investigations
(see infra at 5).
All are compelling reasons which outweigh the public disclosure factors, and
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 579 Filed 10/17/25 PageID.35079 Page
6 of 20
3
BANA’S MOTION TO SEAL RE MINNUCCI
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
thus permit sealing of those documents. For example, in East West Bank v. Shanker,
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 in this litigation, 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
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 579 Filed 10/17/25 PageID.35080 Page
7 of 20
4
BANA’S MOTION TO SEAL RE MINNUCCI
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
complaints and escalations, and certain of BANA’s interrogatory responses—which
are precisely the types of 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 frauds 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:
•
BANA’s analyses of transactional and claims fraud and BANA’s fraud
detection and prevention policies and strategies designed to combat
fraud, including the Claim Fraud Filter and EMV chips (see HX2 13, 14,
17, 18, 19, 20, 26, 27) (see ECF 365) at 5–6, 12 (finding compelling
2 Exhibits to the Declaration of Lindsay E. Hoyle submitted in support of BANA’s
Motion to Exclude are referred to as “HX.”
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 579 Filed 10/17/25 PageID.35081 Page
8 of 20
5
BANA’S MOTION TO SEAL RE MINNUCCI
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
reasons to seal));
•
BANA’s claims review policies and strategies and the implementation
thereof, including with respect to BANA’s additional fraud review
process that seeks to identify fraudulent claims already paid in
connection with the remediation process—which separately must be
protected because they also have the potential to implicate or impact
future or ongoing law enforcement investigations3 (see HX 17, 19) (see
ECF 365 at 5–6, 12 (finding compelling reasons to seal));
•
BANA’s call center operations and strategies, including its
authentication procedures, trainings, business controls and processes,
and general services agreements and statements of work between
BANA and its call center vendors (see HX 10, 12, 13, 16, 17, 19, 23,
25, 26, 27) (see ECF 365 at 10–13, n. 14 (finding compelling reasons to
seal));
•
BANA’s communications with EDD regarding BANA’s and/or EDD’s
fraud strategies (see HX 26) (see ECF 365 at 5–6, 12 (finding
compelling reasons to seal));
•
BANA’s analyses of its state prepaid unemployment program
operations, including but not limited to, contractual negotiations, card
volume, fraud volume, claims and call center operations, and
operational risks and losses (see HX 11A, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23)
(see ECF 365 at 10–13, n. 14 (finding compelling reasons to seal));
•
BANA’s interrogatory responses and data provided therein reflecting
BANA’s use of the Claim Fraud Filter to decision unauthorized
3 See, e.g., Shelley, 2015 WL 2082370, at *7 (protecting materials where “the public
release of those documents could negatively impact” law enforcement
investigations); Hill v. City of Chicago, 2011 WL 320204, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 31,
2011) (denying motion to compel to keep “ongoing, active criminal investigation
confidential to prevent any harm from public disclosure of the content of the
investigation”).
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 579 Filed 10/17/25 PageID.35082 Page
9 of 20
6
BANA’S MOTION TO SEAL RE MINNUCCI
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
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 (see HX 10) (see ECF 365 at 5–9, 12 (finding compelling
reasons to seal));
•
Aggregated statistics related to EDD benefit recipients account
balances, activity, and fraud claims that BANA is obligated to maintain
as confidential pursuant to its agreement with EDD (ECF 324-106 at 5),
and otherwise would keep as confidential because its disclosure could
cause competitive harm to BANA or its customers (see HX 18, 20, 23,
26) (see ECF 365, 381 (finding compelling reasons to seal));
•
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; 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 (see HX
11, 13, 16, 18, 24) (see ECF 365, 381 (finding compelling reasons to
seal));4 and
•
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
4 BANA submits excerpted deposition testimony from experts (HX 16), which
BANA designated as Confidential or Highly Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only
because those witnesses’ testified regarding BANA’s confidential documents and to
the same categories of confidential information described above, including but not
limited to: BANA’s call center procedures and complaint escalation intake channels.
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 579 Filed 10/17/25 PageID.35083 Page
10 of 20
7
BANA’S MOTION TO SEAL RE MINNUCCI
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
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 (see HX 13, 17, 19, 26, 27) (see ECF 365, 381 (finding
compelling reasons to seal)).
Documents that risk future fraud. BANA moves to seal BANA’s fraud and
claims review policies, practices and strategies and any analyses thereof (see HX 13,
14, 17, 19, 20, 26, 27) 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 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 HX 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 26,
27) 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-
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 579 Filed 10/17/25 PageID.35084 Page
11 of 20
8
BANA’S MOTION TO SEAL RE MINNUCCI
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
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 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 (see HX 26) 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. 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 HX 10, 12, 13, 17, 19, 23, 25, 26, 27) 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 *4.5 ECF 344-1 (Martin Decl.) ¶ 10. This Court has previously found compelling
5 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
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 579 Filed 10/17/25 PageID.35085 Page
12 of 20
9
BANA’S MOTION TO SEAL RE MINNUCCI
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
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 HX 10, 13, 14, 17, 19, 20,
26, 27) 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 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
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
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.
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 579 Filed 10/17/25 PageID.35086 Page
13 of 20
10
BANA’S MOTION TO SEAL RE MINNUCCI
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
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 these exhibits include confidential, proprietary insight
into BANA’s business operations, including procedures, protocols, systems and
implementation as to its claims and fraud team, and 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., HX 17, 19) 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 11A, 12, 13, 14, 17, 20 21, 23) 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, 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
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 579 Filed 10/17/25 PageID.35087 Page
14 of 20
11
BANA’S MOTION TO SEAL RE MINNUCCI
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
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 (HX 10, 11A, 12, 13, 14, 19, 23, 25, 26, 27), 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 (HX 20, 23, 26)
are proprietary, confidential business information of EDD and/or BANA. ECF 344-
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
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 579 Filed 10/17/25 PageID.35088 Page
15 of 20
12
BANA’S MOTION TO SEAL RE MINNUCCI
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
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 lead to harm to BANA’s competitive
advantage. See ECF 381.
Confidential regulator materials. Compelling reasons exist to seal HX 30
and 31, which contain documents and testimony regarding BANA’s implementation
of its Remediation Plan and Addenda with the OCC and CFPB. The regulators
designated the Plans “Highly Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes 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.
BANA’s Motion to Exclude, expert reports and appendix of exhibits that
quote and summarize confidential exhibits. BANA has provisionally redacted and
sealed portions of its Motion to Exclude, expert reports appended in support thereof,
and the appendix of exhibits to the Motion to Exclude that quote or describe the
confidential documents, testimony and 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 HX 1, 11, 13, 16, 18, 24).
See supra, pgs. 5–12. 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,
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 579 Filed 10/17/25 PageID.35089 Page
16 of 20
13
BANA’S MOTION TO SEAL RE MINNUCCI
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
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 Motion to Exclude 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 Motion to Exclude and the expert reports appended in support thereof. See
supra, pgs. 5–13.
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, 431, 460, 466, 467, 477, 498, 507, 516,
531, 532, 547, 548), Plaintiffs’ Motions to Seal (ECF 322, 334, 376, 384, 394, 463),
BANA’s prior Motions to Seal (ECF 328, 337, 344, 347, 383, 418, 451, 457, 470,
481, 495, 501, 511, 539, 542) 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 because compelling reasons support sealing of the identified documents or
portions thereof. Defendant has lodged a Proposed Order separately with the Court.
///
///
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 579 Filed 10/17/25 PageID.35090 Page
17 of 20
14
BANA’S MOTION TO SEAL RE MINNUCCI
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
Dated: October 17, 2025
Respectfully submitted,
By: s/ Lindsay E. Hoyle__________________
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
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
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
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
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 579 Filed 10/17/25 PageID.35091 Page
18 of 20
15
BANA’S MOTION TO SEAL RE MINNUCCI
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
600 B Street, Suite 1650
San Diego, CA 92101
Attorneys for Defendant
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 579 Filed 10/17/25 PageID.35092 Page
19 of 20
16
BANA’S MOTION TO SEAL RE MINNUCCI
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/ Lindsay E. Hoyle
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 579 Filed 10/17/25 PageID.35093 Page
20 of 20