Full text
BANA’S MOTION TO SEAL DX 10.B
CASE NO. 3:21-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
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
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 EXHIBIT 10.B TO THE
DECLARATION OF LAURA G. BRYS
IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR
PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
(ECF 591)
Ctrm:
12A – 12th Floor
Judge:
Hon. Gonzalo P. Curiel
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 664 Filed 02/17/26 PageID.58553 Page
1 of 7
1
BANA’S MOTION TO SEAL DX 10.B
CASE NO. 3:21-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
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
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 (Motion to Seal) Exhibit 10.B (DX 10.B), which was
inadvertently not attached to the Declaration of Laura G. Brys (Brys Decl.) (ECF
591) in Support of Defendant Bank of America, N.A.’s Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment (Summary Judgment Motion) (ECF 589). In particular, BANA seeks to
seal portions of DX 10.B because compelling reasons support sealing of the identified
document.
The Brys Declaration was filed in support of the Summary Judgment Motion
on October 17, 2025 and included the Declaration of Russell Cronan (Cronan
Declaration) (ECF 591-15). In the Cronan Declaration, Mr. Cronan identified and
attested to the opinions in his March 4, 2025 Expert Report and in his April 4, 2025
Expert Rebuttal Report (Rebuttal Report), attached to the Brys Decl. “as DX 10-A
and 10-B respectively.” ECF 591-15 ¶ 3. The Rebuttal Report was inadvertently
omitted from the Brys Decl. and is submitted herewith as promptly as possible after
the omission has come to BANA’s attention.
As previously stated in BANA’s motions to seal submitted in connection with
class certification briefing and argument (ECF 328, 337, 344, 347, 383, 418, 451)
and BANA’s motions to seal submitted in connection with summary judgment
briefing (ECF 577, 579, 581, 583, 585, 587), 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).
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
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 664 Filed 02/17/26 PageID.58554 Page
2 of 7
2
BANA’S MOTION TO SEAL DX 10.B
CASE NO. 3:21-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
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
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,
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 ECF 603; 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, 598, 599, 600, 601, 602, 603 (Sealing
Orders). Indeed, this Court largely granted the Parties’ prior motions to seal, finding
good cause or compelling reasons to seal documents concerning the same topics that
BANA now seeks to seal, including: BANA’s fraud detection and prevention policies
and strategies (including the fraud filter), discussions of BANA’s Remediation Plan
and Addenda, and individual cardholder account information, among other topics.
See Sealing Orders. Those prior rulings are sufficient grounds alone to grant sealing
here. See Lundstrom v. Young, 2022 WL 15524624, *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, *3
(S.D. Cal. Oct. 20, 2021) (sealing references to document that court already granted
sealing of).
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 664 Filed 02/17/26 PageID.58555 Page
3 of 7
3
BANA’S MOTION TO SEAL DX 10.B
CASE NO. 3:21-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
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Consistent with this Court’s Sealing Orders, there are compelling reasons to
seal portions of the confidential expert report at issue here because DX 10.B reflects
topics that are likely to cause particularized competitive harm to BANA and which
could potentially enable future fraud, and thus pose a danger to BANA’s business
and the public. See, e.g., EWB, 2021 WL 3112452, *18–19 (finding compelling
reasons to seal where public disclosure of EWB’s confidential onboarding processes,
verification of customer identities and fraud prevention measures would “harm [the
bank’s] competitive standing”); Soria, 2019 WL 8167925, *4 (finding compelling
reasons to seal bank’s internal procedures for investigating fraud because there was
a “significant danger that someone could improperly use this information to commit
fraud and avoid detection”).
DX 10.B was also properly designated, in part, as both “Confidential” or
“Highly Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only” under the Protective Order entered by
this Court. See BAE Systems, 670 F. Supp. 3d at 1069 (finding good cause to seal
certain exhibits filed in connection with an apex discovery dispute because
“information in the exhibits fits within ‘confidential information’ in the protective
order”).
BANA has provisionally redacted and sealed the portions of DX 10.B that
quote, describe or reflect descriptions of the confidential documents, testimony and
topics previously submitted or described in the Parties’ prior briefing and motions to
seal submitted in connection with the Summary Judgment Motion. Those
confidential topics include BANA’s fraud detection and prevention policies and
strategies (including the fraud filter), discussions of BANA’s Remediation Plan and
Addenda, and individual cardholder account information, among other topics. This
is consistent with the terms of the Stipulated Protective Order (ECF 82, § 3), with
this Court’s prior Sealing Orders, and with rulings in this Circuit. See, e.g., Darisse
v. Nest Labs, Inc., 2016 WL 11474174, *2 (N.D. Cal. June 2, 2016) (sealing class
certification motion and declarations that quote or reference confidential exhibits).
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 664 Filed 02/17/26 PageID.58556 Page
4 of 7
4
BANA’S MOTION TO SEAL DX 10.B
CASE NO. 3:21-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
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
For the reasons discussed above, there are compelling reasons to seal discussions of
those topics, testimony and documents discussed in the Parties’ briefing. See supra
at 3-4.
*
*
*
For the foregoing reasons and for the reasons set forth in the Court’s Sealing
Orders in connection with class certification briefing and argument (ECF 365, 381,
390, 391, 397, 421, 466, 467, 548) and BANA’s Summary Judgment Motion,
Plaintiffs’ prior Motions to Seal (ECF 376, 384, 394, 463, 475, 524, 527, 569, 572,
609, 615, 618 ,630, 650), BANA’s prior Motions to Seal (ECF 328, 337, 344, 347,
383, 418, 451, 577, 579, 581, 583, 585, 587) and accompanying declarations
submitted in support thereof (ECF Nos. 344-1, 344-2, 344-3, 347-1, 347-2), all of
which are incorporated herein by reference, BANA respectfully requests that the
Court grant BANA’s Motion to Seal DX 10.B because compelling reasons support
sealing thereof.
Dated: February 17, 2026
Respectfully submitted,
By: /s/ Laura G. Brys
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
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
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 664 Filed 02/17/26 PageID.58557 Page
5 of 7
5
BANA’S MOTION TO SEAL DX 10.B
CASE NO. 3:21-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
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SABRINA M. ROSE-SMITH (pro hac vice)
SRoseSmith@goodwinlaw.com
MATTHEW L. RIFFEE (pro hac vice)
MRiffee@goodwinlaw.com
KEITH LEVENBERG (pro hac vice)
KLevenberg@goodwinlaw.com
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
1900 N Street NW
Washington, DC 20036
Tel: +1 202 346 4000
Fax: +1 202 346 4444
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
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 664 Filed 02/17/26 PageID.58558 Page
6 of 7
6
BANA’S MOTION TO SEAL DX 10.B
CASE NO. 3:21-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
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
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 February 17, 2026. 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.
Dated: February 17, 2026
/s/ Laura G. Brys
LAURA G. BRYS
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 664 Filed 02/17/26 PageID.58559 Page
7 of 7