Full text
Revised Motion to File Documents Under Seal; 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
JOSEPH W. COTCHETT (SBN 36324)
jcotchett@cpmlegal.com
BRIAN DANITZ (SBN 247403)
bdanitz@cpmlegal.com
KARIN B. SWOPE (Pro Hac Vice)
kswope@cpmlegal.com
VASTI S. MONTIEL (SBN 346409)
vmontiel@cpmlegal.com
CAROLINE A. YUEN (SBN 354388)
cyuen@cpmlegal.com
COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP
840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200
Burlingame, CA 94010
Telephone: (650) 697-6000
Fax: (650) 697-0577
MICHAEL RUBIN (SBN 80618)
mrubin@altber.com
STACEY M. LEYTON (SBN 203827)
sleyton@altber.com
CONNIE K. CHAN (SBN 284230)
cchan@altber.com
JAMES BALTZER (SBN 332232)
jbaltzer@altber.com
KATHERINE BASS (SBN 344748)
kbass@altber.com
ALTSHULER BERZON LLP
177 Post Street, Suite 300
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (415) 421-7151
Fax: (415) 362-8064
Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs and the Class
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
IN RE BANK OF AMERICA
CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT
BENEFITS LITIGATION
Case No. 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB
REVISED MOTION TO FILE
DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL RE:
PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR
PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
This Document Relates to All Actions
Date:
April 17, 2026
Time:
1:30 p.m.
Judge:
Hon. Gonzalo P. Curiel
Ctrm:
2D (2nd Floor)
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 650 Filed 02/03/26 PageID.55278 Page
1 of 5
Revised Motion to File Documents Under Seal;
Case No. 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
REVISED MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL
Pursuant to the Court’s Order Granting the Parties’ Joint Motion to Withdraw Filed
Documents ECF 633, 633-1, 633-2 (ECF 649), Plaintiffs respectfully submit this Revised
Motion to Seal, in addition to the Motion to Seal previously filed at ECF 630. Pursuant to
Local Rule 79.2 and Section 12.5 of the Stipulated Protective Order (ECF 82) in this case
and the Court’s Civil Pretrial & Trial Procedures, and the Parties’ various meet and confer
exchanges regarding what additional material to provisionally redact and to ask the Court
to seal based on Defendant’s assertions of confidentiality, Plaintiffs move to file under
seal (1) portions of Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment (“MPSJ Opposition”); (2) portions of Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendant Bank
of America, N.A. (the “Bank”) Separate Statement; and (3) portions of Plaintiffs’
Additional Statement of Facts in Opposition to MPSJ.
Plaintiffs tailored this motion pursuant to the guidance provided by the Court’s Order
granting in part and denying in part Motions to Seal materials relating to Plaintiffs’ Motion
for Class Certification (ECF 365), and in compliance with the Stipulated Protective Order
in this case and the Parties’ various meet and confer exchanges regarding what additional
material to provisionally redact and to ask the Court to seal based on Defendant’s assertions
of confidentiality. Portions of documents lodged provisionally under seal designated
Confidential are highlighted yellow, and those designated Highly Confidential are
highlighted green.
I.
LEGAL STANDARD
There is a strong presumption in favor of public access to court records. Nixon v.
Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978) (“[T]he courts of this country recognize
a general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records
and documents.” (cleaned up)); see also Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d
1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (“Unless a particular court record is one ‘traditionally kept
secret,’ a ‘strong presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.”). The party seeking
to seal a court record has the burden of “articulat[ing] compelling reasons [to seal a
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 650 Filed 02/03/26 PageID.55279 Page
2 of 5
Revised Motion to File Documents Under Seal;
Case No. 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
document] supported by specific factual findings . . . that outweigh the general history of
access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in
understanding the judicial process.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178-79 (cleaned up). “‘In
general, ‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in disclosure and
justify sealing court records exist when such ‘court files might have become a vehicle for
improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote public
scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at
1178-79, citing Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598. “[T]he strong presumption of access to judicial
records applies fully to dispositive pleadings, including motions for summary judgment
and related attachments.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179.
II.
SENSITIVE BANK INFORMATION
Plaintiffs seek to seal portions of their (1) Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment (“MPSJ Opposition”); (2) Response to Defendant Bank of
America, N.A. (the “Bank”) Separate Statement; and (3) Additional Statement of Facts in
Opposition to MPSJ. These materials contain information the Bank designated as
Confidential and/or Highly Confidential, including material that reflect or analyze the risk
of future fraud to the Bank, pertain to internal analyses of fraud detection strategies, risk
competitor disadvantage to the Bank, refer to testimony by Rule 30(b)(6) witnesses that
the Bank has designated Confidential or Highly Confidential, contain deposition testimony
that the Bank has designated as “Confidential” pursuant to the Protective Order, and refer
to materials designated “Highly Confidential-Attorneys’ Eyes Only” by the Consumer
Finance Protection Board (“CFPB”) and Office of the Comptroller of Currency (“OCC”).
This Court has previously found compelling reasons to limit public access to such
documents because their disclosure could lead to the use of this information for an
improper purpose, such as future fraud, that poses harm not only to the Bank but also to
the public. See ECF 365, 381; See, also., 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
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 650 Filed 02/03/26 PageID.55280 Page
3 of 5
Revised Motion to File Documents Under Seal;
Case No. 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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).
III.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court grant Plaintiffs’
Revised Motion to Seal Documents Filed In Support of their Opposition to Defendant’s
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.
Respectfully submitted,
Dated: February 3, 2026
COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP
By: /s/ Brian Danitz
JOSEPH W. COTCHETT
BRIAN DANITZ
KARIN B. SWOPE
BLAIR V. KITTLE
VASTI S. MONTIEL
CAROLINE A. YUEN
REGINA WANG
Dated: February 3, 2026
ALTSHULER BERZON LLP
By: /s/ Michael Rubin
MICHAEL RUBIN
STACEY M. LEYTON
CONNIE K. CHAN
JAMES BALTZER
KATHERINE BASS
Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs and
the Class
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 650 Filed 02/03/26 PageID.55281 Page
4 of 5
Revised Motion to File Documents Under Seal;
Case No. 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SIGNATURE ATTESTATION
Pursuant to section 2(f)(4) of the Electronic Case Filing Administrative Policies and
Procedures Manual, I, Brian Danitz, attest that the other signatories listed, and on whose
behalf this filing is submitted, concur in the filing content and have authorized this filing.
Dated: February 3, 2026
/s/ Brian Danitz
BRIAN DANITZ
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 650 Filed 02/03/26 PageID.55282 Page
5 of 5