Nia v. Bank of America, N.A.

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: January 12, 2024
• Docket: 3:21-cv-01799
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MOHAMMAD FARSHAD ABDOLLAH Case No. 21-cv-1799-BAS-BGS NIA, individually, and on behalf of all 12 others similarly situated, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 13 DENYING IN PART PARTIES’ Plaintiff, MOTIONS TO SEAL 14 v. (ECF Nos. 64, 73, 77, 80, 99) 15 BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., a National 16 Banking Association,

17 Defendant. 18 19 Plaintiff Mohammad Farshad Abdollah Nia (“Nia”) brings a putative class action 20 against Bank of America, N.A. (“BANA”) for violations of the Equal Credit Opportunity 21 Act, federal civil rights law, and the California Unruh Civil Rights Act. Before the Court 22 are five motions by Parties to file documents under seal. (ECF Nos. 64, 73, 77, 80, 99.) 23 Plaintiff Nia seeks leave to file under seal portions of his Summary Judgment and Class 24 Certification Papers (ECF No. 64), portions of his Motion to Exclude Charles Grice (ECF 25 No. 77), and portions of his Reply in Support of his Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 26 and Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Exclude Peter Piatetsky (ECF 27 No. 99). Defendant BANA seeks leave to file under seal portions of its Opposition to 28 Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification and Combined Cross-Motion for Summary 1 Judgment and Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF No. 2 73), and portions of its Motion to Exclude Peter Piatetsky (ECF No. 80). All five motions 3 are unopposed. 4 For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN 5 PART the motions to seal portions of Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Class 6 Certification Papers, portions of his Motion to Exclude Charles Grice, and portions of 7 Plaintiff’s Reply in Support of Partial Summary Judgment and Opposition to Defendant’s 8 Motion to Exclude. (ECF Nos. 64, 77, 99.) The Court DENIES Defendant’s motions to 9 seal its Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification and Combined Cross- 10 Motion for Summary Judgment and Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary 11 Judgment (ECF No. 73), and portions of its Motion to Exclude Peter Piatetsky (ECF No. 12 80). 13 LEGAL STANDARD 14 When it comes to court records, courts adhere to a strong presumption in favor of 15 public access. See, e.g., Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978) 16 (“[T]he courts of this country recognize a general right to inspect and copy public records 17 and documents, including judicial records and documents.” (cleaned up)); see also 18 Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (“Unless a 19 particular court record is one ‘traditionally kept secret,’ a ‘strong presumption in favor of 20 access’ is the starting point.”); see also Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 21 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016) (“The presumption of access is based on the need for 22 federal courts, although independent . . . to have a measure of accountability and for the 23 public to have confidence in the administration of justice.” (cleaned up)). 24 Thus, a party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the burden of overcoming this 25 strong presumption of access. Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 26 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). The heft of that burden depends on the type of motion tied to the 27 documents sought to be sealed. When the related motion is more than “tangentially related 28 to the merits of the case,” the more rigorous “compelling reasons” standard applies. 1 Chrysler, 809 F.3d 1096–98, 1102. If the related motion is not more than tangentially 2 related to the merits of the case, the more relaxed “good cause” standard applies. Id. at 3 1096–98. 4 Motions to exclude expert witness, motions for summary judgment, and motions for 5 class certification are all more than tangentially related to the merits of a case, and thus the 6 compelling reasons standard applies to such motions. Under this standard, “the [moving] 7 party must articulate compelling reasons [to seal a document] supported by specific factual 8 findings.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (cleaned up). These compelling reasons must 9 “outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as 10 the public interest in understanding the judicial process. Id. at 1178–79 (cleaned up). 11 “[T]he use of records to gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate 12 libelous statements, or release trade secrets” all constitute compelling reasons to seal court 13 records. Id. at 1179 (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). A court should seal “sources of 14 business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing.” Nixon, 435 U.S. 15 at 598. However, “[t]he mere fact that the production of records may lead to a litigant’s 16 embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, without more, 17 compel the court to seal its records.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (cleaned up). Similarly, 18 it is not enough to “mention[] a general category of privilege, without any further 19 elaboration or any specific linkage with the documents.” Id. at 1184. Courts will also not 20 seal proposed redactions when they are “either already publicly available or were available 21 in other documents being produced.” Id. Courts will, however, seal “sensitive personal 22 information.” Id. 23 In addition, parties moving to seal documents must comply with the procedures set 24 forth in the Southern District of California and in this Court’s standing order for filing 25 documents under seal. The Southern District of California Electronic Case Filing 26 Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual requires parties redact “social security 27 numbers, the names of minor children, dates of birth, [and] financial account numbers.” 28 Section 1.h. This Court’s standing order permits sealing of “only those documents, or 1 portions thereof, necessary to protect such sensitive [personal or confidential] 2 information.” Standing Order of the Hon. Cynthia Bashant for Civil Cases ¶ 5.A. Thus, 3 although sometimes it may be appropriate to seal a document in its entirety, a party must 4 redact information, rather than exclude an entire document, whenever possible. See 5 Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1183 (noting a preference for redactions so long as they “have the 6 virtue of being limited and clear”); see also Murphy v. Kavo Am. Corp., No. CV 11 0410 7 YGR, 2012 WL 1497489, at *2–3 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 27, 2012) (denying motion to seal 8 exhibits in their entireties but directing parties to redact confidential information). 9 Overall, when ruling on motions to seal, district courts have wide discretion and 10 must consider “the relevant facts and circumstances of the particular case.” Nixon, 435 11 U.S. at 599. 12 ANALYSIS 13 Plaintiff and Defendant each filed their motions to seal in connection with their 14 associated motions: to exclude witnesses, for partial summary judgment, and for and 15 against class certification. Because such motions are more than tangentially related to the 16 merits of the underlying dispute, these motions to seal are subject to the “compelling 17 reasons” standard. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180. The Court reviews each motion under 18 this standard and examines whether each motion to seal is sufficiently tailored. 19 I. Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 20 and Class Certification 21 In this motion to seal, Plaintiff seeks leave to file under seal portions of his Motion 22 for Partial Summary Judgment and Class Certification. (ECF No. 64.) Specifically, 23 Plaintiff seeks leave to file under seal: redactions from Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Points 24 and Authorities in Support of Partial Summary Judgment and Class Certification; the 25 entireties of Exhibits 1–5, 7–12, 15, 18, 21, 45, and 49 attached to the Motion; and portions 26 of Exhibits 13, 14, 19, and 20. (ECF No. 64 at 1:10–12.) 27 Plaintiff does not offer a reason in support of his motion to seal apart from the fact 28 the documents were designated “CONFIDENTIAL” and “CONFIDENTIAL – 1 ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” under the discovery protective order. (ECF No. 64 at 1:7– 2 9.) This justification alone is insufficient. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1183. Accordingly, 3 wherever Parties cite a confidentiality designation as a compelling reason without further 4 support, the Court will deny the motion to seal. 5 In support of Plaintiff’s motion to seal, Defendant contends portions of Plaintiff’s 6 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Class Certification contain confidential 7 business information and trade secrets. (ECF No. 69 at 4:10–14.) 8 The Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit have both made clear that compelling 9 reasons exist to seal court records when the records “might be used . . . ‘as sources of 10 business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing.’” Chrysler, 809 11 F.3d at 1097 (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). Such business information includes, but is 12 not limited to, “trade secrets.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. The Ninth Circuit has adopted 13 the Restatement’s definition of “trade secret,” Clark v. Bunker, 453 F.2d 1006, 1009 (9th 14 Cir. 1972), which is “any formula, pattern, device or compilation of information which is 15 used in one’s business, and which gives him an opportunity to obtain an advantage over 16 competitors who do not know or use it,” Restatement (First) of Torts § 757, cmt. B (1939). 17 For instance, “pricing terms, royalty rates, and guaranteed minimum payment terms” of 18 patent licensing agreements have been deemed sealable trade secrets. In re Elec. Arts, Inc., 19 298 F. App’x 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008). 20 Courts have held that “confidential business information” in the form of “license 21 agreements, financial terms, details of confidential licensing negotiations, and business 22 strategies” also satisfies the compelling reasons standard. See In re Qualcomm Litig., No. 23 3:17-CV-0108-GPC-MDD, 2017 WL 5176922, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2017); see also 24 Jam Cellars, Inc. v. Wine Grp., LLC, No. 19-CV-01878-HSG, 2020 WL 5576346, at *2 25 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 2020). 26 27 28 1 A. Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Class 2 Certification 3 Plaintiff seeks to file under seal portions from his Memorandum of Points & 4 Authorities in Support of Partial Summary Judgment and Class Certification. (ECF No. 5 68.)1 6 The Court finds these redactions are overinclusive and do not redact information that 7 may grant BANA’s competitors an edge such that it meets the definition of confidential 8 business information or trade secrets. Accordingly, the motion to seal portions of 9 Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is hereby DENIED without prejudice. 10 (ECF No. 64.) 11 B. The “Policies I” 12 For ease of analysis, the exhibits Plaintiff seeks to seal are grouped based on their 13 subject-matter. (ECF No. 68-1, Exs. 1–5, 7–12, 15, 18.)2 The following exhibits comprise 14 the “Policies I” group, of which Plaintiff moves to seal the entirety of each: 15 Exhibit(s) Document 16 Description 17 1-5, 12 Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) and Economic Sanctions 18 [Versions Effective 23 Dec 2022, Revised 08 Nov 2016, 05 Jun 19 2019, 07 Oct 2019, 18 Apr 2016] 20 7-10 Document Review Guide – Consumer Residency Monitoring 21 (CRM) [Versions Effective 11 Jan 2022, 17 Apr 2019, 26 Aug 22 2019, 03 Jan 2022] 23 11 Review Acceptable Proof of U.S. Residency [Revised 02 Jan 2020] 24 15 Acceptable Customer Identification Job Aid [Effective 08 Feb 2022] 25

26 1 The sealed version of this document is lodged at ECF No. 68, and the public version is docketed at ECF No. 63-1. The Court will cite to the sealed and unredacted version of each proposed sealed document 27 throughout this Order. 2 The sealed versions of these documents are lodged at ECF No. 68-1, Exs. 1–5, 7–12, 15, 18, and the 28 1 18 Deposit Account Closure Process – Global Account Closure Team 2 (GACT) [Effective 21 Dec 2022] 3 4 As discussed above, Plaintiff’s reasoning in support of his motion to seal these 5 documents is insufficient. 6 However, Defendant raises several additional arguments in support of Plaintiff’s 7 motion to seal the entireties of the Policies I. First, Defendant argues these exhibits should 8 be sealed “because they expressly refer to or incorporate highly sensitive trade secret and 9 confidential research and technical information regarding . . . BANA’s proprietary 10 software.” (ECF No. 69 at 6:19–24.) 11 Second, Defendant argues these exhibits should be sealed in their entireties because 12 they “set forth . . . internal economic sanctions requirements and procedures for account 13 opening, account servicing, and international wire transfers.” (Id. at 4:20–23.) Defendant 14 raises concerns that these documents could reveal BANA’s policies put in place to comply 15 with the anti-money laundering (“AML”) and customer due diligence (“CDD”) 16 (collectively, “AML/CDD”) requirements set by the Office of Foreign Assets Control 17 (“OFAC”) and the Bank Secrecy Act. Defendant is concerned that public access to the 18 requirements and procedures within these documents “may allow illicit actors to 19 circumvent” these requirements by circumventing Defendant’s procedures. (ECF No. 69- 20 1, Cote Decl. ¶ 5.) 21 Finally, Defendant argues the documents should remain sealed because “[i]t is 22 BANA’s policy to keep this information in the Policies . . . confidential and out of the 23 public record.” (Id. ¶ 6.) 24 On the whole, all of the Policies I documents appear to be related to Defendant’s 25 procedures for various account activities with customers from a number of countries facing 26 economic sanctions, including Iran. These documents range in content from customer 27 service procedures, to approved documents to demonstrate residency in the United States, 28 to how BANA reviews those documents. However, it is unclear how access to these 1 procedures would assist “illicit actors” in circumventing the AML/CDD requirements, as 2 Defendant alleges (see, e.g., ECF No. 69-1, Cote Decl. ¶ 5), when the requirements to 3 demonstrate citizenship or proof of residency are already available to the public via anyone 4 attempting to open an account with BANA. Similarly, it is unclear how publication of 5 these documents would give competitors an edge over BANA. And, finally, that it is a 6 company’s policy to keep information confidential and out of the public record is not a 7 sufficient basis to seal a court record under the standard set forth by Nixon, Kamakana, or 8 Center for Auto Safety, and thus will not be addressed here. 9 Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to seal these documents without 10 prejudice. (ECF No. 64 at 10–11.) 11 C. The “Expert Reports and Disclosures” 12 In connection with his Motion, Plaintiff also moves to seal a set of Expert Reports 13 and Disclosures: Exhibits 13–14, 19, and 20. (ECF No. 68-1 at 13–14, 19–20.) The Court 14 will analyze the reasons for sealing each of these exhibits in turn. 15 1. Report of Peter Piatetsky 16 Plaintiff seeks to redact and file under seal sections of the Report of Peter Piatetsky. 17 (ECF No. 68-1, Ex. 13.)3 Defendant responds in support and states the redactions may be 18 more limited than those proposed by Plaintiff. (See ECF No. 69, Ex. 13.) Because it is 19 Defendant’s information at issue, and because the presumption applied here is one of public 20 access, the Court considers Defendant’s arguments in support of the more limited sealing. 21 As was the case for Exhibits 1–5, many of the proposed redactions within this report 22 deal with BANA’s internal policies to effect compliance with federal sanctions of Iran and 23 other countries or regions. (See, e.g., ECF No. 69 at 162–64.) Other redactions seem to 24 be an attempt to conceal unflattering opinions about BANA, rather than confidential 25 business information. (See, e.g., id. at 156–57.) Although the report discusses which kinds 26 of documents BANA will or will not accept as proof of residency, the Court is perplexed 27 3 The sealed version of this document is lodged at ECF No. 68-1, Ex. 13, and the public version is docketed 28 1 as to why this information constitutes a trade secret or confidential business information; 2 the information would likely be easily discovered by someone from any of the affected 3 countries attempting to open or maintain an account with BANA. 4 Upon the arguments raised, the Court does not accept any of the proposed redactions 5 to Exhibit 13, the Report of Peter Piatetsky, as proposed by Defendant in ECF No. 69. 6 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to seal portions of Exhibit 13 is DENIED without 7 prejudice. (ECF No. 64.) 8 2. Plaintiff’s Rebuttal Expert Disclosure 9 Plaintiff seeks to redact and file under seal portions of Plaintiff’s Rebuttal Expert 10 Disclosure. (ECF No. 68-1, Ex. 14.)4 Defendant agrees, but states the redactions may be 11 more limited. (See ECF No. 69, Ex. B.) Because it is Defendant’s information at issue, 12 the Court considers Defendant’s arguments in support of the more limited sealing. 13 As discussed above, unless Parties can raise compelling reasons, all redactions 14 dealing with BANA’s proof of residency policy and the documents required to comply 15 with it do not currently meet the sealing requirements set forth under Nixon, Kamakana, or 16 Center for Auto Safety. Accordingly, portions of exhibits dealing with this topic will not 17 be sealed. (See, e.g., ECF No. 69, Ex. 14, at 172–178, 181–84.) However, where the report 18 discusses the absolute numbers of BANA’s customers, such information constitutes 19 confidential business information and therefore presents a compelling reason to seal these 20 portions of the report and therefore will be sealed. (Id. at 179–80.) For a detailed list of 21 which redactions the Court accepts and which the Court denies, Parties may refer to 22 Appendix A. 23 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to seal portions of his Rebuttal Expert Disclosure 24 (ECF No. 68-1, Ex. 14) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART without 25 prejudice. (ECF No. 64.) 26 27 4 The sealed version of this document is lodged at ECF No. 68-1, Ex. 14, and the public version is docketed 28 1 3. Rebuttal Expert Report of Charles H. Grice 2 Plaintiff seeks to redact and file under seal portions of Defendant’s Rebuttal Expert 3 Disclosure. (ECF No. 68-1, Ex. 19.)5 Defendant agrees, but states the redactions may be 4 more limited. (See ECF No. 69-3, Ex. 19.) 5 As discussed above, Parties have not raised compelling reasons to seal information 6 regarding BANA’s proof-of-residency policy. Under Nixon, Kamakana, or Center for 7 Auto Safety, this Court cannot seal these judicial documents without a compelling reason. 8 Thus, portions of exhibits, such as Exhibit 19, dealing with BANA’s proof-of-residency 9 policy will not be sealed. (See, e.g., ECF No. 68-1, Ex. 19, at ¶¶ 12–13, 19.) 10 Parties also seek to seal portions of Exhibit 19 wherein Defendant’s expert offers a 11 number of opinions to rebut Plaintiff’s expert. These redacted arguments do not meet the 12 sealing requirements set forth under Nixon, Kamakana, or Center for Auto Safety. 13 Accordingly, the portions of Defendant’s Rebuttal Expert Report (ECF No. 68-1, Ex. 19) 14 consisting of nonspecific opinions or critiques of Plaintiff’s expert will not be sealed. (See, 15 e.g., id. at ¶¶ 5, 8–10, 16–18, 23, 29–30.) Parties may refer to Appendix A for a detailed 16 accounting of each ruling. 17 Parties also seek to seal several items of publicly available information. (ECF No. 18 68-1, Ex. 19 at ¶¶ 11, 14–15, 24–28.) Perplexingly, such information includes citations to 19 the United States Code, the Code of Federal Regulations, and the United States State 20 Department website. (See id. at ¶¶ 11, 14–15.) Similarly, Parties seek to seal references 21 in Exhibit 19 to events already stated in Plaintiff’s Complaint. (Id. at ¶¶ 24–28.) This 22 information, too, is already publicly available. The Court fails to see the utility in sealing 23 information already in the public sphere. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to seal such 24 portions of Exhibit 19 is DENIED with prejudice. (ECF No. 64.) 25 In contrast, knowledge of the exact number of customers who use various documents 26 as proof of residency may give competitors an edge. Thus, this presents a compelling 27 5 The sealed version of this document is lodged at ECF No. 68-1, Ex. 19, and the public version is docketed 28 1 reason to seal such information. Accordingly, the motion to seal Exhibit 19, paragraph 31, 2 is GRANTED. (ECF No. 64.) 3 Plaintiff’s motion to seal portions of Exhibit 19 (ECF No. 68-1, Ex. 19) is thus 4 DENIED IN PART and GRANTED IN PART. (ECF No. 64.) 5 4. BANA’s Initial Expert Disclosure 6 Plaintiff seeks to redact and file under seal portions of Plaintiff’s Rebuttal Expert 7 Disclosure. (ECF No. 68-1, Ex. 20.)6 Defendant agrees but states the redactions may be 8 more limited. (See ECF No. 69, Ex. 20.) Defendant has the burden to show why portions 9 of the exhibit should be filed under seal because Parties here seek to seal Defendant’s 10 information. 11 Again, the proposed redactions appear to concern internal policies that do not 12 constitute sensitive business information or trade secrets, or they are redactions of publicly 13 available information. Such information does not warrant sealing. 14 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to seal portions of Exhibit 20 is hereby DENIED 15 without prejudice. (ECF No. 64.) 16 D. The Customer Data 17 Plaintiff seeks to file the entirety of Exhibit 21 under seal, the “Customer Data.” 18 (ECF No. 68-1, Ex. 21.)7 Defendant agrees and argues in favor of sealing Exhibit 21. (ECF 19 No. 69 at 5:14–6:2.) Defendant persuasively argues that this exhibit contains “Customer 20 Data,” which “includes certain of BANA’s internal deposit account and credit account 21 closure data of certain customers who are citizens of Iran.” (Id. at 5:14–16.) The Court 22 finds such information falls under the umbrella of personally identifiable information. 23 Accordingly, the Court finds there is a compelling reason to seal Exhibit 21 as it contains 24 personal financial information and other sensitive personal information. The Court 25 26 6 The sealed version of this document is lodged at ECF No. 68-1, Ex. 20, and the public version is docketed 27 at ECF No. 63-2, Ex. 20. 7 The sealed version of this document is lodged at ECF No. 68-1, Ex. 21, and the public version is docketed 28 1 GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to seal Exhibit 21 and ORDERS the entirety of Exhibit 21 be 2 sealed. (ECF No. 64.) 3 E. The Transcript Excerpts 4 Plaintiff moves to seal the entireties of Exhibits 45 and 49 (“the Transcript 5 Excerpts”), which are transcripts of depositions taken during this case. (ECF No. 68-1, 6 Exs. 45, 49.)8 Defendant responds in support of the motion. (ECF No. 69.) 7 Defendant argues that because these Transcript Excerpts “include discussions 8 regarding BANA’s internal proof of U.S. residency requirements and consumer residency 9 monitoring policies” they thus contain “sensitive information.” (Id. at 5:18–22, 4:15–19.) 10 Upon review of the Transcript Excerpts, the Court does not find they warrant sealing 11 in their entireties and instead directs Defendant, should it desire parts of the Transcript 12 Excerpts to be sealed, to propose redactions that are as limited as possible and only those 13 for which Defendant has a compelling reason to justify cloaking the information from the 14 public eye. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1183 (noting a preference for redactions so long 15 as they “have the virtue of being limited and clear”). Accordingly, the motion to seal 16 Exhibits 45 and 49 is DENIED without prejudice. (ECF No. 64.) 17 II. Defendant’s Motion to Seal Portions of Its Opposition to Class Certification 18 and Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment with Response 19 In this motion to seal, Defendant seeks leave to file under seal portions of its 20 Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification and Combined Cross-Motion for 21 Summary Judgment and Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 22 Papers. (ECF No. 73.) Specifically, Defendant seeks leave to file under seal portions of 23 its Summary Judgment Brief; portions of its Opposition to Class Certification; the OFAC 24 and Economic Sanctions Job Aid (effective October 3, 2022) (“Policy II”); excerpts from 25 the deposition of Cheryl Cote; and excerpts from the deposition of Sahand Boorboor 26 (“Transcript Excerpts II”). (Id. at 1:16–25.) 27 8 The sealed versions of these documents are lodged at ECF No. 68-1, Exs. 45, 49, and the public versions 28 1 In support of Defendant’s motion to seal, BANA first contends these documents 2 should be sealed “because they contain and refer to highly sensitive trade secrets, 3 confidential research and technical information related to the management and 4 administration of BANA’s proprietary software and internal policies and procedures.” (Id. 5 at 2:28–3:2.) Second, BANA contends the information “is not available to the public and 6 could be used for improper purposes by BANA’s competitors or other illicit actors.” (Id. 7 at 3:12–13.) Third, BANA claims the public will not benefit from access to this 8 information. (Id. at 3:14.) 9 Regarding BANA’s first and second arguments, these arguments collapse together 10 and as such the Court will consider them as one. Any information that contains trade 11 secrets or that could be used by BANA’s competitors to gain a competitive edge presents 12 a compelling reason to be sealed from the public eye. See supra at § I. If meritorious, this 13 is a compelling reason to seal information and the Court will analyze each piece of 14 information with that in mind. 15 Regarding BANA’s third argument, BANA is improperly attempting to weigh 16 interests rather than overcome the presumption of public access. Although Chrysler briefly 17 discusses balancing the interests of the public against those of the party seeking to seal 18 information from the public, the Ninth Circuit has not since applied Chrysler as a classic 19 balancing test where a party can diminish countervailing interests by attacking that 20 interest’s validity. See 809 F.3d at 1096–97. Rather, the Ninth Circuit applies the 21 automatic Kamakana strong presumption of public access and then looks to the moving 22 party to overcome that presumption through a compelling reason. See, e.g., United States 23 v. Carpenter, 923 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2019) (quoting Chrysler only to demonstrate 24 the requirement that the moving party present a compelling reason to overcome a 25 “presumptive right of access,” but not balancing those interests against each other). 26 Accordingly, the Court will not engage in Defendant’s weighing argument. 27 The Court will consider the motion in light of the permissible arguments discussed 28 above and analyze each piece of information Parties seek to seal in turn. 1 A. Defendant’s Summary Judgment Brief and Opposition to Class 2 Certification 3 Defendant seeks to redact and seal portions of its Summary Judgment Brief (ECF 4 No. 74-1),9 and portions of its Opposition to Class Certification (ECF No. 74).10 5 The Court finds these redactions are overinclusive and do not redact information that 6 may hurt BANA’s competitive edge, or risk personally sensitive information. Rather, the 7 redactions are of information that goes to the heart of the case. Accordingly, Defendant’s 8 motion to seal portions of its Summary Judgment Brief and portions of its Opposition to 9 Class Certification is hereby DENIED without prejudice. (ECF No. 73.) 10 B. The Policy II 11 Defendant moves to seal Exhibit 6 in its entirety: the OFAC and Economic Sanctions 12 Job Aid (effective October 3, 2022) (“the Policy II”).11 (ECF No. 73 at 2:28–3:13.) BANA 13 seeks to seal the Policy II because it “sets forth BANA’s internal economic sanctions 14 requirements and procedures implementing BANA’s residency monitoring policy, and 15 serves as a guide to BANA associates on how to implement policy and how [to] 16 communicate with BANA customer’s regarding the same.” (ECF No. 73-1 ¶ 4.a.) 17 Like the Policies I discussed above, see supra § I.B., Defendant does not provide a 18 compelling reason to seal this document. BANA’s “illicit actor” argument fails for the 19 same reasons already discussed above. Thus, the motion to seal regarding Exhibit 6 is 20 DENIED without prejudice. (ECF No. 73) 21 C. Transcript Excerpts II 22 Defendant moves to seal the entireties of Exhibits 16 and 20 to its Motion for 23 Summary Judgment and Opposition to Class Certification, which contain excerpts from 24

25 9 The sealed version of this document is lodged at ECF No. 74-1, and the public version is docketed at 26 ECF No. 72-1. 10 The sealed version of this document is lodged at ECF No. 74, and the public version is docketed at ECF 27 No. 71. 11 The sealed version of this document is lodged at ECF No. 74-2, Ex. 6, and the public version is docketed 28 1 the depositions of Cheryl Cote (ECF No. 72-4, Ex. 16), and Sahand Boorboor (id., Ex. 2 20).13 (ECF No. 73.) 3 Defendant argues that, like the Policy II document discussed above, the deposition 4 excerpts both discuss BANA’s “internal proof of residency requirements and consumer 5 residency monitoring policies” that BANA set up to meet AML/CDD requirements. (ECF 6 No. 73 at 3:6–9.) Defendant states these sorts of “policies [are] designated as confidential.” 7 (ECF No. 73-1 at ¶ 4.b.) However, that something has been designated as confidential is 8 not a compelling reason under the standard provided by the caselaw. Defendant also states 9 that publication of these procedures could make BANA vulnerable to “illicit actors.” (Id. 10 at ¶ 2.) Without further explanation of what kinds of illicit actors BANA contemplates 11 here, or what the information could assist them in doing, Defendant has not provided a 12 compelling reason to seal the entireties of Exhibits 16 and 20. Furthermore, Defendant has 13 also not made an effort to redact solely the sensitive portions of these exhibits as required. 14 See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1183. 15 Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to seal Exhibits 16 and 20 in their entireties is 16 DENIED without prejudice. (ECF No. 73.) 17 III. Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal Portions of Plaintiff’s Daubert and Supporting 18 Exhibits 19 In this motion to seal, Plaintiff seeks leave to file under seal portions of his 20 Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion to Exclude (ECF No. 95)14 21 (“Plaintiff’s Daubert”), as well as Exhibits A and G in support of that Memorandum (ECF 22 No. 78, Exs. A, G),15 and portions of Exhibits 19–20 to Plaintiff’s Appendix in Support of 23

24 12 The sealed version of this document is lodged at ECF No. 74-2, Ex. 16, and the public version is 25 docketed at ECF No. 72-4, Ex. 16. 13 The sealed version of this document is lodged at ECF No. 74-2, Ex. 20, and the public version is 26 docketed at ECF No. 72-4, Ex. 20. 14 The sealed version of this document is lodged at ECF No. 95, and the public version is docketed at ECF 27 No. 76-1. 15 The sealed versions of these documents are lodged at ECF No. 78, Exs. A, G, and the public versions 28 1 Partial Summary Judgment and Class Certification (ECF No. 68-1). (ECF No. 77 at 2 1:11–14.) 3 Plaintiff again does not offer a reason in support of this motion to seal apart from the 4 fact the documents were designated “CONFIDENTIAL” or “CONFIDENTIAL – 5 ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” under a discovery protective order. (ECF No. 77 at 1:7– 6 10.) This justification alone is insufficient. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1183. 7 In support of Plaintiff’s motion to seal, Defendant contends the excerpts Plaintiff 8 seeks to seal “contain highly sensitive trade secret and confidential research and technical 9 information.” (ECF No. 82 at 3:1–2.) As discussed above, if true, such information would 10 merit sealing from the public. However, also as discussed above, Defendant’s second 11 argument in support of sealing is incorrect: that the public receives no benefit from the 12 disclosure of this information. (ECF No. 82 at 3:12–13.) BANA’s argument about public 13 benefit again improperly attempts to weigh interests rather than overcome the presumption 14 of public access. BANA improperly attempts to diminish the public interest instead of 15 addressing it as the strong presumption it is. Accordingly, the Court will not engage in 16 weighing these interests here. 17 Accordingly, the Court reviews Plaintiff’s Motion and the associated material as to 18 whether the information sought to be sealed indeed constitutes trade secrets and sensitive 19 business information, which would provide compelling reasons to overcome the strong 20 presumption of public access. 21 A. Plaintiff’s Daubert 22 Plaintiff seeks to seal portions of Plaintiff’s Daubert. (ECF No. 95). Plaintiff seeks 23 to redact portions of his Memorandum rather than the entirety of it. In general, these 24 portions of the Memorandum reference or directly quote Grice’s testimony from his 25 deposition. 26 27 16 The sealed versions of these documents are lodged at ECF No. 68-1, Exs. 19–20, and the public versions 28 1 On the whole, the Court finds the selected material is too vague to contain any 2 sensitive business information on the part of BANA. With regard to Plaintiff’s Daubert, 3 Plaintiff’s motion to seal is hereby DENIED without prejudice. 4 B. Transcript Excerpts from the Grice Deposition: Exhibit A 5 Plaintiff moves to seal a portion of Exhibit A to the Smith Declaration in support of 6 Plaintiff’s Daubert, Exhibit A, which contains a selection of excerpts from the deposition 7 of Defendant’s expert, Charles Grice. (ECF No. 78, Ex. A)17 Plaintiff moves to redact one 8 segment of the excerpts contained in Exhibit A. (ECF No. 78, Ex. A at 213:12–214:4.) In 9 support of this proposed redaction, Plaintiff states it is moving to seal the information 10 because it was “marked ‘CONFIDENTIAL’ OR ‘CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ 11 EYES ONLY’ by Defendant.” (ECF No. 77 at 1:8–10.) As noted in Appendix B to this 12 Order, it is unclear whether the referenced settlement agreement in the selected portion is 13 confidential or publicly available. Such ambiguity does not present a compelling reason 14 to seal the information from the public eye. Moreover, BANA’s Response in Support of 15 this motion to seal does not discuss the redactions Plaintiff proposed for this exhibit. See 16 generally ECF No. 82. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to seal a portion of Exhibit A to 17 the Smith Declaration is hereby DENIED without prejudice. (ECF No. 77.) 18 C. Transcript Excerpts from the Boorboor Deposition: Exhibit G 19 Plaintiff moves to seal a portion of Exhibit G to the Smith Declaration in Support of 20 Plaintiff’s Daubert, Exhibit G, which contains a selection of excerpts from the deposition 21 of Sahand Boorboor. (ECF No. 78, Ex. G.) As noted above and in Appendix B, it is 22 unclear whether the referenced settlement agreement in the selected portion is confidential 23 or publicly available. Moreover, BANA’s Response in Support of this motion to seal does 24 not discuss the redactions Plaintiff proposed for this exhibit. See generally ECF No. 82. 25 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to seal a portion of Exhibit G to the Smith Declaration is 26 hereby DENIED without prejudice. (ECF No. 77.) 27 17 The sealed version of this document is lodged at ECF No. 78, Ex. A, and the public version is docketed 28 1 D. Expert Reports, Exhibits 19 and 20 2 The Court has already ruled on the proposed redactions to these Exhibits and shall 3 not revisit them here. See supra I.C.3–4. 4 IV. Defendant’s Motion to Seal Portions of Defendant’s Daubert 5 In this motion to seal, Defendant seeks leave to file under seal portions of its Motion 6 to Exclude Plaintiff Expert Peter Piatetsky (“Defendant’s Daubert”) and excerpts from the 7 deposition of Piatetsky (“Piatestky Deposition”). (ECF No. 80.) 8 Defendant contends that these portions and excerpts “contain and refer to highly 9 sensitive trade secrets, confidential research and technical information related to the 10 management and administration of BANA’s proprietary software and internal policies and 11 procedures, none of which are publicly available.” (ECF No. 80 at 2:20–23.) Defendant 12 further states that publication of this information to the public may allow the information 13 to “be used for improper purposes by BANA’s competitors or other illicit actors.” (ECF 14 No. 80 at 3:4.) As discussed above, if true, such information may merit sealing from the 15 public. 16 Finally, BANA alleges that the public will not benefit from the disclosure of such 17 information. (ECF No. 80 at 3:5–7.) BANA’s argument about public benefit again 18 improperly attempts to weigh interests rather than overcome the presumption of public 19 access. BANA improperly attempts to diminish the public interest instead of addressing it 20 as the strong presumption it is. Accordingly, the Court will not engage in weighing these 21 interests here. 22 Accordingly, the Court reviews Defendant’s motion and the associated material as 23 to whether the information sought to be sealed indeed constitutes trade secrets and 24 confidential research and technical information that could be abused by BANA’s 25 competitors or other illicit actors. 26 27 28 1 A. Defendant’s Daubert 2 Defendant seeks to file under seal a single redaction from Defendant’s Daubert. 3 (ECF No. 81.)18 The Court finds this information does not warrant sealing as it is easily 4 discoverable by any actor attempting to open an account with BANA. Accordingly, 5 Defendant’s motion to seal a portion of Defendant’s Daubert is DENIED without 6 prejudice. 7 B. The Piatetsky Deposition: Exhibit A 8 Defendant seeks to file under seal portions from the Piatetsky Deposition, Exhibit 9 A, in support of Defendant’s Daubert. (ECF No. 81-1.)19 Specifically, Defendant seeks to 10 seal two sections of this deposition, which the Court will address in turn. 11 First, Defendant seeks to seal a portion at ECF No. 81-1 at 102:8–103:6. The Court 12 finds this does not warrant sealing as the selected information does not appear to contain 13 any sensitive business information that would assist an illicit actor or competitor. 14 Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to seal this portion of the Piatetsky Deposition is 15 DENIED without prejudice. (ECF No. 80.) 16 Second, Defendant seeks to seal a portion at ECF No. 81-1 at 192:22–194:6. The 17 information Defendant seeks to seal consists of a hypothetical. By its very nature, 18 hypothetical information cannot be confidential as the information is not real. 19 Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to seal this portion of the Piatetsky Deposition is 20 DENIED without prejudice. (ECF No. 80.) 21 V. Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal Portions of Plaintiff’s Reply, Opposition to 22 Defendant’s Daubert Motion, and Supporting Exhibits 23 In this revised motion to seal,20 Plaintiff seeks leave to file under seal Plaintiff’s 24 Reply in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Opposition to 25

26 18 The sealed version of this document is lodged at ECF No. 81, and the public version is docketed at ECF No. 79-1. 27 19 The sealed version of this document is lodged at ECF No. 81-1, and the public version is docketed at ECF No. 79-3. 28 1 Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 100-1.) Plaintiff also seeks leave 2 to file under seal Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Exclude the Opinions of 3 Peter Piatetsky. (ECF No. 101-1.)22 Plaintiff also moves to seal various exhibits and 4 portions thereof in support of this motion and memorandum. 5 Generally, Plaintiff moves to seal these documents because they have been 6 designated as “CONFIDENTIAL” or “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL” by BANA under a 7 discovery protective order. (ECF No. 99 3:5–6.) As discussed above, this justification 8 alone is insufficient. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79. 9 Plaintiff also seeks to seal select portions of these documents on the grounds that 10 they contain sensitive personal information that warrants sealing under Federal Rule of 11 Civil Procedure 5.2(a) and this Court’s Chambers Rules, 5.A. (See, e.g., ECF No. 99 at 12 5:14–17.) If meritorious, this presents a compelling reason to seal the information. 13 In support of Plaintiff’s motion to seal, Defendant recites a familiar list of arguments. 14 BANA again raises the spectre of “illicit actors.” (ECF No. 88-1 at 5:21–22.) BANA also 15 argues publishing the information goes against BANA’s policy of not publishing said 16 information. (ECF No. 88 at 5:22–24.) And, finally, BANA argues that the public will not 17 benefit from publication of the information. (ECF No. 88 at 5:24–27.) Each of these 18 arguments has already been addressed in this Order and the Court will not recite them again 19 here. They generally fail to satisfy the Kamakana standard that “the [moving] party must 20 articulate compelling reasons [to seal a document] supported by specific factual findings.” 21 447 F.3d at 1178 (cleaned up). 22 However, the Court reviews Plaintiff’s motion and the associated material as to 23 whether the information sought to be sealed indeed constitutes sensitive personal 24 25 26 21 The sealed version of this document is lodged at ECF No. 100-1, and Defendant’s public version is 27 docketed at ECF No. 88-4. 22 The sealed version of this document is lodged at ECF No. 101-1, and the public version is docketed at 28 1 information, trade secrets, or confidential research and technical information that could be 2 abused by BANA’s competitors or other illicit actors. 3 A. Plaintiff’s Memoranda: The Partial Summary Judgment Reply and 4 Opposition and the Daubert Opposition 5 Plaintiff seeks to file under seal portions from Plaintiff’s Summary Judgment Reply 6 and Opposition. (ECF No. 100-1.) Defendant proposes a more limited set of portions of 7 the Summary Judgement Reply and Opposition to seal. (ECF No. 88-4, Ex. B.) Plaintiff 8 also moves to seal portions of his Daubert Opposition due to “inclusion of information 9 from materials designated by Defendant pursuant to Protective Order.” (ECF No. 101-1.) 10 Because the information Plaintiff seeks to seal in Plaintiff’s Summary Judgment Reply is 11 information designated confidential by Defendant, the Court refers to Defendant’s 12 proposed redactions, where applicable, in making its rulings on Plaintiff’s motion to seal. 13 In general, the information redacted from both the Summary Judgment Reply and 14 the Daubert Opposition is easily discoverable by a potential client attempting to set up an 15 account with BANA. Because such information is easily discoverable, the Court does not 16 find a compelling reason to seal these portions of Plaintiff’s memoranda. 17 At times, however, Defendant seeks to redact portions of Plaintiff’s Summary 18 Judgment Reply and Opposition that either quote sensitive personal information or 19 sensitive business information that could give competitors an edge. (See, e.g., ECF No. 20 100-1 at 9:20–21.) Plaintiff also seeks to seal similar information in portions of Plaintiff’s 21 Daubert Opposition. (See, e.g., ECF No. 101-1 at 17 n.20.) 22 In these instances, the Court finds a compelling reason to seal these portions of 23 Plaintiff’s Summary Judgment Reply and Opposition. Appendix C, attached to this order, 24 provides a ruling on each proposed redaction. 25 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Plaintiff’s 26 motion to file portions of Plaintiff’s Summary Judgment Reply and Opposition, and 27 portions of Plaintiff’s Daubert Opposition under seal. (ECF No. 99.) The Court makes 28 this decision without prejudice. 1 B. The “Policies III”: Exhibits 1–8, 11 2 Exhibits 1–8 (ECF Nos. 100-2 to -9)23 and Exhibit 11 (ECF No. 100-12)24 comprise 3 the “Policies III” group, of which Plaintiff moves to seal the entirety of each document. 4 Exhibits 1–8 present different versions of the same document and as such shall be analyzed 5 together. (ECF Nos. 100-2 to -9.) These versions all consist of “BANA’s internal policies 6 for servicing accounts for its customers at account opening to comply with the Bank 7 Secrecy Act’s CDD requirements.” (ECF No. 88-1 at ¶ 4.a.) Defendant’s declarant, Cheryl 8 Cote, describes Exhibit 11 to Plaintiff’s Reply and Opposition as a document that 9 “discusses BANA’s internal procedures for coordinating with Visa and Mastercard to 10 ensure proper mechanisms are in place to mitigate the risk of violating OFAC sanctions.” 11 (ECF No. 88-1 at ¶ 4.b.) 12 Parties raise similar arguments in favor of sealing these documents as they did in 13 prior motions to seal. Plaintiff moves to seal the information because Defendant designated 14 the documents as confidential. Defendant responds in support of sealing, arguing the 15 documents contain “highly sensitive trade secret and confidential research and technical 16 information related to BANA’s internal policies and the management and administration 17 of BANA’s proprietary software and internal AML/CDD policies and procedures.” (ECF 18 No. 88-1 at ¶ 4.) 19 Beyond Ms. Cote’s general statement that the information is “highly sensitive,” 20 neither Plaintiff nor Defendant identifies any case finding such or similar information is 21 indeed highly sensitive. Without that or further explanation, it is unclear how accessing 22 such information would advantage a competitor. Under Kamakana, the moving party must 23 support its compelling reasons to seal a document with “specific factual findings.” 447 24 F.3d at 1178 (cleaned up). Here, neither party has gone beyond broad statements claiming 25 26 23 The sealed versions of these documents are lodged at ECF Nos. 100-2 to 100-9, and the public versions 27 are docketed at ECF No. 84-2, Exs. 1–8. 24 The sealed version of this document is lodged at ECF No. 100-12, and the public version is docketed at 28 1 confidentiality and sensitivity. This is insufficient. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to seal 2 Exhibits 1–8 and 11 is DENIED without prejudice. (ECF No. 99.) 3 C. Plaintiff’s Personal Information: Exhibits 9 and 17.1 4 Plaintiff seeks to redact and file under seal two exhibits containing Plaintiff’s 5 sensitive personal information. First, Plaintiff seeks to seal sections of Plaintiff’s United 6 States of America Permanent Resident and Employment Authorization Cards. (ECF No. 7 100-10.)25 Plaintiff also seeks to redact and file under seal sections of Plaintiff’s Bank of 8 America Cash Rewards Statements, February–October 2019. (ECF No. 100-19.)26 9 Finding these exhibits contain an extensive amount of sensitive personal and 10 financial information, this Court finds a compelling reason to seal Plaintiff’s Exhibits 9 11 and 17.1. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to seal Exhibits 9 and 17.1 is hereby 12 GRANTED. (ECF No. 99.) 13 D. The Transcript Excerpts III: Exhibits 33, 37–3827 14 Plaintiff seeks to redact and file under seal portions of the Deposition of Cheryl Cote 15 (ECF No. 100-31, Ex. 33),28 the Deposition of Peter Piatetsky (ECF No. 100-35, Ex. 37),29 16 and the Deposition of Sahand Boorboor (ECF No. 100-36, Ex. 38)30 (collectively, “the 17 Transcript Excerpts III”). (ECF No. 99 at 5:17–27.) Plaintiff seeks to do so because 18 Defendant has designated the relevant information as confidential. (ECF No. 99 at 5:17– 19 27.) In support of Plaintiff’s motion to redact these documents, Ms. Cote states the 20 21 22 25 The sealed version of this document is lodged at ECF No. 100-10, and the public version is docketed at 23 ECF No. 84-2, Ex. 9. 26 The sealed version of this document is lodged at ECF No. 100-19, and the public version is docketed at 24 ECF No. 84-2, Ex. 17.1. 25 27 These documents are also lodged at ECF Nos. 101-10, -12, and -13. 28 The sealed version of this document is lodged at ECF No. 100-31, and the public version is docketed at 26 ECF No. 84-2, Ex. 33. 29 The sealed version of this document is lodged at ECF No. 100-35, and the public version is docketed at 27 ECF No. 84-2, Ex. 37. 30 The sealed version of this document is lodged at ECF No. 100-36, and the public version is docketed at 28 1 Transcript Excerpts III should be sealed because they “quote or repeat information from 2 BANA’s Policies or data BANA has designated as confidential.” (ECF No. 88-1 at ¶ 4.c.) 3 In several places, Plaintiff seeks to seal information that is easily discoverable by 4 someone attempting to open an account with BANA. In others, the information Plaintiff 5 seeks to seal is too vague to lend a competitive edge to any competitor reading it. However, 6 in other portions of the Transcript Excerpts III, Plaintiff seeks to seal information specific 7 enough to advantage a competitor or assist a bad actor seeking to skirt sanctions 8 compliance policies. Appendix D to the attached order lists the instances where the 9 redaction contains such confidential business information and where it does not. 10 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Plaintiff’s 11 motion to file the documents under seal. (ECF No. 99.) The Court makes this decision 12 without prejudice. 13 CONCLUSION 14 Based on the foregoing, the Court: 15 (1) GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Plaintiff’s motion to file 16 documents under seal. (ECF No. 64.) 17 (2) DENIES Defendant’s motion to file documents under seal. (ECF No. 73.) 18 (3) GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Plaintiff’s motion to file 19 documents under seal. (ECF No. 77.) 20 (4) DENIES Defendant’s motion to file documents under seal. (ECF No. 80.) 21 (5) GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Plaintiff’s motion to file 22 documents under seal. (ECF No. 99.) 23 If Plaintiff or Defendant wishes to file a renewed motion to seal for the denied 24 requests, they may do so no later than January 24, 2024, after the issuance of this order. 25 To the extent either Party wishes to renew its motion to seal for any document or portion 26 thereof, that party is ORDERED to append to its briefing a table similar to that in the 27 Appendices to this Order listing: the title of the document, the ECF number of the public 28 document, the ECF number of the lodgment, the page and line number(s) of the proposed 1 ||redactions (or stating that the party wishes to seal the entirety of the document), and the 2 || compelling reason for sealing each proposed redaction or document. 3 Otherwise, Plaintiff and Defendants are instructed to file the unredacted versions of 4 ||the aforementioned documents as directed by the Court in this Order on the public docket 5 later than January 31, 2024. Parties shall publicly file on CM/ECF as a “Notice 6 ||Regarding Exhibit Attachment” revised versions of these documents with only those 7 redactions that the Court has approved. When filing the documents on the public docket, 8 || Parties must strictly adhere to the relevant Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this district’s 9 || Civil Local Rules, this Court’s Standing Order for Civil Cases, and this district’s Electronic 10 Filing Administrative Policies & Procedures Manual. Non-compliance with this 11 |} order or any relevant rules may result in sanctions pursuant to Civil Local Rule 83.1. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 /\ 14 || DATED: January 12, 2024 Lin A (Lyohaa 6 15 United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Ne

Redacted Exhibits in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Class Certification (ECF No. 68-1) Exhibit Title Page Location Ruling DENIED. This selected material does not contain any sensitive business information 13 Report of Peter Piatetsky 151-52 or personal information. DENIED. While this material may be embarrassing to BANA, it does not contain any 13 Report of Peter Piatetsky 156 sensitive business or personal information. DENIED. While this material may be embarrassing to BANA, it does not contain any 13 Report of Peter Piatetsky 157 ¶ 1 sensitive business or personal information. DENIED. While this material may be embarrassing to BANA, it does not contain any 13 Report of Peter Piatetsky 157 ¶ 2 sensitive business or personal information. DENIED. This selected material does not contain any sensitive business information 13 Report of Peter Piatetsky 162 or personal information. DENIED. This selected material does not contain any sensitive business information 13 Report of Peter Piatetsky 163 or personal information. DENIED. ¶ 1, This selected material does not contain any sensitive business information 13 Report of Peter Piatetsky 164 redaction 1 or personal information. DENIED. ¶ 1, This selected material does not contain any sensitive business information 13 Report of Peter Piatetsky 164 redaction 2 or personal information. DENIED. This selected material does not contain any sensitive business information 13 Report of Peter Piatetsky 164 ¶ 2 or personal information. DENIED. This selected material does not contain any sensitive business information 13 Report of Peter Piatetsky 164 ¶ 3 or personal information. DENIED. 164- This selected material does not contain any sensitive business information 13 Report of Peter Piatetsky 167 or personal information. Plaintiff Mohammad Farshad DENIED. Abdollah Nia's Rebuttal Expert This selected material does not contain any sensitive business information 14 Disclosure 172 or personal information. Plaintiff Mohammad Farshad DENIED. Abdollah Nia's Rebuttal Expert This selected material does not contain any sensitive business information 14 Disclosure 173 Redaction 1 or personal information. Plaintiff Mohammad Farshad DENIED. Abdollah Nia's Rebuttal Expert This selected material does not contain any sensitive business information 14 Disclosure 173 Redaction 2 or personal information. Plaintiff Mohammad Farshad DENIED. Abdollah Nia's Rebuttal Expert This selected material does not contain any sensitive business information 14 Disclosure 173 n.8 or personal information. Plaintiff Mohammad Farshad DENIED. Abdollah Nia's Rebuttal Expert While this material may be embarrassing to BANA, it does not contain any 14 Disclosure 178 ¶ 13 sensitive business or personal information. Plaintiff Mohammad Farshad DENIED. Abdollah Nia's Rebuttal Expert While this material may be embarrassing to BANA, it does not contain any 14 Disclosure 178 ¶ 14 sensitive business or personal information. Plaintiff Mohammad Farshad GRANTED. Redacted Exhibits in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Class Certification (ECF No. 68-1) Exhibit Title Page Location Ruling Plaintiff Mohammad Farshad DENIED. Abdollah Nia's Rebuttal Expert This selected material does not contain any sensitive business information 14 Disclosure 181 ¶ 20 or personal information. Plaintiff Mohammad Farshad DENIED. Abdollah Nia's Rebuttal Expert This selected material does not contain any sensitive business information 14 Disclosure 181-82 ¶ 21 or personal information. Plaintiff Mohammad Farshad DENIED. Abdollah Nia's Rebuttal Expert While this material may be embarrassing to BANA, it does not contain any 14 Disclosure 182 ¶ 22 sensitive business or personal information. Plaintiff Mohammad Farshad DENIED. Abdollah Nia's Rebuttal Expert ¶ 23, While this material may be embarrassing to BANA, it does not contain any 14 Disclosure 182 redaction 1 sensitive business or personal information. Plaintiff Mohammad Farshad ¶ 23, DENIED. Abdollah Nia's Rebuttal Expert redactions 2 This selected material does not contain any sensitive business information 14 Disclosure 182 and 3 or personal information. Plaintiff Mohammad Farshad DENIED. Abdollah Nia's Rebuttal Expert This selected material does not contain any sensitive business information 14 Disclosure 182 n.40 or personal information. Plaintiff Mohammad Farshad DENIED. Abdollah Nia's Rebuttal Expert This selected material does not contain any sensitive business information 14 Disclosure 183 ¶ 24 or personal information. Plaintiff Mohammad Farshad DENIED. Abdollah Nia's Rebuttal Expert This selected material does not contain any sensitive business information 14 Disclosure 183 ¶ 25 or personal information. Plaintiff Mohammad Farshad DENIED. Abdollah Nia's Rebuttal Expert This selected material does not contain any sensitive business information 14 Disclosure 183 n.41 or personal information. Plaintiff Mohammad Farshad DENIED. Abdollah Nia's Rebuttal Expert This selected material does not contain any sensitive business information 14 Disclosure 183 n.42 or personal information. Plaintiff Mohammad Farshad DENIED. Abdollah Nia's Rebuttal Expert This selected material does not contain any sensitive business information 14 Disclosure 183 n.43 or personal information. Plaintiff Mohammad Farshad DENIED. Abdollah Nia's Rebuttal Expert This selected material does not contain any sensitive business information 14 Disclosure 183-84 n.44 or personal information. Plaintiff Mohammad Farshad DENIED. Abdollah Nia's Rebuttal Expert This selected material does not contain any sensitive business information 14 Disclosure 186-89 or personal information. Plaintiff Mohammad Farshad DENIED. Abdollah Nia's Rebuttal Expert ¶ 1, This selected material does not contain any sensitive business information 14 Disclosure 189 redaction 2 or personal information. DENIED. Plaintiff Mohammad Farshad This selected material does not contain any sensitive business information Abdollah Nia's Rebuttal Expert ¶ 1, or personal information. To the extent BANA disagrees with the 14 Disclosure 189 redaction 3 characterization, BANA may rebut it. DENIED. Plaintiff Mohammad Farshad This selected material does not contain any sensitive business information Abdollah Nia's Rebuttal Expert or personal information. To the extent BANA disagrees with the 14 Disclosure 189 ¶ 2 characterization, BANA may rebut it. DENIED. Rebuttal Expert Report of This selected material does not contain any sensitive business information Redacted Exhibits in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Class Certification (ECF No. 68-1) Exhibit Title Page Location Ruling DENIED. Rebuttal Expert Report of This selected material does not contain any sensitive business information 19 Charles H. Grice 239 n.2 or personal information. DENIED. Rebuttal Expert Report of This selected material does not contain any sensitive business information 19 Charles H. Grice 239-40 ¶ 8 or personal information. DENIED. Rebuttal Expert Report of This selected material does not contain any sensitive business information 19 Charles H. Grice 240-41 ¶ 9 or personal information. DENIED. Rebuttal Expert Report of This selected material does not contain any sensitive business information 19 Charles H. Grice 241 ¶ 10 or personal information. DENIED. Rebuttal Expert Report of This selected material is a summary of a settlement that is in the public 19 Charles H. Grice 241-42 ¶ 11 record. DENIED. Rebuttal Expert Report of This selected material does not contain any sensitive business information 19 Charles H. Grice 242 ¶ 12 or personal information. DENIED. Rebuttal Expert Report of This selected material does not contain any sensitive business information 19 Charles H. Grice 242-43 ¶ 13 or personal information. DENIED. Rebuttal Expert Report of This selected material does not contain any sensitive business information 19 Charles H. Grice 243-44 ¶ 14 or personal information, rather, it includes citations to public websites. DENIED. Rebuttal Expert Report of This selected material does not contain any sensitive business information 19 Charles H. Grice 244 ¶ 15 or personal information, rather, it includes citations to public websites. DENIED. Rebuttal Expert Report of This selected material is too vague to contain any sensitive business 19 Charles H. Grice 244-45 ¶ 16 information or personal information. DENIED. Rebuttal Expert Report of This selected material does not contain any sensitive business information 19 Charles H. Grice 245 ¶ 17 or personal information. DENIED. Rebuttal Expert Report of This selected material does not contain any sensitive business information 19 Charles H. Grice 245 ¶ 18 or personal information. DENIED. This selected material restates BANA's policy and justifications for it; it Rebuttal Expert Report of does not contain any sensitive business information or personal 19 Charles H. Grice 246 ¶ 19 information. DENIED. Rebuttal Expert Report of This selected material is too vague to contain any sensitive business 19 Charles H. Grice 248 ¶ 23 information or personal information. DENIED. Rebuttal Expert Report of This selected material summarizes Plaintiff's Complaint and does not 19 Charles H. Grice 249 ¶ 24 contain sensitive business or personal information. DENIED. Rebuttal Expert Report of This selected material summarizes Plaintiff's Complaint and does not 19 Charles H. Grice 249-51 ¶ 25 contain sensitive business or personal information. DENIED. Redacted Exhibits in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Class Certification (ECF No. 68-1) Exhibit Title Page Location Ruling DENIED. Rebuttal Expert Report of This selected material summarizes Plaintiff's Complaint and does not 19 Charles H. Grice 251-52 ¶ 27 contain sensitive business or personal information. DENIED. Rebuttal Expert Report of This selected material summarizes Plaintiff's Complaint and does not 19 Charles H. Grice 252 ¶ 28 contain sensitive business or personal information. DENIED. Rebuttal Expert Report of The header contains argument and not sensitive business or personal 19 Charles H. Grice 252 V. header information. DENIED. Rebuttal Expert Report of This selected material contains broad summaries and does not contain 19 Charles H. Grice 252-53 ¶ 29 confidential business or personal information. DENIED. Rebuttal Expert Report of This selected material does not contain any sensitive business information 19 Charles H. Grice 253 ¶ 30 or personal information. GRANTED. Rebuttal Expert Report of This specific data constitutes confidential business information and 19 Charles H. Grice 253 ¶ 31 warrants sealing. Redactions to Plaintiff's Memo of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion to Exclude Charles H. Grice ECF No. Page Line(s) Ruling DENIED. This selected material is too vague to contain any sensitive business information or personal 95 5 15 information. DENIED. This selected material is too vague to contain any sensitive business information or personal 95 6 23-24 information. DENIED. This selected material is too vague to contain any sensitive business information or personal 95 8 23-24 information. DENIED. This selected material is too vague to contain any sensitive business information or personal 95 10 1-3 information. DENIED. This selected material is too vague to contain any sensitive business information or personal 95 10 17-18 information. DENIED. This selected material is too vague to contain any sensitive business information or personal 95 11 3-4 information. DENIED. This selected material is too vague to contain any sensitive business information or personal 95 11 6 information. DENIED. This selected material is too vague to contain any sensitive business information or personal 95 11 7-10 information. DENIED. This selected material is too vague to contain any sensitive business information or personal 95 11 10-11 information. DENIED. This selected material is too vague to contain any sensitive business information or personal 95 11 11-12 information. DENIED. This selected material is too vague to contain any sensitive business information or personal 95 11 13-14 information. DENIED. This selected material is too vague to contain any sensitive business information or personal 95 11 14-15 information. DENIED. This selected material is too vague to contain any sensitive business information or personal 95 12 2-3 information. DENIED. This selected material is too vague to contain any sensitive business information or personal 95 13 1-4 information. DENIED. This selected material is too vague to contain any sensitive business information or personal 95 13 8-10 information. DENIED. This selected material is too vague to contain any sensitive business information or personal 95 13 13-14 information. DENIED. This selected material is too vague to contain any sensitive business information or personal 95 13 n.17 information. DENIED. Redactions to Plaintiff's Memo of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion to Exclude Charles H. Grice ECF No. Page Line(s) Ruling DENIED. This selected material is too vague to contain any sensitive business information or personal 95 14 20-23 information. DENIED. This selected material is too vague to contain any sensitive business information or personal 95 15 2-3 information. DENIED. This selected material is too vague to contain any sensitive business information or personal 95 15 6-8 information. DENIED. This selected material is too vague to contain any sensitive business information or personal 95 15 10-11 information. DENIED. This selected material is too vague to contain any sensitive business information or personal 95 15 15 information. DENIED. An opinion about a regulation such as this is not a trade secret or confidential business 95 18 15-17 information. DENIED. This is merely a description of what could be a compliance technique and thus does not 95 20 2-3 warrant sealing. DENIED. Defendant does not make clear if this information derives from a confidential or public settlement agreement. This ambiguity cannot surmount the presumption of public access and 95 20 n.31 as such shall not be sealed. DENIED. This selected material is too vague to contain any sensitive business information or personal 95 21 7-8 information. DENIED. This selected material does not contain any sensitive business information or personal 95 22 n. 34 information. DENIED. This selected material is too vague to contain any sensitive business information or personal 95 24 20-21 information. DENIED. This selected material does not contain any sensitive business information or personal 95 24 25 information. DENIED. This selected material is too vague to contain any sensitive business information or personal 95 24-25 27-1 information. Redactions to Plaintiff's Summary Judgment Reply and Opposition (ECF No. 100-1) ECF No. Page Line(s) Ruling DENIED with respect to the first redaction. This information is easily discoverable by anyone attempting this action and thus does not warrant sealing. GRANTED with respect to the remaining redactions within this 100-1 4 n.6 footnote. GRANTED. This information constitutes sensitive personal information and 100-1 5 2-3 warrants sealing. DENIED. The selected material is too vague to contain any sensitive business 100-1 8 18-20 information. GRANTED. 100-1 9 20-21 This kind of specific business information warrants sealing. DENIED. This information is easily discoverable by a potential BANA customer 100-1 11 n.19 and thus does not warrant sealing. DENIED. This selected material does not contain any sensitive business 100-1 22 3-6 information or personal information. DENIED. This information is easily discoverable by a potential BANA customer 100-1 22 18-19 and thus does not warrant sealing. GRANTED. 100-1 23 5-6 This kind of specific business information warrants sealing. DENIED. This information is easily discoverable by a potential BANA customer 101-1 12 2-3 and thus does not warrant sealing. GRANTED. This selected material contains sensitive business information and thus 101-1 17 n.20 warrants sealing. DENIED. This selected material does not contain any sensitive business 101-1 19 17-18 information or personal information. DENIED. This selected material does not contain any sensitive business 101-1 20 11-15 information or personal information. DENIED. This selected material does not contain any sensitive business 101-1 22 19 information or personal information. DENIED. This information is easily discoverable by a potential BANA customer Redactions to the Deposition Transcripts in Support of Plaintiff's Opposition / Reply Exhibit Deponent ECF No. Page(s) Line(s) Ruling DENIED. This selected material is too vague to Cheryl contain any sensitive business information Exhibit 33 Cote 100-31 83 21-21 or personal information. DENIED. This information is easily discoverable by Cheryl anyone attempting this action and thus Exhibit 33 Cote 100-31 84 3-25 does not warrant sealing. GRANTED Cheryl This kind of specific business information Exhibit 33 Cote 100-31 90-91 12-25 warrants sealing. DENIED. This selected material is too vague to Sahand contain any sensitive business information Exhibit 38 Boorboor 100-36 117 17-21 or personal information. DENIED. This selected material is too vague to Sahand contain any sensitive business information Exhibit 38 Boorboor 100-36 124 2-20 or personal information. GRANTED Sahand This kind of sensitive business information Exhibit 38 Boorboor 100-36 187 1-19 warrants sealing. GRANTED Sahand This kind of sensitive business information Exhibit 38 Boorboor 100-36 194 1-3 warrants sealing. GRANTED Sahand This kind of sensitive business information Exhibit 38 Boorboor 100-36 207 1-25 warrants sealing. GRANTED Sahand This kind of specific business information Exhibit 38 Boorboor 100-36 208 4-25 warrants sealing. DENIED. This selected material is too vague to Sahand contain any sensitive business information Exhibit 38 Boorboor 100-36 262 1-16 or personal information. DENIED. This selected material is too vague to Peter contain any sensitive business information Exhibit 37 Piatetsky 100-35 102-103 13-6 or personal information.