Richard Zeitlin v. Bank of America, N.A.

Opinion

1 || Amy F. Sorenson, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 12495 2 || Blakeley E. Griffith, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 12386 3 || Holly E. Cheong, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 11936 4 || SNELL & WILMER L.L.P. 3883 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 1100 5 || Las Vegas, Nevada 89169 Telephone: 702-784-5200 6 || Facsimile: 702-784-5252 Email: asorenson@swlaw.com 7 beriffith@swlaw.com g hcheong@swlaw.com 9 Attorneys for Defendant Bank of America, N.A. 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA

12 ag 13 RICHARD ZEITLIN, ADVANCED Case No.: 2:18-cv-01919-RFB-BNW 4228 14 || TELEPHONY CONSULTANTS, MRZ MANAGEMENT, LLC, DONOR 15 || RELATIONS, LLC, TPFE, INC., AMERICAN TECHNOLOGY SERVICES, COMPLIANCE UNOPPOSED MOTION TO REDACT 16 || CONSULTANTS, CHROME BUILDERS MOTIONS TO SEAL AND = CONSTRUCTION, INC., UNIFIED DATA SUPPORTING DECLARATIONS, ECF 2 17 || SERVICES; NOS. 247, 248, 247-1, AND 248-1 18 Plaintiffs, 19 || ¥ 99 || BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. and JOHN AND JANE DOES 1-100, 71 Defendants. 22 23 Defendant Bank of America, N.A. (“BANA”), by and through their respective 24 || undersigned counsel of record, submits this Unopposed Motion to Redact Motions to Seal and 25 || Supporting Declarations, ECF Nos. 247, 248, 247-1, and 248-1 (“Motion to Redact”). 26 This Motion to Redact is based on the Memorandum of Points and Authorities below, the 27 || papers and pleadings on file with the Court, and any oral argument that this Court may entertain 28 || on behalf of BANA.

1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 2 On July 20, 2022, this Court granted BANA’s Motions to Seal ECF Nos. 247 and 248, in 3 || part, sealing all the documents discussed in the Motions. (ECF No. 251.) However, this Court 4 || only ordered that the Motions to Seal themselves, and the supporting declarations, be sealed for 5 || 30 days. Ud.) BANA now requests permission to re-file redacted versions of the Motions to Seal 6 || and supporting declarations, keeping the unredacted versions sealed. Redacted versions of those 7 || filings are attached for the Court’s review. 8 If a party seeks to seal judicial records “unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the 9 || underlying cause of action[,]” they must only show good cause. Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of 10 || Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179-80 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citations 11 |} omitted). The Motions to Seal and supporting declarations merely seek to seal documents 2 12 || attached to certain motions to compel, tangentially related to the litigation. Good cause exists to | 13 |] redact the Motions to Seal and supporting declarations because, like the documents considered in

I 14 |} the Motions, the Motions to Seal also discuss confidential, non-public investigative processes and | 15 |} procedures. Good cause also exists to seal documents containing “sensitive business | 16 |} information” or other “proprietary information . . . the release of which could be harmful to [a 17 || parties’] business.” See Aevoe Corp. v. AE Tech. Co., No. 2:12-CV-00053-GMN, 2013 WL 18 }} 2302310, at *1-2 (D. Nev. May 24, 2013); see also Youtoo Technologies, Inc. v. Twitter, Inc., 19 || 3:17-cv-00414-LRH-WGC, 2017 WL 3396496, at *2 (D. Nev. Aug. 7, 2017) (finding good cause 20 || to seal documents containing confidential, non-public information). 21 The language redacted from the Motions to Seal and associated declarations is reflective 22 || of BANA’s internal, and not publicly known, process for investigating potential illegal activity. 23 || Compare Proposed Redactions, attached as Exhibits A-D, with ECF Nos. 247, 248, 247-1, and 24 || 248-1. BANA has a significant interest in maintaining the confidentiality of this process, as it is 25 || vital to its ability to prevent potential illegal activity which may be perpetuated through its 26 || accounts. BANA’s ability to effectively ensure its legitimate interest in detecting potentially 27 || illegal activity in its accounts would be impaired if its methods were made public. Allowing the 28 || open dissemination of this information will impair BANA’s ability to prevent the use of its -2-

1 || accounts for illegal activities. Redaction would also be consistent with this Court’s past orders, 2 || which permitted redaction of BANA’s joinder to Plaintiffs’ motion to seal. (See ECF No. 135.) 3 CONCLUSION 4 For the reasons stated herein, BANA respectfully requests that this Court enter an order 5 || granting BANA leave to redact and refile its Motions to Seal and supporting declarations, ECF 6 || Nos. 247, 248, 247-1, and 248-1, consistent with the attached exhibits. BANA also requests that 7 || ECF Nos. 247, 248, 247-1, and 248-1 remain sealed. 8 Dated: August 4, 2022 7 SNELL & WILMER L.L.P. 10 /s/ Holly E. Cheong 1] Amy F. Sorenson, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 12495 g 12 Blakeley E. Griffith, Esq. 2 Nevada Bar No. 12386 ae 13 Holly E. Cheong, Esq. 14 Nevada Bar No. 11936 3883 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 1100 ) 15 Las Vegas, NV 89169 | Attorneys for Defendant Bank of America, 16 N.A.

18 ORDER 19 IT IS SO ORDERED 20 DATED: 2:53 pm, August 11, 2022 21 Les RDA, 22 BRENDA WEKSLER 23 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28 -3-

1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 2 I hereby certify that on this date, I electronically filed the foregoing UNOPPOSED 3 | MOTION TO REDACT MOTIONS TO SEAL AND SUPPORTING DECLARATIONS, 4 || ECF NOS. 247, 248, 247-1, AND 248-1with the Clerk of the Court for the U. S. District Court, 5 || District of Nevada by using the Court’s CM/ECF system. Participants in the case who are 6 || registered CM/ECF users will be served by the CM/ECF system. 7 DATED: August 4, 2022. /s/ Maricris Williams 9 An Employee of Snell & Wilmer L.L.P. 10 1] g 12 | 13

56 | z 15 16

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -4-

1 INDEX OF EXHIBITS |[exhibit No. No. of Pages 3 Proposed Redaction of ECF No. 247 16 Proposed Redaction of ECF No. 247-1 4 Proposed Redaction of ECF No. 248 11 5 ——_| Proposed Redaction of ECF No. 248-1

6 || 4880-7471-9237 7 8 9 10 11 12 | ze 13

27 16

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 _5-