Vargas v. Barclays Bank Delaware

Opinion

REESE LLP Via ECF Honorable Lorna G. Schofield Application GRANTED. The referenced letter may United States District Court be filed with the proposed redactions. The for the Southern District of New York unredacted version of the letter has been filed at Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse Dkt. 42. 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 Dated: January 27, 2025 New York, New York Re: — Vargas v. Barclays Bank Delaware Case No. 24-cv-06549-LGS (S.D.N.Y.) LORNA G,. SCHOFIEL Dear Judge Schofield: UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE My firm, along with our co-counsel, Laukaitis Law LLC, represent the plaintiff and the proposed class in the above-referenced action. We submit this letter to move pursuant to Your Honor’s Individual Civil Rule I.D.3 to seal certain sections of the letter and all the exhibits attached thereto that were previously submitted by Defendant on January 15, 2025 (ECF No. 42). Data breaches and identify theft are of a major concern today. This concern is compounded where the allegations in an action are that a company entrusted with personally identifiable information (“PII’) abused that trust and improperly disseminated PII to unauthorized third-parties. And that is exactly what is alleged in this action that Defendant did here. See Complaint (ECF No. 1) at p. 2, ¥ 1 (“This is a class action lawsuit against Barclays Bank for: (1) its unlawful disclosure of Plaintiffs personally identifiable information (“PI”)). Multiplying this concern, is the fact that there are reports that Barclays was the target of a data breach in April of 2024 where it allegedly failed to safeguard its customers information. See e.g. Alleged Cyberattack by Hacker Duo Targets HSBC and Barclays; Banks Deny Breach, by Ashish Khaitan, May 10, 2024 available at Barclays And HSBC Bank Data Breach Claimed By Hacker Duo (“the breach at Barclays reportedly occurred in April 2024, involving a security incident through a third-party contractor, ultimately leading to the leak of sensitive data.”). Moreover, this is not the first time that Defendant has reportedly failed to safeguard its customers confidential, personal financial information. See e.g. Barclays Bank Leaks Thousands of Customer Records, ComputerWeekly.com; by Warwick Ashford, February 10, 2014 available at Barclays bank leaks thousands of customer records | Computer Weekly. The information we seek to have filed under seal is the type of information that hackers and other criminals seek to steal in data breaches in order commit identity theft. See e.g., In re Geico Customer Data Breach Litig., case no. 2023 WL 4778646 (E.D.N.Y. July 21, 2023)(data breach involving theft of customer’s driver’s license numbers); Dugas v. Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc., 2016 WL 6523428 (S.D. Cal. 2016)(data breach involving theft of first and last names and credit cards numbers). Accordingly, we respectfully request that the information be filed under seal.

100 West 93rd Street + Sixteenth Floor New York, New York 10025

Honorable Lorna G. Schofield Vargas v. Barclays Bank Motion to Seal ECF No. 42 Page 2 of 2 LE. Michael R. Reese Appendix Pursuant to Individual Civil Rule 1D.3 Defendant and all counsel representing Defendant in this matter who are subject to the Confidentiality Order (ECF No. 37) should have access to the letter previously filed under seal (ECF No. 42).

THE FOLLOWING IS A PARTIALLY REDACTED VERSION OF ECF NO. 42 PREVIOUSLY FILED ON JANUARY 15, 2025

SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 787 SEVENTH AVENUE SIDLEY NEW YORK, NY 10019 +1 212 839 5300 +1 212 839 5599 FAX +1 212 839 6062 AMERICA ¢ ASIA PACIFIC « EUROPE CCHIANESE@SIDLEY.COM

January 15, 2025

By ECF Honorable Lorna G. Schofield United States District Judge Southern District of New York 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 Re: Vargas v. Barclays Bank Delaware Case No. 1:24-cv-06549-LGS Letter Regarding Plaintiff's January 9, 2025 Production Dear Judge Schofield: We represent Defendant Barclays Bank Delaware (‘Barclays’) in the above-captioned matter and write to provide an update following our letter of January 10, 2025 regarding Plaintiff Arthur Vargas’s January 9, 2025 Court-ordered production. This letter is being submitted under seal because the production was designated by Plaintiff as “Confidential” pursuant to the Stipulated Confidentiality Order entered at ECF No. 37.

As a brief recap, Barclays sought to compel this matter to arbitration from the outset because Plaintiff alleged facts that could only be true if he is or was a Barclays customer, and Barclays customer agreements contain arbitration clauses that would cover the claims in this case. Barclays, however, could not identify Plaintiff's specific account based on the name and location, which was the only identifying information about him provided in the complaint. When Barclays Sidley Austin (NY) LLP is a Delaware limited liability partnership doing business as Sidley Austin LLP and practicing in affiliation with other Sidley Austin partnerships.

Page 2 asked Plaintiff for basic information that would allow his account to be identified (such as his account number), Plaintiffs counsel insisted that such information could only be disclosed if there was a Court-ordered protective order, even though this information was clearly not confidential as to Barclays. And when Barclays asked Plaintiff to agree that a protective order would not waive Barclays’ right to arbitration, he refused. Then, after Barclays moved to compel arbitration, Plaintiff opposed on the basis that Barclays had not identified his specific agreement to arbitrate, which was an impossible task without Plaintiff's name. Ultimately, after a further exchange of filings between the parties, see ECF No. 33, 35, the Court ordered Plaintiff to provide identifying information by January 8, 2025, see ECF No. 36. On January 8, counsel for Plaintiff emailed counsel for Barclays at approximately 5:30 pm and stated that they “need a few more days to gather the account information” and offered to “agree to any additional time” Barclays would request in response. The following day, Barclays responded that it would not oppose an extension until January 10, but reminded Plaintiff that this was a Court-ordered deadline and so any relief had to be sought from this Court. Barclays did not request any extension and did not ask Plaintiff to seek additional time on its behalf. Plaintiff made his production later that same day, and then that evening, unilaterally filed a letter purporting to request an extension of Barclays’ time to file its further submission. See ECF No. 38. In the

REMAING SECTION OF PARAGRAPH REDACTED

REDACTED

We thank the Court for its continued attention to this matter. Respectfully submitted, By: 4s/ Christina Prusak Chianese Amy P. Lally (admitted pro hac vice) Christina Prusak Chianese SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 1999 Avenue of the Stars, 17th Floor 787 Seventh Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90067 New York, NY 10019

Page 3 Telephone: (310) 595-9500 Telephone: (212) 839-5300 Facsimile: (310) 595-9501 Facsimile: (212) 839-5599 Email: alally@sidley.com Email: cchianese@sidley.com

Ian M. Ross (admitted pro hac vice) SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 1001 Brickell Bay Drive Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 391-5100 Facsimile: (305) 391-5101 Email: iross@sidley.com Counsel for Defendant Barclays Bank Delaware cc: All counsel of record (via ECF)

THE FOLLOWING IS A PARTIAL REDACTION OF ECE No. 42-1 L k iti L = www.laukaitislaw.com au al IS dW-~ = klaukaitis@laukaitislaw.com

January 9, 2025 Via E-MAIL, Christina Prusak Chianese, Esq. Sidley Austin LLP cchianese(@)sidley.com 787 Seventh Avenue New York, New York 10019 RE: Vargas v. Barclays Bank Delaware, | :24-cv-06549 Dear Christina,

Respectfully yours,

Kevin Laukaitis KL/dst CC: Michael Reese, Esq. Charles Moore, Esq.