Case 2:20-cv-07872-GW-PVC Document 373 Filed 05/06/24 Page 1 of 5 Page ID #:41619
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dustin J. Edwards (pro hac vice)
`dedwards@winston.com
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`800 Capitol St., Suite 2400
`Houston, TX 77002-2925
`Telephone: (713) 651-2600
`Facsimile:
`(713) 651-2700
`
`Diana Hughes Leiden (SBN: 267606)
`dhleiden@winston.com
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`333 S. Grand Avenue, 38th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90071-1543
`Telephone: (213) 615-1700
`Facsimile:
`(213) 615-1750
`
`
`George C. Lombardi (pro hac vice)
`glombardi@winston.com
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`35 West Wacker Drive
`Chicago, IL 60601-9703
`Telephone: (312) 558-5600
`Facsimile:
`(312) 558-5700
`
`E. Danielle T. Williams (pro hac vice)
`dwilliams@winston.com
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`300 South Tryon Street, 16th Floor
`Charlotte, NC 28202
`Telephone: (704) 350-7700
`Facsimile:
`(704) 350-7800
`
`Michael S. Elkin (pro hac vice)
`melkin@winston.com
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`200 Park Avenue
`New York, NY 10166
`Telephone: (212) 294-6700
`Facsimile: (212) 294-4700
`
`Attorneys for Defendants
`BANK OF AMERICA
`CORPORATION
`and BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`Case No. 2:20-CV-7872-GW-PVC
`NantWorks, LLC, a Delaware limited
`liability company, and NANT
`
`HOLDINGS IP, LLC, a Delaware
`
`limited liability company,
`DEFENDANTS’ CORRECTED
`
`UNOPPOSED APPLICATION TO
`Plaintiffs,
`FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL
`
`
`vs.
`
`
`BANK OF AMERICA
`
`CORPORATION, a Delaware
`corporation, and BANK OF AMERICA,
`N.A., a national banking association,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT’S CORRECTED APPLICATION TO FILE UNDER SEAL
`CASE NO. 2:20-CV-07872-GW-PVC
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-07872-GW-PVC Document 373 Filed 05/06/24 Page 2 of 5 Page ID #:41620
`
`
`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
`
`TO THE COURT, PLAINTIFFS AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
`NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that, pursuant to Local Rule 79-5.2.2.(b),
`Defendants Bank of America Corporation and Bank of America, N.A. (collectively,
`“Defendants” or “Bank of America”), hereby request that this Court enter an order
`permitting them to file under seal the materials described below that are filed in
`connection with Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment of Invalidity Under
`35 U.S.C. § 112 (the “112 Motion for Summary Judgment”):
`Document Description
`Nature of Information to be Sealed
`Designated by Defendants as “HIGHLY
`Exhibit A to Exhibit 3 to the Declaration
`CONFIDENTIAL– ATTORNEYS’
`of Dustin J. Edwards in Support of the
`EYES ONLY” under the parties’
`Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
`stipulated protective order (Dkt. No.
`of Invalidity Under 35 U.S.C. § 112:
`210), and contains or references
`Expert Report of Nathanial Polish,
`information designated by Bank of
`Ph.D., Regarding the Invalidity of
`America and third-party Mitek as
`Certain Claims of U.S. Patents Nos.
`“Highly Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes
`7,881,529, 7,899,252, 8,478,036,
`Only”. Plaintiffs do not oppose sealing
`9,324,004, and 9,031,278.
`this exhibit in its entirety.
`Designated by Plaintiffs as “CONTAINS
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL SOURCE
`CODE – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY”
`under the parties’ stipulated protective
`order (Dkt. No. 210), and contains or
`references information designated by
`Bank of America and third-party Mitek
`as “Highly Confidential – Attorneys’
`Eyes Only.” Plaintiffs and Mitek do not
`
`Exhibit 4 to the Declaration of Dustin J.
`Edwards in Support of the Motion for
`Partial Summary Judgment of Invalidity
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 112: Excerpts of
`Expert Report of Dan Schonfeld, Ph.D.,
`Regarding the Infringement of the
`Asserted Claims.
`
`
`
`1
`DEFENDANT’S CORRECTED APPLICATION TO FILE UNDER SEAL
`CASE NO. 2:20-CV-07872-GW-PVC
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-07872-GW-PVC Document 373 Filed 05/06/24 Page 3 of 5 Page ID #:41621
`
`
`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 Description
`
`
`
`Nature of Information to be Sealed
`oppose sealing this exhibit in its entirety.
`
`I.
`
`Background
`As set forth in the Declaration of Danielle Williams in Support of Plaintiffs’
`Application to File Under Seal submitted herewith, Defendants make this application
`because the foregoing documents are marked and designated as “Confidential” or
`“Highly Confidential – Attorneys Eyes Only” and/or “Highly Confidential – Source
`Code” as follows pursuant to the parties’ Stipulated Protective Order (Dkt. No. 210).
`See Declaration of Danielle Williams (the “Williams Decl.”), ¶¶ 2–6. Defendants make
`this application because Exhibit numbers 3 and 4 contain information that is
`“Confidential,” “Highly Confidential – Attorneys Eyes Only,” and/or “Highly
`Confidential – Source Code” of Bank of America and/or its vendors. As required by
`Local Rule 79-5.2.2(b), counsel for Plaintiffs and Defendants conferred about
`Defendants’ filing these materials to limit, if not entirely avoid, the necessity of this
`Application. Id., ¶ 2. Plaintiffs’ counsel does not oppose filing the entirety of these
`materials under seal.
`The Williams declaration sets forth the information Defendants seek to file under
`seal, the basis for the Application, and good cause to seal Bank of America confidential
`information. Id., ¶¶ 1–6. Due to the sensitive nature of the information in the foregoing
`materials, good cause exists to approve Bank of America’s application to file these
`materials under seal pursuant to Local Rule 79-5.2.2(a), and, pursuant to Local Rule 79-
`5.2.2(b)(i).
`II. Good Cause Exists to File Materials Under Seal
`The decision to seal records is left to the discretion of the District Court.
`Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430, 1434 (9th Cir. 1995) (citing Nixon v. Warner
`Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 599 (1978)). Rule 26(c)(1)(G) of the Federal
`2
`DEFENDANT’S CORRECTED APPLICATION TO FILE UNDER SEAL
`CASE NO. 2:20-CV-07872-GW-PVC
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-07872-GW-PVC Document 373 Filed 05/06/24 Page 4 of 5 Page ID #:41622
`
`
`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
`
`Rules of Civil Procedure allows parties, upon a showing of “good cause,” to file under
`seal documents containing “confidential . . . commercial information.” See also IMAX
`Corp. v. Cinematech, Inc., 152 F.3d 1161, 1168 n.9 (9th Cir. 1998) (noting that
`confidential and proprietary business information is “to be filed under seal.”); Sun
`Microsystems Inc. v. Network Appliance, No. C-08-01641 EDL, 2009 WL 5125817, at
`*9 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2009) (granting sealing requests because the documents “contain
`confidential [business] information, much of which has been designated as Confidential
`or Highly Confidential under the parties’ stipulated protective order, that could cause
`competitive harm if disclosed.”); In re Adobe Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation Master
`File, 141 F.R.D. 155, 161-162 (N.D. Cal. 1992) (“Protective orders and filings under
`seal are the primary means by which the courts ensure full disclosure of relevant
`information, while still preserving the parties’ (and third parties’) legitimate expectation
`that confidential business information, proprietary technology and trade secrets will not
`be publicly disseminated.”).
`Bank of America respectfully requests that the Court grant its application to file
`under seal the foregoing materials on the grounds that Plaintiffs designated Exhibit 4 as
`Highly Confidential—Attorneys’ Eyes Only and Highly Confidential – Source Code.
`Furthermore, the foregoing materials contain confidential information designated by
`Bank of America and/or Mitek. Specifically, the foregoing materials contain non-
`public, proprietary details about the design and functionality of Bank of America’s
`mobile check deposit. Williams Decl., ¶ 6. Accordingly, Bank of America has an
`important interest in maintaining the confidentiality of this information, and any public
`interest in its disclosure is rebutted. See, e.g., Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu,
`447 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 2006) (differentiating dispositive motions by explaining
`that, for such motions, “the private interests of the litigants are not the only weights on
`the scale”). If such information were made public, competitors of Bank of America and
`its vendors would gain access to Bank of America’s business practices regarding its
`product development and technical details regarding the design and functionality of its
`3
`DEFENDANT’S CORRECTED APPLICATION TO FILE UNDER SEAL
`CASE NO. 2:20-CV-07872-GW-PVC
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-07872-GW-PVC Document 373 Filed 05/06/24 Page 5 of 5 Page ID #:41623
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`products. Williams Decl., ¶ 6. Bank of America does not share this type of information
`publicly because it could significantly harm Bank of America’s competitive standing.
`Id.
`
`Accordingly, Defendants respectfully request that the Court grant the Application
`to File the aforementioned documents under seal.
`
`Dated: May 6, 2024
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`
`
`By:/s/ E. Danielle T. Williams
`George C. Lombardi (pro hac vice)
`Michael S. Elkin (pro hac vice)
`E. Danielle T. Williams (pro hac vice)
`Dustin J. Edwards (pro hac vice)
`Diana Hughes Leiden
`
`Attorneys for Defendants
`BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION
`and BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.
`
`
`
`4
`DEFENDANT’S CORRECTED APPLICATION TO FILE UNDER SEAL
`CASE NO. 2:20-CV-07872-GW-PVC
`
`
`