Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00816/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00816-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 896
Nature of Suit: Other Statutes - Arbitration
Cause of Action: 09:0009 Motion to Confirm Arbitration Award

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BOFI FEDERAL BANK, a federal savings 

bank,

Petitioner,

vs.

VERONICA GOLUB, an individual,

Respondent.

CASE NO. 18cv816-LAB (JMA)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION [Dkt. 22]

This Court previously denied Respondent Veronica Golub’s motion to file under 

seal certain documents in support of her motion to vacate, and ordered the clerk to unseal 

those documents. Dkt. 16. Petitioner BofI has asked the Court to reconsider only one 

provision in the lodged materials, which it argues is protected from disclosure under 

federal law. Dkt. 22.

A district court has the inherent power to reconsider and modify its interlocutory 

orders prior to the entry of judgment . . . .” Smith v. Massachusetts, 543 U.S. 462, 475

(2005). “Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly 

discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly 

unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” Sch. Dist. No. 1J, 

Multnomah Cnty. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255,1263 (9th Cir. 1993).

Case 3:18-cv-00816-LAB-LL Document 25 Filed 10/18/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

The parties initially argued that the various documents lodged in Dkt. 13 should be 

filed under seal because they contained confidential information related to the Bank 

Secrecy Act. The Court’s order on July 17, 2018 found that mere confidentiality was not 

a “compelling reason” to seal documents, and ordered the various documents lodged 

under seal in Dkt. 13 be unsealed. The Court was not told at that time, however, that 

Item 15 on Page 83 of the lodged materials contained a reference to a Suspicious Activity 

Report (“SAR”)1. An SAR is a procedure by which a bank reports a suspected violation 

of federal law (such as money laundering) to the government, and disclosure even of the 

existence of an SAR in public is forbidden by law. 12 C.F.R. 21.11(k). The Court 

therefore erred in unsealing that discrete portion of the lodged materials. 

BofI’s motion for reconsideration is GRANTED. The clerk is ordered to re-seal 

Exhibit 4 only (Dkt. 13-2). BofI shall refile a public version of Exhibit 4 with only Item 15 

on Page 83 (or the equivalent location if the pagination changes) redacted within one 

week of entry of this Order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 18, 2018

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

 

1 The document actually refers to a “QAR,” but the Court understands that this is either 

an error or a synonym for an SAR.

Case 3:18-cv-00816-LAB-LL Document 25 Filed 10/18/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2