Hoard v. Capital One, N.A.

1
24-CV-1133 JLS (VET)
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
AZLYNNE HOARD and CHIQUITA
PLENTY, individually and on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly
situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CAPITAL ONE, N.A.,
Defendant.
Case No.: 24-CV-1133 JLS (VET)
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO
SEAL
(ECF Nos. 60, 76, 79, 82)
Presently before the Court are various motions for leave to file documents under seal
in this matter: (1) Plaintiffs Azlynne Hoard’s and Chiquita Plenty’s Motion for Leave to
File Documents Under Seal Regarding Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification (“Mot. to
Seal re Class Cert.,” ECF No. 60); (2) Defendant Capital One, N.A.’s Motion for Leave to
File Documents Under Seal Regarding Defendant’s Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for
Class Certification (“Mot. to Seal re Opp’n,” ECF No. 76); (3) Defendant’s Motion for
Leave to File Documents Under Seal Regarding Defendant’s Motion to Exclude Plaintiffs’
Expert Prof. Ronald J. Mann (“Mot. to Seal re Mot. to Exclude,” ECF No. 79); and (4)
Defendant’s Motion for Leave to File Documents Under Seal Regarding Defendant’s
Motion 	to 	Strike 	Plaintiffs’ Deposition 	Errata 	(“Mot. 	to 	Seal 	re Mot. 	to 	Strike,”
Case 3:24-cv-01133-JLS-VET Document 96 Filed 10/28/25 PageID.<pageID>
Page 1 of 7

2
24-CV-1133 JLS (VET)
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
ECF No. 82).
Given the overlap in issues related to this matter and mutual deficiencies in the
Parties’ motions to seal, the Court finds it appropriate to address the motions to seal in
tandem. 	Having considered the law and the Parties’ motions, the Court DENIES the
motions to seal (ECF Nos. 60, 76, 79, 82).
LEGAL STANDARD
“[T]he courts of this country recognize a general right to inspect and copy public
records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” 	Nixon v. Warner
Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). 	“Unless a particular court record is one
‘traditionally kept secret,’ a ‘strong presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.”
Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Foltz
v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). “The presumption
of access is ‘based on the need for federal courts, although independent—indeed,
particularly because they are independent—to have a measure of accountability and for the
public to have confidence in the administration of justice.’” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler
Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d
1044, 1048 (2d Cir. 1995)).
A party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the burden of overcoming the strong
presumption of access. Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135. The showing required to meet this burden
depends upon whether the documents to be sealed relate to a motion that is “more than
tangentially related to the merits of the case.” Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1102. When
the underlying motion is more than tangentially related to the merits, the “compelling
reasons” standard applies. Id. at 1096–98. When the underlying motion does not surpass
the tangential relevance threshold, the “good cause” standard applies. 	Id. 	Under either
standard, “an order sealing the documents must be narrowly drawn to seal only those
portions of the record that, upon a balancing of the relevant interests, ought to be sealed.”
Acad. of Motion Picture Arts & Scis. v. GoDaddy.com, Inc., No. CV 10-03738-AB (CWX),
2015 WL 12698301, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 22, 2015) (collecting cases).
Case 3:24-cv-01133-JLS-VET Document 96 Filed 10/28/25 PageID.<pageID>
Page 2 of 7

3
24-CV-1133 JLS (VET)
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
“In general, ‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in
disclosure and justify sealing court records exists when such ‘court files might have
become a vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to gratify private spite,
promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Kamakana,
447 F.3d at 1179 (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). However, “[t]he mere fact that the
production of records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure
to further litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Id. (citing
Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1136). 	The decision to seal documents is “one best left to the sound
discretion of the trial court” upon consideration of “the relevant facts and circumstances of
the particular case.” Nixon, 435 U.S. at 589, 599.
Under the “compelling reasons” standard, the party seeking protection must “present
‘articulable facts’ identifying the interests favoring continued secrecy and . . . show that
these specific interests overc[o]me the presumption of access by outweighing the ‘public
interest in understanding the judicial process.’” 	Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1181 (internal
citations omitted) (first quoting Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1136; and then quoting Hagestad v.
Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430, 1434 (9th Cir. 1995)). 	“The movant must make this required
particularized showing for each document it seeks to seal.” 	Avnet, Inc. v. Avana Techs.
Inc., No. 2:13-CV-00929-GMN, 2014 WL 4181831, at *1 (D. Nev. Aug. 20, 2014) (citing
San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 187 F.3d 1096, 1103 (9th Cir. 1999)). And
if the movant wishes to seal an entire document, they must show that their compelling
interest cannot be protected by redacting only the sensitive portions of said document. See
In re Roman Cath. Archbishop, 661 F.3d 417, 425 (9th Cir. 2011); Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1136–
37. 	If, by contrast, compelling reasons do not support sealing an entire document, the
movant must offer compelling reasons to seal each portion of the documents they believe
should be sealed. 	See Apex.AI, Inc. v. Langmead, No. 5:23-CV-02230-BLF, 2023 WL
4157629, at *1 (N.D. Cal. June 23, 2023); see also In re Roman Cath. Archbishop, 661
F.3d at 425.
/ / /
Case 3:24-cv-01133-JLS-VET Document 96 Filed 10/28/25 PageID.<pageID>
Page 3 of 7

4
24-CV-1133 JLS (VET)
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 show good cause, the moving party must make a “particularized showing . . .
with respect to any individual document,” San Jose Mercury News, Inc., 187 F.3d at 1103,
that “specific prejudice or harm will result if no protective order is granted,” Phillips ex
rel. Ests. of Byrd, 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002). “Simply mentioning a general
category of privilege, without any further elaboration or any specific linkage with the
documents, does not satisfy the burden.” 	Kamakama, 447 F.3d at 1184. 	Likewise,
“[b]road 	allegations 	of 	harm, 	unsubstantiated 	by 	specific 	examples 	or 	articulated
reasoning,” are also insufficient. Phillips, 307 F.3d at 1211. Further, if the movant wishes
to seal an entire document, it must show that the possibility of prejudice or harm would not
be defeated by redacting only the sensitive portions of said document. 	See In re Roman
Cath. Archbishop, 661 F.3d at 425; Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1137.
ANALYSIS
I. 	Motions to Seal Regarding Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification
Plaintiffs seek to file under seal portions of and exhibits submitted with their Motion
for Class Certification (ECF No 62). 	See generally ECF No. 60. 	Plaintiffs contend that
their Motion for Class Certification relies heavily upon materials designated as confidential
pursuant to the Protective Order (ECF No. 33) in this matter, including documents related
to Defendant’s business, Defendant’s interrogatory responses, and various deposition
transcripts. 	Id. at 3. 	Plaintiffs maintain “no further position” on the confidentiality
designations and submit that “the burden is on the producing party to show why the
document or information it has designated as confidential should remain as such.” 	Id.
Defendant likewise seeks to file under seal portions of and exhibits submitted with its
Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification (ECF No. 78). See generally ECF
No. 76. 	Defendant contends that its Opposition substantially refers to and relies on
documents previously designated as confidential pursuant to the Protective Order. Id.
The compelling reasons standard applies to the Parties’ motions to seal since a
motion for class certification is more than tangentially related to the merits of the case. See
Weisberg v. Takeda Pharms. U.S.A., Inc., No. CV 18-784 PA (JCX), 2018 WL 6252458,
Case 3:24-cv-01133-JLS-VET Document 96 Filed 10/28/25 PageID.<pageID>
Page 4 of 7

5
24-CV-1133 JLS (VET)
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
at *2 n.1 (C.D. Cal. July 3, 2018) (collecting cases). Neither Plaintiffs nor Defendant offer
any reasons beyond the documents’ confidentiality designations as grounds for granting
leave to seal the documents. 	See generally ECF Nos. 60, 76. 	The Parties thus fail to
overcome the strong presumption of access to judicial records and documents. See Foltz,
331 F.3d at 1135. 	The Court also notes that an existing protective order is not in itself
automatic grounds for subsequently granting leave to file documents under seal. 	See
Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1183 (first citing Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1138; then citing Beckman
Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 475–76 (9th Cir. 1992)).
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Documents
Under Seal Regarding Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification (ECF No. 60) and
Defendant’s Motion for Leave to File Documents Under Seal Regarding Defendant’s
Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification (ECF No. 76).
II. 	Defendant’s 	Motion 	to 	Seal 	Regarding 	Defendant’s 	Motion 	to 	Exclude
Plaintiffs’ Expert Prof. Ronald J. Mann
Defendant seeks to file under seal portions of and exhibits submitted with its Motion
to Exclude Plaintiffs’ Expert Prof. Ronald J. Mann (ECF No. 81). 	See generally ECF
No. 79. 	Defendant submits that its Motion to Exclude relies upon deposition testimony
and record evidence designated as confidential pursuant to the Protective Order. Id. at 1.
Because Defendant’s underlying Motion to Exclude is not more than tangentially
related to the merits of the case, the less stringent good cause standard applies. 	See Ctr.
for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1099 (noting that “nondispositive motions are sometimes not
related, or only tangentially related, to the merits of a case”). 	The good cause standard
nonetheless requires a showing of specific harm as to each document a party seeks to file
under seal. 	See San Jose Mercury News, Inc., 187 F.3d at 1103; Phillips ex rel. Ests. of
Byrd, 307 F.3d at 1210–11.
Here, Defendant’s Motion to Seal regarding its Motion to Exclude suffers from the
same deficiencies as its Motion to Seal regarding its Opposition in that it fails to identify
any reasons beyond the documents’ confidentiality designations as grounds for leave to file
Case 3:24-cv-01133-JLS-VET Document 96 Filed 10/28/25 PageID.<pageID>
Page 5 of 7

6
24-CV-1133 JLS (VET)
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 documents under seal. As noted above, Defendant’s reliance on the Protective Order
alone is insufficient for the Court to grant leave to file under seal. 	See Stoba v.
Saveology.com, LLC, No. 13-CV-02925-BAS(NLS), 2016 WL 1257501, at *2 (S.D. Cal.
Mar. 31, 2016) (“A blanket protective order is not itself sufficient to show ‘good cause’ for
sealing particular documents.”) (first citing Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1133; then citing Beckman
Indus., Inc., 966 F.2d at 476; and then citing San Jose Mercury News, Inc., 187 F.3d at
1103).
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendant’s Motion for Leave to File Documents
Under Seal Regarding Defendant’s Motion to Exclude Plaintiffs’ Expert Prof. Ronald J.
Mann (ECF No. 79).
III. 	Defendant’s Motion to Seal Regarding Defendant’s Motion to Strike Plaintiffs’
Deposition Errata
Defendant seeks to file under seal portions of and exhibits submitted with its Motion
to Strike Plaintiffs’ Deposition Errata (ECF No. 84). See generally ECF No. 82. Defendant
submits that its Motion to Exclude relies in part upon an email that Defendant sent to
Plaintiff Azlynne Hoard designated as confidential pursuant to the Protective Order. Id. at
3.
Because Defendant’s underlying Motion to Strike is not more than tangentially
related to the merits of the case, the less stringent good cause standard applies. 	See Ctr.
for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1099. Again, Defendant’s Motion to Seal regarding its Motion
to Strike fails to identify any reasons beyond the email’s confidentiality designation as
grounds for leave to file it under seal. See San Jose Mercury News, Inc., 187 F.3d at 1103;
Phillips ex rel. Ests. of Byrd, 307 F.3d at 1210–11. 	And Defendant’s reliance on the
Protective Order alone is insufficient for the Court to grant leave to file under seal. 	See
Stoba¸ 2016 WL 1257501, at *2 (citations omitted).
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendant’s Motion for Leave to File Documents
Under Seal Regarding Defendant’s Motion to Strike Plaintiffs’ Deposition Errata (ECF
No. 82).
Case 3:24-cv-01133-JLS-VET Document 96 Filed 10/28/25 PageID.<pageID>
Page 6 of 7

7
24-CV-1133 JLS (VET)
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
CONCLUSION
In light of the foregoing, the Court (1) DENIES Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File
Documents Under Seal Regarding Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification (ECF No. 60);
(2) DENIES Defendant’s Motion for Leave to File Documents Under Seal Regarding
Defendant’s Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification (ECF No. 76); (3)
DENIES 	Defendant’s Motion for Leave to File Documents Under Seal Regarding
Defendant’s Motion to Exclude Plaintiffs’ Expert Prof. Ronald J. Mann (ECF No. 79); and
(4) DENIES Defendant’s Motion for Leave to File Documents Under Seal Regarding
Defendant’s Motion to Strike Plaintiffs’ Deposition Errata (ECF No. 82).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 28, 2025
Case 3:24-cv-01133-JLS-VET Document 96 Filed 10/28/25 PageID.<pageID>
Page 7 of 7