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 GRANTING MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO FILE DOCUMENTS
UNDER SEAL REGARDING
PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT
OF CLASS CERTIFICATION AND
MOTION TO EXCLUDE EXPERT
TESTIMONY OF DAVID
SKANDERSON
(ECF No. 115)
Presently before the Court is Plaintiffs Azlynne Hoard’s and Chiquita Plenty’s
Motion for Leave to File Documents Under Seal Regarding Plaintiffs’ Reply in Support of
Class Certification and Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony of David Skanderson (“Mot.,”
ECF No. 115). 	Also before the Court is Defendant Capital One, N.A.’s Joinder in
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Seal and Memorandum in Support Thereof (“Joinder,” ECF No. 131).
Plaintiffs seek to seal portions of their Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion for
Class Certification (“Reply,” ECF No. 117), portions of their Motion to Exclude Expert
Testimony of David Skanderson (“Mot. to Ex.,” ECF No. 118), and related exhibits, which
include: “damages analyses performed by Capital One’s testifying expert’s firm, Charles
Case 3:24-cv-01133-JLS-VET Document 147 Filed 01/09/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 1 of 5

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
River Associates (“CRA”); Capital One’s internal cash advance-related policies and
procedures; data reflecting the volume and amounts charged in cash advance fees; internal
directives concerning cash advance characterization; and documents and data from internal
cash advance fee investigations.” 	Mot. at 4. 	Plaintiffs also seek to seal portions of “the
deposition 	transcripts 	of 	Capital 	One’s 	damages 	and 	industry 	experts—Dr. 	David
Skanderson and Hugh Gallagher.” 	Id. 	The basis for sealing is Defendant Capital One,
N.A.’s previous designation of the information as confidential. 	Id. 	Plaintiffs submit that
they take “no further position on Capital One’s designations as the burden is on the
producing party to show why the document or information it has designated as confidential
should remain as such.” Id.
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
Case 3:24-cv-01133-JLS-VET Document 147 Filed 01/09/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 2 of 5

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
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).
“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 [they] seek[] 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
Case 3:24-cv-01133-JLS-VET Document 147 Filed 01/09/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 3 of 5

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
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.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiffs seek to file under seal portions of their Reply, Motion to Exclude, and
related exhibits because of Defendant’s previous designation of the information as
confidential. 	Mot. at 4. 	Defendant explains that the information and documents are
“competitively sensitive and would cause [Defendant] to suffer harm if the information
were publicly filed.” 	Joinder at 1. 	Such information relates to, among other things, the
“processing and coding of credit card transactions, confidential calculations that are based
on and reveal sensitive Capital One data, and confidential deposition testimony from
[Defendant]’s damages expert.” ECF No. 131-1 (“Seale Decl.”) ¶ 3. Public disclosure of
such information would harm Defendant because it could be “leveraged by [Defendant]’s
competitors and vendors to gain unfair advantages in emulating, competing against, and
negotiating with [Defendant] in the future.” Id.
Having independently reviewed the documents the Parties seek to seal, the Court
finds the compelling reasons standard is met. 	As Defendant contends, the documents
contain sensitive and confidential business information, and courts generally find it
appropriate to seal “business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive
standing.” Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598. Defendant has made a particularized showing as to the
basis for sealing each document. See Seale Decl. The Court finds that the requests to seal
are narrowly tailored to the portions of the documents containing confidential and sensitive
business information. See generally ECF No. 116. The Court has also previously granted
leave to file similar information under seal. See ECF No. 122.
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
Case 3:24-cv-01133-JLS-VET Document 147 Filed 01/09/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 4 of 5

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
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motion (ECF No. 115). The Clerk of
the Court SHALL FILE under seal the sealed lodged proposed documents (ECF No. 116).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 9, 2026
Case 3:24-cv-01133-JLS-VET Document 147 Filed 01/09/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 5 of 5