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 REGARDING NON-PARTY
PAYPAL, INC’S AMENDED
MOTION TO INTERVENE AND
APPLICATION FOR PARTIAL
RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER
DENYING MOTIONS TO FILE
DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL
(ECF No. 138)
Presently before the Court is Non-Party PayPal Inc.’s (“PayPal”) Amended Motion
to Intervene and Application for Partial Reconsideration of Order Denying Motions to File
Documents Under Seal (“Am. Mot.,” ECF No. 123). 	Plaintiffs Azlynne Hoard and
Chiquita Plenty and Defendant Capital One, N.A. (collectively, “the Parties”) do not
oppose the Amended Motion. 	See ECF Nos. 142, 143. For the reasons stated below, the
Court GRANTS the Amended Motion.
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
Case 3:24-cv-01133-JLS-VET Document 149 Filed 01/09/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 1 of 8

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
MOTION TO INTERVENE
I. 	Legal Standard
Permissive intervention under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(b) “is committed
to the broad discretion of the district court.” Orange Cnty. v. Air California, 799 F.2d 535,
539 (9th Cir. 1986) (citing United States v. $129,374 in U.S. Currency, 769 F.2d 583, 586
(9th Cir. 1985)). 	Such intervention requires “(1) an independent ground for jurisdiction;
(2) a timely motion; and (3) a common question of law and fact between the movant’s
claim or defense and the main action.” Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470,
473 (9th Cir. 1992); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b). “[T]he primary focus of Rule 24(b) is
intervention for the purpose of litigating a claim on the merits.” Beckman Indus., Inc., 966
F.2d 470 at 472. 	However, a non-party seeking to intervene may also intervene for a
limited purpose. See id. at 473 (citing cases). When a non-party does not seek to litigate
a claim on the merits, “an independent jurisdictional basis is not required.” 	Id. 	In
determining whether a motion to intervene is timely, courts consider (1) “the stage of the
proceeding at which an applicant seeks to intervene”; (2) “the prejudice to other parties”;
and (3) “the reason for and length of the delay.” Empire Blue Cross & Blue Shield v. Janet
Greeson’s A Place For Us, Inc., 62 F.3d 1217, 1219 (9th Cir. 1995); see also Fed. R. Civ.
P. 24(b)(3).
II. 	Analysis
PayPal seeks to intervene to ensure its confidential business information, previously
produced by PayPal in this case, remains under seal to prevent any competitive harm. Am.
Mot. at 4. PayPal submits that at the time Plaintiffs moved for class certification and the
Parties thereafter filed Motions to Seal, see ECF Nos. 60, 76, the Parties did not give
advance notice of their intent to file any material previously produced by PayPal. 	Am.
Mot. at 2. 	PayPal also contends that the Court issued its Order Denying the Parties’
Motions to Seal, see ECF No. 96, before it filed its own briefing and declarations in support
of the Motions to Seal. 	Id. at 1. 	Therefore, PayPal seeks to intervene for the limited
purpose of sealing its confidential information not yet sealed in this case.
Case 3:24-cv-01133-JLS-VET Document 149 Filed 01/09/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 2 of 8

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 Court is satisfied PayPal has met the standard for permissive intervention.
Because PayPal seeks to intervene for a limited purpose and not to litigate the merits, an
independent ground for jurisdiction is not required. Beckman Indus., Inc., 966 F.2d 470 at
473. The Court finds that PayPal’s instant Amended Motion was timely filed pursuant to
the Court’s December 2, 2025, Order, see ECF No. 136, and granting its request to
intervene will not prejudice the Parties, who do not oppose the request, or otherwise impact
the March 12, 2026, hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification.1 Furthermore,
courts have granted a non-party’s motion to intervene for the limited purpose of
maintaining confidentiality designations in connection with a party’s underlying motion to
seal, as is the case here. See, e.g., California Parents for Equalization of Educ. Materials
v. Torlakson, No. 17-CV-00635-CRB(JSC), 2018 WL 3930141, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 16,
2018) (granting non-party’s motion for permissive intervention “for the limited purpose of
joining 	[litigants]’s 	motion 	to 	maintain confidential 	designation 	and 	amending the
Protective Order”); Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 11-CV-01846-LHK, 2013 WL
3958232, at *2 (N.D. Cal. July 29, 2013) (granting non-party’s motion for permissive
intervention “for the limited purpose of sealing portions of its patent license agreement”).
This satisfies the liberally construed requirement that proposed intervenors share a
common issue of law with the main action. See Bureerong v. Uvawas, 167 F.R.D. 83, 85–
86 (C.D. Cal. 1996).
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS PayPal’s request for permissive intervention for
the limited purpose of bringing its Application for Partial Reconsideration.
/ / /
1 PayPal acknowledges that waiting to file its supporting briefing until fourteen days before the hearing
on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification, previously scheduled for January 15, 2026, see Docket, “may
not have afforded enough time to rule” on PayPal’s initial Motion to Intervene (ECF No. 123). Am. Mot.
at 6. n.2. 	PayPal submits that it will timely file supporting briefing for any future filings implicating
PayPal. Id.
Case 3:24-cv-01133-JLS-VET Document 149 Filed 01/09/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 3 of 8

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
MOTION TO SEAL2
I. 	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 & Cnty. 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). A motion for class
2 The Court construes PayPal’s Amended Application for Partial Reconsideration as an Amended Motion
to Seal, as it previously did for Defendant’s Motion for Partial Reconsideration. See ECF No. 122 at 2
n.1; see also Am. Mot. at 10 n.4.
Case 3:24-cv-01133-JLS-VET Document 149 Filed 01/09/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 4 of 8

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
certification is more than tangentially related to the merits and is thus subject to the
compelling reasons standard. 	See Weisberg v. Takeda Pharms. U.S.A., Inc., No. CV 18-
784 PA (JCX), 2018 WL 6252458, at *2 n.1 (C.D. Cal. July 3, 2018) (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
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
Case 3:24-cv-01133-JLS-VET Document 149 Filed 01/09/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 5 of 8

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
4157629, at *1 (N.D. Cal. June 23, 2023); see also In re Roman Cath. Archbishop, 661
F.3d at 425.
II. 	Analysis
PayPal seeks to file under seal portions of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification
(ECF No. 62) and accompanying exhibits and portions of Defendant’s Opposition (ECF
No. 78) and accompanying exhibits because the documents contain PayPal’s confidential
business information, which relates to: “technical details pertaining to both the ‘front-end’
and ‘back-end’ operation of the Venmo platform”; “internal processing and coding of
transactions occurring on the Venmo platform, including transactions funded by credit
cards”; “details of PayPal’s business relationship and communications with its vendors and
partners”; “Venmo’s and PayPal’s policies and procedures for coding and processing
financial transactions occurring on the Venmo platform, changes to those policies and
procedures, and the business rationales for those policies, procedures, and changes”:
“[f]inancial transactions by PayPal users”; and, other “aspects of Venmo’s and PayPal’s
business, operations, and strategy.” Am. Mot. at 12. Public disclosure of this information
would harm PayPal because it “could be leveraged by PayPal’s competitors and vendors
to gain unfair advantages in emulating, competing against, and negotiating with PayPal in
the future.” Id. at 12–13 (internal citation omitted). Furthermore, public disclosure would
harm PayPal’s business relationships and erode trust in PayPal’s platforms. Id. at 13.
Having independently reviewed the documents PayPal seeks to seal, the Court finds
the compelling reasons standard is met. 	As PayPal 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. 	PayPal has made a particularized showing as to the basis for sealing each
document. See Am. Mot. at 13–16. The Court finds that the requests to seal are narrowly
tailored to the portions of the documents containing confidential and sensitive business
information. See id. The Court has also previously granted leave to file similar information
under seal. See ECF No. 122; see also Am. Mot. at 17.
Case 3:24-cv-01133-JLS-VET Document 149 Filed 01/09/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 6 of 8

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
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS PayPal’s Motion (ECF No. 138). 	The Clerk of
the Court SHALL FILE under seal the following documents or portions of documents
under seal:
Document 	Portion(s)
Plaintiffs’
Memorandum in
Support of Motion for
Class Certification
Pages 6:17-20, 6:26-28, 7:8-9, and 7:25-26
Plaintiffs’ Motion for
Class Certification,
Exhibit 10
Pages PAYPAL_003554, PAYPAL_003557,
and PAYPAL_003560-63
Plaintiffs’ Motion for
Class Certification,
Exhibit 14
Pages 17:19-20, 19:14-16, 19:20-21, 19:23-24,
23:2-3, 24:13-14, 25:19-22, 26:1-5, 28:4-24,
29:3, 29:5-8, 29:15-17, 29:23-25, 30:3-4,
31:20-21, 33:2-6, 33:10-11, 33:18-19, 37:6-7,
38:21-24, 39:4-8, 41:14, 45:12-16, 45:20-21,
45:25-46:1, 49:23-50:1, 50:3-4, 51:6-7, 53:18-
22, 54:2-5, 54:10-23, 54:25-55:7, 55:9-12,
55:14-16, 55:18-20, 55:22-56:2, 56:4-7, 56:12-
14, 56:16-20, 57:2-20, 57:22-23, 58:1-4, 58:8-
11, 58:13-14, 58:16-17, 59:20-21, 61:3-5,
62:16-18, 62:20, 62:23-24, 63:8-10, 63:18-22,
64:1-2, 67:21-22, 67:25, 68:2-3, 68:12-13,
68:15-16, 68:21-22, 69:1-2, 69:8, 69:11-12,
69:14, 69:19, 69:24-25, 91:12-16, 92:4-6,
92:10-12, 92:14-15, 92;21-22, 92:24-25, 93:2-
7, 93:12-13, 93:17-19, 94:4-6, 94:9-12, 94:18-
21, 94:23-24, 95:2-8, 105:4-6, 105:8-13,
105:15-16, 105:19-21, 105:23-106:3, 106:6-
15, 107:3-6, and 116-144
Plaintiffs’ Motion for
Class Certification,
Exhibit 21
Entirety
Plaintiffs’ Motion for
Class Certification,
Exhibit 23
Entirety
Defendant’s
Opposition to Class
Pages 30:3-4, 31:20-21, 33:2-6, 33:10-11, and
33:18-19.
Case 3:24-cv-01133-JLS-VET Document 149 Filed 01/09/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 7 of 8

8
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
Certification, Exhibit
16
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 9, 2026
Case 3:24-cv-01133-JLS-VET Document 149 Filed 01/09/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 8 of 8