Azlynne Hoard and Chiquita Plenty, individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Capital One, N.A.

S.D. California

Azlynne Hoard and Chiquita Plenty, individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Capital One, N.A.

DecidedJanuary 9, 2026

Docket3:24-cv-01133

StatusUnknown

This text of Azlynne Hoard and Chiquita Plenty, individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Capital One, N.A. (Azlynne Hoard and Chiquita Plenty, individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Capital One, N.A.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Azlynne Hoard and Chiquita Plenty, individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Capital One, N.A., (S.D. Cal. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 AZLYNNE HOARD and CHIQUITA Case No.: 24-CV-1133 JLS (VET) PLENTY, individually and on behalf of 12 themselves and all others similarly ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 13 situated, LEAVE TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL REGARDING 14 Plaintiffs, PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT 15 v. OF CLASS CERTIFICATION AND MOTION TO EXCLUDE EXPERT 16 CAPITAL ONE, N.A., TESTIMONY OF DAVID 17 Defendant. SKANDERSON

18 (ECF No. 115) 19 20 Presently before the Court is Plaintiffs Azlynne Hoard’s and Chiquita Plenty’s 21 Motion for Leave to File Documents Under Seal Regarding Plaintiffs’ Reply in Support of 22 Class Certification and Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony of David Skanderson (“Mot.,” 23 ECF No. 115). Also before the Court is Defendant Capital One, N.A.’s Joinder in 24 Plaintiffs’ Motion to Seal and Memorandum in Support Thereof (“Joinder,” ECF No. 131). 25 Plaintiffs seek to seal portions of their Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion for 26 Class Certification (“Reply,” ECF No. 117), portions of their Motion to Exclude Expert 27 Testimony of David Skanderson (“Mot. to Ex.,” ECF No. 118), and related exhibits, which 28 include: “damages analyses performed by Capital One’s testifying expert’s firm, Charles 1 River Associates (“CRA”); Capital One’s internal cash advance-related policies and 2 procedures; data reflecting the volume and amounts charged in cash advance fees; internal 3 directives concerning cash advance characterization; and documents and data from internal 4 cash advance fee investigations.” Mot. at 4. Plaintiffs also seek to seal portions of “the 5 deposition transcripts of Capital One’s damages and industry experts—Dr. David 6 Skanderson and Hugh Gallagher.” Id. The basis for sealing is Defendant Capital One, 7 N.A.’s previous designation of the information as confidential. Id. Plaintiffs submit that 8 they take “no further position on Capital One’s designations as the burden is on the 9 producing party to show why the document or information it has designated as confidential 10 should remain as such.” Id. 11 LEGAL STANDARD 12 “[T]he courts of this country recognize a general right to inspect and copy public 13 records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner 14 Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). “Unless a particular court record is one 15 ‘traditionally kept secret,’ a ‘strong presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” 16 Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Foltz 17 v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). “The presumption 18 of access is ‘based on the need for federal courts, although independent—indeed, 19 particularly because they are independent—to have a measure of accountability and for the 20 public to have confidence in the administration of justice.’” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler 21 Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 22 1044, 1048 (2d Cir. 1995)). 23 A party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the burden of overcoming the strong 24 presumption of access. Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135. The showing required to meet this burden 25 depends upon whether the documents to be sealed relate to a motion that is “more than 26 tangentially related to the merits of the case.” Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1102. When 27 the underlying motion is more than tangentially related to the merits, the “compelling 28 reasons” standard applies. Id. at 1096–98. When the underlying motion does not surpass 1 the tangential relevance threshold, the “good cause” standard applies. Id. Under either 2 standard, “an order sealing the documents must be narrowly drawn to seal only those 3 portions of the record that, upon a balancing of the relevant interests, ought to be sealed.” 4 Acad. of Motion Picture Arts & Scis. v. GoDaddy.com, Inc., No. CV 10-03738-AB (CWX), 5 2015 WL 12698301, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 22, 2015) (collecting cases). 6 “In general, ‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in 7 disclosure and justify sealing court records exists when such ‘court files might have 8 become a vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to gratify private spite, 9 promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Kamakana, 10 447 F.3d at 1179 (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). However, “[t]he mere fact that the 11 production of records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure 12 to further litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Id. (citing 13 Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1136). The decision to seal documents is “one best left to the sound 14 discretion of the trial court” upon consideration of “the relevant facts and circumstances of 15 the particular case.” Nixon, 435 U.S. at 589, 599. 16 Under the “compelling reasons” standard, the party seeking protection must “present 17 ‘articulable facts’ identifying the interests favoring continued secrecy and . . . show that 18 these specific interests overc[o]me the presumption of access by outweighing the ‘public 19 interest in understanding the judicial process.’” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1181 (internal 20 citations omitted) (first quoting Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1136; and then quoting Hagestad v. 21 Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430, 1434 (9th Cir. 1995)). “The movant must make this required 22 particularized showing for each document [they] seek[] to seal.” Avnet, Inc. v. Avana 23 Techs. Inc., No. 2:13-CV-00929-GMN, 2014 WL 4181831, at *1 (D. Nev. Aug. 20, 2014) 24 (citing San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 187 F.3d 1096, 1103 (9th Cir. 1999)). 25 And if the movant wishes to seal an entire document, they must show that their compelling 26 interest cannot be protected by redacting only the sensitive portions of said document. See 27 In re Roman Cath. Archbishop, 661 F.3d 417, 425 (9th Cir. 2011); Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1136– 28 37. If, by contrast, compelling reasons do not support sealing an entire document, the 1 movant must offer compelling reasons to seal each portion of the documents they believe 2 should be sealed. See Apex.AI, Inc. v. Langmead, No. 5:23-CV-02230-BLF, 2023 WL 3 4157629, at *1 (N.D. Cal. June 23, 2023); see also In re Roman Cath. Archbishop, 661 4 F.3d at 425. 5 DISCUSSION 6 Plaintiffs seek to file under seal portions of their Reply, Motion to Exclude, and 7 related exhibits because of Defendant’s previous designation of the information as 8 confidential. Mot. at 4. Defendant explains that the information and documents are 9 “competitively sensitive and would cause [Defendant] to suffer harm if the information 10 were publicly filed.” Joinder at 1. Such information relates to, among other things, the 11 “processing and coding of credit card transactions, confidential calculations that are based 12 on and reveal sensitive Capital One data, and confidential deposition testimony from 13 [Defendant]’s damages expert.” ECF No. 131-1 (“Seale Decl.”) ¶ 3. Public disclosure of 14 such information would harm Defendant because it could be “leveraged by [Defendant]’s 15 competitors and vendors to gain unfair advantages in emulating, competing against, and 16 negotiating with [Defendant] in the future.” Id. 17 Having independently reviewed the documents the Parties seek to seal, the Court 18 finds the compelling reasons standard is met.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 AZLYNNE HOARD and CHIQUITA Case No.: 24-CV-1133 JLS (VET) PLENTY, individually and on behalf of 12 themselves and all others similarly ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 13 situated, LEAVE TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL REGARDING 14 Plaintiffs, PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT 15 v. OF CLASS CERTIFICATION AND MOTION TO EXCLUDE EXPERT 16 CAPITAL ONE, N.A., TESTIMONY OF DAVID 17 Defendant. SKANDERSON

18 (ECF No. 115) 19 20 Presently before the Court is Plaintiffs Azlynne Hoard’s and Chiquita Plenty’s 21 Motion for Leave to File Documents Under Seal Regarding Plaintiffs’ Reply in Support of 22 Class Certification and Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony of David Skanderson (“Mot.,” 23 ECF No. 115). Also before the Court is Defendant Capital One, N.A.’s Joinder in 24 Plaintiffs’ Motion to Seal and Memorandum in Support Thereof (“Joinder,” ECF No. 131). 25 Plaintiffs seek to seal portions of their Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion for 26 Class Certification (“Reply,” ECF No. 117), portions of their Motion to Exclude Expert 27 Testimony of David Skanderson (“Mot. to Ex.,” ECF No. 118), and related exhibits, which 28 include: “damages analyses performed by Capital One’s testifying expert’s firm, Charles 1 River Associates (“CRA”); Capital One’s internal cash advance-related policies and 2 procedures; data reflecting the volume and amounts charged in cash advance fees; internal 3 directives concerning cash advance characterization; and documents and data from internal 4 cash advance fee investigations.” Mot. at 4. Plaintiffs also seek to seal portions of “the 5 deposition transcripts of Capital One’s damages and industry experts—Dr. David 6 Skanderson and Hugh Gallagher.” Id. The basis for sealing is Defendant Capital One, 7 N.A.’s previous designation of the information as confidential. Id. Plaintiffs submit that 8 they take “no further position on Capital One’s designations as the burden is on the 9 producing party to show why the document or information it has designated as confidential 10 should remain as such.” Id. 11 LEGAL STANDARD 12 “[T]he courts of this country recognize a general right to inspect and copy public 13 records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner 14 Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). “Unless a particular court record is one 15 ‘traditionally kept secret,’ a ‘strong presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” 16 Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Foltz 17 v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). “The presumption 18 of access is ‘based on the need for federal courts, although independent—indeed, 19 particularly because they are independent—to have a measure of accountability and for the 20 public to have confidence in the administration of justice.’” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler 21 Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 22 1044, 1048 (2d Cir. 1995)). 23 A party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the burden of overcoming the strong 24 presumption of access. Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135. The showing required to meet this burden 25 depends upon whether the documents to be sealed relate to a motion that is “more than 26 tangentially related to the merits of the case.” Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1102. When 27 the underlying motion is more than tangentially related to the merits, the “compelling 28 reasons” standard applies. Id. at 1096–98. When the underlying motion does not surpass 1 the tangential relevance threshold, the “good cause” standard applies. Id. Under either 2 standard, “an order sealing the documents must be narrowly drawn to seal only those 3 portions of the record that, upon a balancing of the relevant interests, ought to be sealed.” 4 Acad. of Motion Picture Arts & Scis. v. GoDaddy.com, Inc., No. CV 10-03738-AB (CWX), 5 2015 WL 12698301, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 22, 2015) (collecting cases). 6 “In general, ‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in 7 disclosure and justify sealing court records exists when such ‘court files might have 8 become a vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to gratify private spite, 9 promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Kamakana, 10 447 F.3d at 1179 (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). However, “[t]he mere fact that the 11 production of records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure 12 to further litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Id. (citing 13 Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1136). The decision to seal documents is “one best left to the sound 14 discretion of the trial court” upon consideration of “the relevant facts and circumstances of 15 the particular case.” Nixon, 435 U.S. at 589, 599. 16 Under the “compelling reasons” standard, the party seeking protection must “present 17 ‘articulable facts’ identifying the interests favoring continued secrecy and . . . show that 18 these specific interests overc[o]me the presumption of access by outweighing the ‘public 19 interest in understanding the judicial process.’” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1181 (internal 20 citations omitted) (first quoting Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1136; and then quoting Hagestad v. 21 Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430, 1434 (9th Cir. 1995)). “The movant must make this required 22 particularized showing for each document [they] seek[] to seal.” Avnet, Inc. v. Avana 23 Techs. Inc., No. 2:13-CV-00929-GMN, 2014 WL 4181831, at *1 (D. Nev. Aug. 20, 2014) 24 (citing San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 187 F.3d 1096, 1103 (9th Cir. 1999)). 25 And if the movant wishes to seal an entire document, they must show that their compelling 26 interest cannot be protected by redacting only the sensitive portions of said document. See 27 In re Roman Cath. Archbishop, 661 F.3d 417, 425 (9th Cir. 2011); Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1136– 28 37. If, by contrast, compelling reasons do not support sealing an entire document, the 1 movant must offer compelling reasons to seal each portion of the documents they believe 2 should be sealed. See Apex.AI, Inc. v. Langmead, No. 5:23-CV-02230-BLF, 2023 WL 3 4157629, at *1 (N.D. Cal. June 23, 2023); see also In re Roman Cath. Archbishop, 661 4 F.3d at 425. 5 DISCUSSION 6 Plaintiffs seek to file under seal portions of their Reply, Motion to Exclude, and 7 related exhibits because of Defendant’s previous designation of the information as 8 confidential. Mot. at 4. Defendant explains that the information and documents are 9 “competitively sensitive and would cause [Defendant] to suffer harm if the information 10 were publicly filed.” Joinder at 1. Such information relates to, among other things, the 11 “processing and coding of credit card transactions, confidential calculations that are based 12 on and reveal sensitive Capital One data, and confidential deposition testimony from 13 [Defendant]’s damages expert.” ECF No. 131-1 (“Seale Decl.”) ¶ 3. Public disclosure of 14 such information would harm Defendant because it could be “leveraged by [Defendant]’s 15 competitors and vendors to gain unfair advantages in emulating, competing against, and 16 negotiating with [Defendant] in the future.” Id. 17 Having independently reviewed the documents the Parties seek to seal, the Court 18 finds the compelling reasons standard is met. As Defendant contends, the documents 19 contain sensitive and confidential business information, and courts generally find it 20 appropriate to seal “business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive 21 standing.” Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598. Defendant has made a particularized showing as to the 22 basis for sealing each document. See Seale Decl. The Court finds that the requests to seal 23 are narrowly tailored to the portions of the documents containing confidential and sensitive 24 business information. See generally ECF No. 116. The Court has also previously granted 25 leave to file similar information under seal. See ECF No. 122. 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motion (ECF No. 115). The Clerk of 2 Court SHALL FILE under seal the sealed lodged proposed documents (ECF No. 116). 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 ||Dated: January 9, 2026 Lt 5 jen Janis L. Sammartino 6 United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Debbie Foltz, Consumer Action United Policyholders Texas Watch, Intervenors, and Tierney Adamson Kevin Snead Daniel P. Johnson, Intervenors-Appellants. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, an Illinois Corporation California Institute of Medical Research & Technology, Inc., a Foreign Corporation Dba Comprehensive Medical Review Ralph Householder Steven Becker v. April Jean Ho Jim Mathis, Plaintiffs-Intervenors. Debbie Foltz, and Tierney Adamson Kevin Snead Daniel P. Johnson, Intervenors-Appellants v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, an Illinois Corporation, and California Institute of Medical Research & Technology, Inc., a Foreign Corporation Dba Comprehensive Medical Review Ralph Householder Steven Becker v. April Jean Ho Jim Mathis, Plaintiffs-Intervenors. Debbie Foltz, April J. Ho Jim Mathis Tierney Adamson Kevin Snead Daniel P. Johnson, Intervenors, and Consumer Action United Policy-Holders Texas Watch, Intervenors-Appellants v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, an Illinois Corporation, and Steven Becker

331 F.3d 1122 (Ninth Circuit, 2003)

Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC

809 F.3d 1092 (Ninth Circuit, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Azlynne Hoard and Chiquita Plenty, individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Capital One, N.A., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/azlynne-hoard-and-chiquita-plenty-individually-and-on-behalf-of-themselves-casd-2026.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack