Quintin Shammam, individually and on behalf of others v. American Honda Finance Corporation

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: November 10, 2025
• Docket: 3:24-cv-00648
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 QUINTIN SHAMMAM, individually and Case No.: 3:24-cv-00648-H-VET on behalf of others, 11 ORDER: Plaintiff, 12 v. (1) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 13 MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL; AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE 14 AND CORPORATION,

15 Defendant. [Doc. No. 104.] 16 (2) DIRECTING THE CLERK TO 17 FILE THE PROPOSED 18 DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL

19 [Doc. No. 105.] 20

21 On August 7, 2025, Plaintiff Quintin Shammam filed a Motion to Certify Class. 22 (Doc. No. 55.) On November 3, 2025, Defendant American Honda Finance Corporation 23 (“AHFC”) filed a response. (Doc. No. 103.) In support of its opposition to motion for 24 class certification, AHFC provided the Declaration of Genevieve Walser-Jolly (“Walser- 25 Jolly Declaration) and the Declaration of Christopher Hawes (“Hawes Declaration”). 26 (Doc. No. 103-1, 103-15.) On November 3, 2025, AHFC filed an unopposed motion to 27 file under seal portions of the Walser-Jolly Declaration, the Hawes Declaration, and 28 1 portions of its Opposition to Motion for Class Certification referencing the declarations. 2 (Doc. No. 104.) For the reasons discussed below, the Court grants the motion to seal. 3 DISCUSSION 4 “[T]he courts of this country recognize a general right to inspect and copy public 5 records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner 6 Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (1978). “Unless a particular court record is one 7 ‘traditionally kept secret’ a ‘strong presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” 8 Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Foltz 9 v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). “The presumption 10 of access is ‘based on the need for federal courts, although independent—indeed, 11 particularly because they are independent—to have a measure of accountability and for the 12 public to have confidence in the administration of justice’” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler 13 Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting United States v. Amodeo, 71 14 F.3d 1044, 1048 (2d Cir. 1995)). 15 A party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the burden of overcoming the strong 16 presumption of public access. Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135. To overcome this presumption, the 17 party must demonstrate either “good cause” or “compelling reasons” to seal a record, 18 depending on the motion to which the record relates. Ctr. for Auto, 809 F.3d at 1096–97. 19 If the underlying motion is more than tangentially related to the merits, the “compelling 20 reasons” standard applies. Id. at 1096-98. “In general, ‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to 21 outweigh the public’s interest in disclosure and justify sealing court records exist when 22 such ‘court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of 23 records to gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or 24 release trade secrets.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). “In 25 general, sealing court records under the compelling reasons test will be justified when such 26 records can be used . . . ‘as sources of business information that might harm a litigant’s 27 competitive standing’”. Lucas v. Breg, Inc., No.:15-cv-00258-BAS-NLS, 2016 U.S. Dist. 28 LEXIS 134951 at *4 (S.D. Cal. Sep. 28, 2016). 1 Here, the documents at issue relate to class certification and are more than 2 ||“‘tangentially related” to the merits of this class action. See Al Otro Lado, Inc. v. 3 || McAleenan, No. 17-cv-02366-BAS-KSC, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 202431, at *9 (S.D. Cal. 4 || Nov. 21, 2019) (finding that motion for class certification 1s more than tangentially related 5 || to the merits of the case). Thus, the “compelling reasons” standard applies. Ctr. for Auto, 6 F.3d at 1096-98. AHFC argues that compelling reasons justify sealing portions of the 7 || Walser-Jolly Declaration, the Hawes Declaration, and portions of its Opposition to Motion 8 Class Certification referencing the declarations because those portions contain “how 9 || AHFC searches and pulls data from its system of record, including what internal codes and 10 || search functions can be applied and how much data can be yielded[.]” (Doc. No. 104 at 11 AHFC contends that this information, if made public, would provide its competitors 12 || with “advantageous information regarding features of AHFC’s systems.” (Id.) Further, 13 || AHFC notes that certain portions of the declarations are subject to debt collection laws, 14 || including the Federal Debt Collection Practices Act, and state corollaries. (Id. at 9-11.) As 15 financial institution, AHFC also argues that it owes privacy and security duties to its 16 |}customers under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, implementing regulations, and corollary 17 || state privacy laws. (Id.) 18 After reviewing the portions to be filed unpder seal, the Court agrees that 19 ||}compelling reasons justify sealing portions of the Walser-Jolly Declaration, the Hawes 20 || Declaration, and portions of its Opposition to Motion for Class Certification referencing 21 || the declarations as requested. AHFC has narrowly tailored its sealing request to those 22 || portions containing sensitive information concerning its internal record-keeping that, if 23 ||made public, are likely to result in prejudice or a competitive disadvantage. The Court 24 || directs the Clerk to file the proposed documents under seal. (Doc. No. 105.) 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 || DATED: November 10, 2025 : Mule Le. 28 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT