1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

LORI BERNARD WILPRIT, 

Plaintiff, 

v.

CAPITAL ONE BANK USA, N.A. and 

CAPITAL ONE, N.A., 

 

Defendants.

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

Civil No. 3:22-CV-00452-K 

ORDER

United States Magistrate Judge Rebecca Rutherford made findings, conclusions, 

and a recommendation in this case. Doc. No. 62. Plaintiff Lori Bernard Wilprit filed 

objections. Doc. No. 63. The Court reviewed those portions of the proposed findings, 

conclusions, and recommendation to which objection was made to determine whether 

they are “clearly erroneous or . . . contrary to law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); Boone v. Dandy 

B Logistics LLC, 2021 WL 2784298, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 7, 2021) (Brown, J.). Finding 

no clear error or determinations contrary to law, the Court ACCEPTS Judge 

Rutherford’s findings, conclusions, and recommendation. Ms. Wilprit’s objections are 

OVERRULED. The Court GRANTS Defendants Capital One Bank USA, N.A. and 

Capital One, N.A.’s (collectively, “Capital One”) Renewed Motion to Transfer Venue, 

Doc. No. 34, and TRANSFERS this case to the United States District Court for the 

Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division.

Case 3:22-cv-00452-K Document 78 Filed 03/11/24 Page 1 of 12 PageID 2392
2

In reviewing the findings, conclusions, and recommendation in this matter, the 

Court has considered documents submitted by Ms. Wilprit in support of her objections 

that are the subject of pending motions. Doc. No. 65. Capital One moved to strike 

the documents. Doc. No. 71. Ms. Wilprit filed a motion to seal the documents but 

expressed “no interest in sealing” them, leaving Capital One to press the motion. Doc. 

No. 65 at 3. It did so in part. Having considered Capital One’s motions to strike and 

seal, the documents at issue, and the parties’ briefing, the Court DENIES the motion 

to strike, Doc. No. 71, GRANTS the motion to seal in part, and DENIES the motion 

to seal in part. Doc. No. 65. The Court briefly discusses the motion to strike and the 

motion to seal below.

I. MOTION TO STRIKE

Capital One’s motion to strike is essentially an alternative to its motion to seal. 

Capital One expresses little concern about the evidentiary value of the documents filed 

by Ms. Wilprit, instead complaining about having to “review all 685 pages . . . to 

determine what is appropriate for sealing.” Doc. No. 71 at 5. It focuses on three 

exhibits that total 683 pages, asking the Court to strike all of them because their 

disclosure purportedly violates protective orders entered by other courts two related 

cases, Young v. Capital One Bank USA, N.A., No. 22-cv-00647 (N.D. Tex.) (Lynn, J.) 

and Welch v. Capital One Bank USA, N.A. No. 22-cv-00031 (E.D. Tex.) (Crone, J.). Id. 

at 4, 6. It also asks the Court to strike the same documents, or the portions of them 

Case 3:22-cv-00452-K Document 78 Filed 03/11/24 Page 2 of 12 PageID 2393
3

Ms. Wilprit does not cite, as unnecessary filings under Local Civil Rule 5.2(d). Id. 

at 4–6.

The Court will leave the enforcement of the protective orders entered in Young 

and Welch to the courts that issued them. While courts have sometimes declined to 

consider evidence disclosed in violation of other courts’ protective orders, e.g., Smith v. 

BP Expl. & Prod. Inc., 2023 WL 4993269, at *4 (E.D. La. July 24, 2023), the 

circumstances of this case do not favor an exercise of that power. Capital One has not 

quoted the language of the protective orders on which it relies or attempted to show 

that the language covers the material Ms. Wilprit filed. It also does not address 

whether both protective orders remain in effect. Judge Lynn transferred the Young case 

to the Eastern District of Virginia, where it appears to have terminated. Young v. Capital 

One Bank USA, N.A., No. 22-cv-01326 (E.D. Va.) (Giles, J.). 

In the absence of briefing, the Court is particularly reluctant to seek out the 

protective orders and interpret them because of the severity of the relief Capital One 

requests. As Ms. Wilprit notes, only a tiny fraction of the three exhibits challenged by 

Capital One contains material designated confidential under the protective orders, and 

this is the material Capital One says she should not have disclosed. Doc. No. 71 at 3; 

Doc. No. 76 at 1–4; Doc. No. 65-1 at 6, 212; Doc. No. 65-2 at 109, 113, 165, 169; 

Doc. No. 65-3 at 110, 114, 272, 276. Capital One nonetheless asks the Court to strike 

the exhibits in their entirety. Doc. No. 71 at 3, 6. Without additional context in the 

briefing, the Court views that as disproportionate relief. The Court expresses no 

Case 3:22-cv-00452-K Document 78 Filed 03/11/24 Page 3 of 12 PageID 2394
4

opinion about whether Ms. Wilprit violated the Young or Welch protective orders or 

how the issuing courts should enforce them.

The Court also will not strike Ms. Wilprit’s evidentiary submission under Local 

Civil Rule 5.2(d). The Court has discretion to decline to strike documents for failure 

to comply with local rules. Veranda Assocs., L.P. v. Hooper, 496 F. App’x 455, 458 (5th 

Cir. 2012) (per curiam); Washington v. M. Hanna Const. Inc., 299 F. App’x 399, 401 

(5th Cir. 2008) (per curiam). Rule 5.2(d) states that, “[w]hen discovery materials are 

necessary for consideration of a pretrial motion, a party shall file only the portions of 

discovery on which that party relies to support or oppose the motion.” In relevant 

part, Ms. Wilprit filed three documents, each of which is the complete record of a 

deposition, including transcript and exhibits. She provided the Court with pinpoint 

citations to each record in her objections to the findings, conclusion, and 

recommendation of Judge Rutherford. Doc. Nos. 63, 65. Assuming it was improper 

for her to file the complete records rather than excerpts, the Court does not believe 

that striking the records, in whole or in part, is necessary to correct the error. This is 

not a case in which the plaintiff filed documents on which she did not rely simply to 

embarrass the defendant, nor is it a case in which the plaintiff filed voluminous exhibits 

in the expectation that the Court would sift through them without the aid of precise 

citations. Cf. Edwards & Assocs., Inc. v. Atlas-Telecom Servs.-USA, Inc., 2007 WL 30256, 

at *5 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 4, 2007) (Fish, C.J.).

Case 3:22-cv-00452-K Document 78 Filed 03/11/24 Page 4 of 12 PageID 2395
5

II. MOTION TO SEAL

Turning to Capital One’s motion to seal Ms. Wilprit’s exhibits, the Court finds 

that most of the proposed sealing is unwarranted. The common law gives the public 

presumptive access to the judicial records of this Court. Binh Hoa Le v. Exeter Fin. Corp., 

990 F.3d 410, 419 (5th Cir. 2021). When a party seeks to seal information contained 

in judicial records, the Court must conduct a line-by-line review of the records to 

determine as to each item of information whether the interests favoring nondisclosure 

outweigh the public’s right. June Med. Servs., L.L.C. v. Phillips, 22 F.4th 512, 521 (5th 

Cir. 2022). The Court will seal an item of information only if those interests are 

weighty and specific. See IFG Port Holdings, L.L.C. v. Lake Charles Harbor & Terminal 

Dist., 82 F.4th 402, 411–12 (5th Cir. 2023). 

Capital One’s motion contains two distinct sealing requests. The first is 

sweeping and would result in the sealing of the “vast majority” of the material filed by 

Ms. Wilprit. Doc. No. 73 at 3–4. The second is narrow and would result in the sealing 

of Capital One’s source code and testimony describing it in detail. Id. at 5–6. The 

Court largely rejects the first request but accepts the second. 

A. First Sealing Request 

The reasons for Capital One’s broader sealing request sound appealing but do 

not stand up to scrutiny. Capital One asks the Court to seal material filed by Ms. 

Wilprit to “comply with the directives given by [the Young and Welch] courts.” Doc. 

No. 73 at 5. It represents that the Welch court is considering a request to seal some of 

Case 3:22-cv-00452-K Document 78 Filed 03/11/24 Page 5 of 12 PageID 2396
6 

this material and that the Young and Welch courts have sealed much of the remaining 

material. Id. at 4–8. While there is some law supporting Capital One’s request, there 

are few facts to back it up.

i. Legal Standard

As a matter of comity, the sealing decisions of other district courts deserve 

consideration. See United States v. Sater, 2019 WL 3288389, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. July 22, 

2019) (citing Doe v. Lerner, 688 F. App’x 49, 50–51 (2d Cir. 2017) (per curiam)); In re 

Xyrem (Sodium Oxybate) Antitrust Litig., 2023 WL 3874024, at *2 (N.D. Cal. June 6, 

2023). The degree of consideration depends on the degree of similarity between the 

issues decided and the issues before the Court. Another district court’s decision 

generally carries little weight unless the party relying on it can show that three 

conditions are satisfied. First, the party must show that the other court sealed the

substantially the same documents the party seeks to seal in this Court. See Glob. Indus. 

Inv. Ltd. v. 1955 Cap. Fund I GP LLC, 2022 WL 6282723, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 23, 

2022). Second, the party must show that the other court applied the same legal 

standard this Court must apply. See In re Oh, 2023 WL 7004962, at *6 (N.D. Tex. 

Oct. 24, 2023) (Horan, M.J.). Finally, the party must show that the factual and 

procedural circumstances in which the other court sealed the documents are analogous 

to the circumstances before this Court insofar as they affect the interests favoring and 

disfavoring public access to the documents. See In re Qualcomm Inc. Sec. Litig., 2020 WL 

4581643, at *1 (S.D. Cal. July 24, 2020). 

Case 3:22-cv-00452-K Document 78 Filed 03/11/24 Page 6 of 12 PageID 2397
7 

ii. Material Provisionally Lodged Under Seal

Most of Capital One’s sealing request founders on the first condition because no 

other court has considered the majority of the request. Capital One’s assertion that 

the Young and Welch courts sealed the same material it asks this Court to seal is 

misleading. Doc. No. 73 at 5. The Young court never ordered any of the material 

sealed. Capital One simply filed some of the material under seal, and the Young court 

never ruled on its sealing motion. As Capital One admits, the same is true of most of 

the relevant material that is under seal in the Welch court. Id. at 4. The Court sees no 

reason to defer its decision on Capital One’s sealing request simply because it filed 

similar requests with other courts. Puglia Eng’g, Inc. v. BAE Sys. Ship Repair, 2017 U.S. 

Dist. LEXIS 233130, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 22, 2017). 

Having reviewed the material subject to unresolved sealing motions in Young and 

Welch, the Court finds that there is no basis for sealing most of it. The material 

overwhelmingly consists of prosaic testimony and documentary evidence describing 

how Capital One enrolled users in its electronic “CreditWise” credit monitoring service 

and how users would have accessed the service at various points in time. Doc. No. 65-

1 to -3. With few exceptions, Capital One does not assert that it has a concrete interest 

in keeping this information from the public, and no interest is readily apparent. It 

appears that most of the information would be known to users of Capital One’s 

CreditWise service or obvious to other firms offering similar services. See Lin v. DISH 

Network LLC, 2022 WL 20542920, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 22, 2022). Aside from 

Case 3:22-cv-00452-K Document 78 Filed 03/11/24 Page 7 of 12 PageID 2398
8 

information concerning Capital One’s source code discussed in Section II.B, the Court 

will not seal any of it. 

iii. Material Ordered Sealed

Capital One again misleads when it says that the Welch court already sealed the 

remaining material it wants this Court to seal. Doc. No. 73 at 4–5. The material in 

question consists of the declaration of a Capital One employee, Amshuman 

Ramachandran, and the exhibits attached to it. Id. While Judge Crone did seal a few 

of the exhibits in Welch, she never sealed the declaration. The Court will follow Judge 

Crone in sealing nonpublic portions of the exhibits, but it otherwise refuses to seal the 

exhibits or the declaration. 

The Court begins with the materials that it cannot seal. These include exhibit 

slipsheets. They also include exhibits that Capital One concedes are accessible to the

public. Doc. No. 73 at 4 n.3; Doc. No. 65-2 at 97–105, 140–148, 153–161; Doc. 

No. 65-3 at 98–106, 247–255, 260–268. The Court adds to the list the text of 

Mr. Ramachandran’s declaration and accompanying information about his electronic 

signature, which have been publicly accessible on the Welch docket for nearly two years. 

Doc. No. 65-2 at 80–92, 126–138; Doc. No. 65-3 at 81–93, 233–45. As a corollary, 

the Court will not seal any portions of the declaration’s exhibits that contain 

information substantially disclosed in the declaration’s public text. Doc. No. 65-2 at 

107, 109, 111, 113, 115–16, 118–19, 121–22, 124–25, 163, 165, 167, 169, 171–72, 

174–75, 177–78, 180–81; Doc. No. 65-3 at 108, 110, 112, 114, 116–17, 119–20, 122–

Case 3:22-cv-00452-K Document 78 Filed 03/11/24 Page 8 of 12 PageID 2399
9

23, 125–26, 270, 272, 274, 276, 278–79, 281–82, 284–85, 287–88; June Med., 22 

F.4th at 520.

This leaves Capital One’s source code, which the Court discusses in the next 

section, and portions of the exhibits containing the Welch plaintiffs’ nonpublic

CreditWise account numbers, physical addresses, and credit pull history. Doc. No. 65-

2 at 107, 109, 111, 113, 115–16, 118–19, 121–22, 124–25, 163, 165, 167, 169, 171–

72, 174–75, 177–78, 180–81; Doc. No. 65-3 at 108, 110, 112, 114, 116–17, 119–20, 

122–23, 125–26, 270, 272, 274, 276, 278–79, 281–82, 284–85, 287–88. The Court 

defers to Judge Crone’s decision to seal the latter information. Her decision addresses 

the same documents submitted by Ms. Wilprit, she issued it in the context of a motion 

to transfer very similar to the one before this Court, and she was bound to apply the 

same Fifth Circuit precedent that binds this Court. No persuasive reason to disturb 

that decision is apparent from the face of the exhibits. 

The Court recognizes that it previously unsealed a record disclosing 

Ms. Wilprit’s physical address and part of her credit pull history. See Doc. No. 44; 

Doc. No. 45 at 24–27. It nevertheless believes that sealing the Welch plaintiffs’ records 

is consistent with its earlier decision. The Welch plaintiffs are not parties to this action. 

For that reason, the public’s interest in knowing their account numbers, physical 

addresses, and credit pull history is less than its interest in viewing Ms. Wilprit’s

records in this case. Only Ms. Wilprit’s interactions with Capital One are material to 

the requests for relief before the Court. See Carter v. Sw. Airlines Co., 2022 WL 283025, 

Case 3:22-cv-00452-K Document 78 Filed 03/11/24 Page 9 of 12 PageID 2400
10

at *2–6 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 31, 2022) (Starr, J.) (sealing personal information of nonparties 

with limited relevance to the issues before the court); Trans Tool, LLC v. All State Gear 

Inc., 2022 WL 608945, at *8 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 1, 2022) (similar); Activision Publ’g, Inc. 

v. EngineOwning UG, 2023 WL 2347134, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2023) (sealing 

nonparty consumer account information and related account activity information).

For similar reasons, the Court seals the CreditWise account number, physical 

address, and credit pull history of the Young plaintiff, which neither this Court nor 

Judge Crone has previously reviewed. Doc. No. 65-1 at 212, 216. 

B. Second Sealing Request

The Court also grants Capital One’s narrower request to seal an excerpt of the 

source code it uses for its credit monitoring service along with testimony describing 

that code in detail. Doc. No. 65-1 at 199–200; Doc. No. 65-2 at 38, 40–41, 43–46, 

94–95, 150–51; Doc. No. 65-3 at 95–96, 257–58. The Court previously sealed the 

source code and adheres to its decision. Doc. Nos. 44, 46.

III. CONCLUSION

The Court ACCEPTS Judge Rutherford’s findings, conclusions, and 

recommendation, Doc. No. 62, and OVERRULES Ms. Wilprit’s Objection thereto. 

Doc. No. 63. The Court GRANTS Capital One’s Renewed Motion to Transfer Venue, 

Doc. No. 34, and TRANSFERS this case to the United States District Court for the 

Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division. 

Case 3:22-cv-00452-K Document 78 Filed 03/11/24 Page 10 of 12 PageID 2401
11

The Court DENIES Capital One’s motion to strike. Doc. No. 71. The Court 

GRANTS Capital One’s motion to seal in part and DENIES it in part. Doc. No. 65. 

Within ten days of the entry of this order, Ms. Wilprit SHALL FILE on the public 

docket a copy of her sealed appendix to her objections, Doc. No. 65, redacting only:

• The following material containing or summarizing source code:

o Appendix pages 201–02, 310–11, 366–67, 492–93, and 654–55

(Doc. No. 65-1 at 199–200; Doc. No. 65-2 at 94–95, 150–51; Doc. 

No. 65-3 at 95–96, 257–58);

o Appendix page 254 (Doc. No. 65-2 at 38), lines six through 

nineteen;

o Appendix page 256 (Doc. No. 65-2 at 40), lines six through fifteen;

o Appendix page 256 (Doc. No. 65-2 at 40), line twenty-five, 

through appendix page 257 (Doc. No. 65-2 at 41), line twentyfive;

o Appendix page 259 (Doc. No. 65-2 at 43), line fourteen, through 

appendix page 260 (Doc. No. 65-2 at 44), line eight;

o Appendix page 260 (Doc. No. 65-2 at 44), line twenty-three, 

through appendix page 262 (Doc. No. 65-2 at 46), line twentythree;

• The following material containing nonparties’ CreditWise account 

numbers and physical addresses:

Case 3:22-cv-00452-K Document 78 Filed 03/11/24 Page 11 of 12 PageID 2402
12

o The first, eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh, and twelfth rows of the 

tables on appendix pages 214, 323, 325, 327, 329, 379, 381, 383, 

385, 505, 507, 509, 511, 667, 669, 671, and 673 (Doc. No. 65-1 

at 212; Doc. No. 65-2 at 107, 109, 111, 113, 163, 165, 167, 169; 

Doc. No. 65-3 at 108, 110, 112, 114, 270, 272, 274, 276); and

• The following material containing nonparties’ credit pull history:

o The rows preceding the row containing the term “LGIN_DT” in 

the tables on appendix pages 216, 331–32, 334–35, 337–38, 340–

41, 387–88, 390–91, 393–94, 396–97, 513–14, 516–17, 519–20, 

522–23, 675–76, 678–79, 681–82, and 684–85 (Doc. No. 65-1 at 

214; Doc. No. 65-2 at 115–16, 118–19, 121–22, 124–25, 171–72, 

174–75, 177–78, 180–81; Doc. No. 65-3 at 116–17, 119–20, 122–

23, 125–26, 278–79, 281–82, 284–85, 287–88).

Because Ms. Wilprit has already filed some portions of her sealed appendix with 

redactions, the Court advises her that she must not remove those redactions since the 

Court has been unable to view the redacted material.

SO ORDERED. 

Signed March 11th, 2024. 

____________________________________

ED KINKEADE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:22-cv-00452-K Document 78 Filed 03/11/24 Page 12 of 12 PageID 2403