In Concepcion v. Amscan Holdings, Inc. (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1309, the primary issue was whether a trial court could, when awarding attorney fees, rely on records not provided to the defendant. There, in several coordinated class actions, plaintiffs alleged that Party City improperly recorded ZIP Code information during credit card transactions. After the trial court approved a settlement of the cases, the plaintiffs sought attorney fees. (Id. at pp. 1312-1314.) Party City opposed the motion on the ground the fees claimed were excessive and duplicative, among other things. (Id. at p. 1316.) The trial court requested detailed time records, which most of the class counsel had offered to provide, for in camera review. After considering the time records in camera, the court awarded the requested fees. On appeal, our colleagues in Division Seven agreed with Party City that it was improper for the court to rely upon billing information that Party City had no opportunity to challenge. (Id. at p. 1312.) In arguing against that conclusion, the plaintiffs had "suggested class counsel's billing records contained privileged information, thus justifying in camera review." (Id. at p. 1326.) Concepcion rejected this argument, explaining, "we seriously doubt that all--or even most--of the information on each of the billing records proffered to the court was privileged. Certainly the trial court made no such finding. Nor is there any explanation why the supplemental information requested by the court could not have been provided by filing--and serving on Party City--redacted copies of the bills deleting any privileged information." (Id. at pp. 1326-1327.) While Concepcion was skeptical of the notion that the billing records were privileged on the wholly different facts of that case, the court offered no analysis of the basis for its view.