ALLISON BARTON, individually and on Case No. 3:24-cv-1332-GPC-SBC behalf of others similarly situated, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND Plaintiffs, DENYING IN PART MOTIONS TO v. SEAL
THE PROCTER & GAMBLE [ECF Nos. 64, 77, 87, 94, 97, 106] COMPANY, a Delaware company, Defendant.
This class action suit involves a number of consumer protection claims against Defendant for allegedly misleading consumers regarding the safety of its tampon products. Presently before the Court are both Plaintiffs’ and Defendant’s motions to file documents under seal. ECF Nos. 64, 77, 87, 94, 97, 106. For the reasons set forth below, the motions are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART without prejudice. BACKGROUND The factual background of this case has been outlined by this Court in previous orders. See ECF No. 50. Thus, the Court will address only those facts relevant to the motions now before it. On February 2, 2026, United States Magistrate Judge Steve B. Chu filed a protective order. ECF No. 57. On May 13, 2026, Plaintiff moved for class certification. ECF No. 66. In support of their motion, Plaintiff has sought to file several documents designated by Defendant as confidential pursuant to the protective order. Thus, Plaintiffs have moved to file documents under seal. ECF No. 64. On June 10, 2026, Defendant filed a joinder in part to Plaintiff’s motion to seal. ECF No. 80. On June 10, 2026, Defendant filed its opposition to the motion to certify class as well as a motion to exclude Plaintiff’s expert. ECF Nos. 79, 81. Defendant used several materials in support of their filings that are either “competitively sensitive information” for Defendant or designated by Plaintiff as confidential under the protective order. Thus, Defendant has moved to file documents under seal. ECF No. 77. On June 24, 2026, Plaintiff filed their reply in support of the motion for class certification. ECF No. 88. In support of their motion, Plaintiff has sought to file several documents designated by Defendant as confidential pursuant to the protective order. Thus, Plaintiff has moved to file documents under seal. ECF No. 87. On July 8, 2026, Defendant filed a joinder in part to Plaintiff’s motion to seal. ECF No. 103. On July 1, 2026, Defendant filed a reply in support of its motion to exclude Plaintiff’s expert. ECF No. 96. Defendant has sought to file several documents designated by Defendant as confidential pursuant to the protective order. Thus, Defendant has moved to file documents under seal. ECF No. 94. Plaintiff filed an opposition to this motion on July 15, 2026. ECF No. 108. On July 1, 2026, Plaintiff filed an opposition to Defendants June 10, 2026 motion to seal. ECF No. 98. In support of their motion, Plaintiff has sought to file several documents designated by Defendant as confidential pursuant to the protective order. Thus, Plaintiff has moved to file documents under seal. ECF No. 97. On June 15, 2026, Defendant filed a joinder in part to Plaintiff’s motion to seal. ECF No. 110. On July 15, 2026, Plaintiff filed an opposition to the July 1, 2026 motion to seal. ECF Nos. 94, 103. In support of their motion, Plaintiff has sought to file several documents designated by Defendant as confidential pursuant to the protective order. Thus, Plaintiff has moved to file documents under seal. ECF No. 106. On July 17, 2026, Defendant filed a joinder in part to Plaintiff’s motion to seal. ECF No. 112. “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 n.7 (1978)). Thus, “[u]nless a particular court record is one ‘traditionally kept secret,’ a ‘strong presumption in favor of access is the starting point.’” Id. (citing Foltz v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Insurance Company, 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). Courts in the Ninth Circuit have generally held that the “compelling reasons” standard applies to motions to seal documents relating to class certification. See Adtrader, Inc. v. Google LLC, No. 17-CV-07082-BLF, 2020 WL 6391210, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2020) (collecting cases). Thus, a party seeking to seal a judicial record in relation to a motion for class certification must “articulate[] compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings . . . that outweigh the general history of access and public policies favoring disclosure.” Kamakana, 447 F. 3d at 1178-79 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Generally, “compelling reasons sufficient to outweigh the public's interest in disclosure and justify sealing court records exist 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.” Id. at 1179. Even so, “‘[a]ny order sealing documents should be narrowly tailored’ to serve those compelling reasons.” Doe v. L. Offs. of Winn & Sims, No. 06-CV- 00599-H-AJB, 2021 WL 9917688, at *1 (S.D. Cal. June 21, 2021), as modified (June 29, 2021) (quoting Ervine v. Warden, 214 F. Supp. 3d 917, 919 (E.D. Cal. 2016)). “Filings that are only tangentially related to the merits [of a case] may be sealed upon a lesser showing of ‘good cause.’” Adtrader, Inc., 2020 WL 6391210, at *2 (citing Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101-02 (9th Cir. 2016)). More specifically, “a ‘particularized showing’ . . . under the ‘good cause’ standard of Rule 26(c) will ‘suffice[] to warrant preserving the secrecy of sealed discovery material attached to non-dispositive motions.’” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180 (quoting Foltz, 331 F. 3d at 1135, 1138). “Good cause exists where the party seeking protection shows that specific prejudice or harm will result if no protective order is granted.” Anderson v. Marsh, 312 F.R.D. 584, 594 (E.D. Cal. 2015) (citing Phillips ex rel. Ests. of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002)). A party asserting good cause must offer more than “broad allegations of harm that are unsubstantiated by specific examples or articulated reasoning.” Id. Under both the good cause and compelling reasons standards, the presumption of access is not rebutted where documents are the subject of a blanket protective order, and parties must still meet the relevant standard for each piece of information they seek to file under seal. Kamakana, 447 F. 3d at 1179-80 (“The compelling reasons standard is invoked even if the dispositive motion, or its attachments, were previously filed under seal or protective order.”) (internal quotation marks omitted); Foltz, 331 F. 3d at 1133 (“a party seeking the protection of the court via a blanket protective order typically does not make the ‘good cause’ showing required by Rule 26(c) with respect to any particular document.”). The sealing motions before the Court address several sets of documents: (1) exhibits supporting Plaintiff’s motion for class certification; (2) Defendant’s opposition to class certification and supporting exhibits; (3) exhibits supporting Plaintiff’s reply in support of the motion for class certification; (4) portions of Defendant’s reply in support of its motion to exclude Plaintiff’s expert; (5) exhibits in support of Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendant’s motion to seal; and (6) exhibits in support of Plaintiff’s second opposition to Defendant’s motion to seal. The Court addresses each in turn. I. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Seal – Motion for Class Certification In moving to seal various documents—or portions thereof—in support of their motion for class certification, Plaintiff noted that each piece of information they seek to seal has been designated as confidential by Defendant. ECF No. 64 at 2.1 Further, Plaintiff states that they “take no position with regard to whether these documents have been properly designated,” noting that certain documents do not appear to meet the requirements of the motion. Id. at 5. Thus, Plaintiff does not present any reasons to seal particular information beyond noting that a document (1) was designated by Defendant as confidential or (2) relies on or refers to information designated by Defendant as confidential. See id. at 2-4. “Generally, a party seeking to seal judicial records bears the burden to demonstrate ‘compelling reasons’ to deny the public access to public records.” Baldwin v. United States, 732 F. Supp. 2d 1142, 1143 (D. N. Mar. I. 2010) (quoting Kamakana, 447 F. 3d at 1178). Here, while Plaintiffs are the party seeking to seal the records, Defendant is the party aiming to keep the information confidential. Accordingly, the Court finds that the burden is on Defendant to demonstrate compelling reasons for each document or piece of information they seek to seal.
1 Throughout the order, the pagination for docketed documents is derived from the numbering generated by the ECF system. Defendant’s counsel has filed a joinder in support of Plaintiff’s motion to seal, wherein it asserts that “there are compelling reasons to seal the information” identified in Plaintiff’s motion. ECF No. 80 at 2. However, the Court finds that Defendant’s conclusory explanations regarding why a piece of information should be sealed—for example, “the document contains sensitive and confidential P&G business information, including information regarding P&G’s strategic goals and objectives,” id. at 5—do not sufficiently “articulate[] compelling reasons supported by factual findings” to seal the materials, Kamakana, 447 F. 3d at 1178. When a party seeks to seal records to protect its own business interest, “information may be sealed from the public only if it is truly confidential, not generally known, and its disclosure would likely cause [the party] competitive harm.” Krommenhock v. Post Foods, LLC, 334 F.R.D. 552, 587 (N.D. Cal. 2020). Defendant does not specify how publication of much of the information identified in Plaintiffs’ motion to seal would cause Defendant competitive harm. In addition, the declaration does not address the filings on a line-by-line basis. See Kommenhock, 334 F.R.D. at 587. Lastly, the parties ask to seal many of the documents in their entirety rather than via partial redactions. See ECF No. 103, at 2-3. This includes over one hundred pages of exhibits, encapsulating blank slides and a vague email and chat conversation. See ECF No. 66-3. “Even where a document contains some information appropriate for sealing, a party may not seal the entire document and must narrowly tailor that party's request by only redacting the information appropriate for sealing.” Ameranth, Inc. v. Chownow, Inc., No. 20-CV-02167-BEN-BLM, 2021 WL 3678415, at *7 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2021). Where a party does seek to seal an entire document, “it must show that the possibility of prejudice or harm would not be defeated by redacting only the sensitive portions of said document.” Matthew v. United States, No. 3:25-CV-01664-JES-JLB, 2025 WL 1811828, at *1 (S.D. Cal. July 1, 2025) (citing In re Roman Cath. Archbishop, 661 F.3d 417, 425 (9th Cir. 2011)). Defendant’s requests to seal are poorly explained and facially overbroad. “These sorts of overbroad requests to seal will not be granted.” Krommenhock v. Post Foods, LLC, 334 F.R.D. 552, 587 (N.D. Cal. 2020). Accordingly, the Court rules on Plaintiff’s first motion to seal, ECF No. 64, as follows: PLAINITFFS’ MOTION TO SEAL – MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION Document Portion to be Sealed Alleged reason to Court’s Ruling Seal Class Certification Motion Redactions “[R]eferences DENIED. The ECF No. 66 sensitive and reasons provided are confidential P&G conclusory and “do business not rise to the level of information.” ECF ‘compelling reasons’ No. 80 at 4. sufficiently specific to bar the public access to the documents.” Kamankana, 447 F.3d at 1182. Exhibit 1 to the Decl. of Entire Document “[C]ontains sensitive DENIED as overly Naomi B. Spector in Support and confidential P&G broad. of Plaintiff’s Motion for business Class Certification (“NS information.” ECF There is no indication Decl.”) No. 80 at 5. this document should ECF No. 66 be sealed in its entirety rather than redacted. Additionally, the reasons provided are conclusory and “do not rise to the level of ‘compelling reasons’ sufficiently specific to bar the public access to the documents.” Kamankana, 447 F.3d at 1182. Exhibit 2 to NS Decl. Entire Document “[C]ontains sensitive DENIED as overly ECF No. 66 and confidential P&G broad. business information.” ECF There is no indication No. 80 at 5. this document should be sealed in its entirety rather than redacted. Additionally, the reasons provided are conclusory and “do not rise to the level of ‘compelling reasons’ sufficiently specific to bar the public access to the documents.” Kamankana, 447 F.3d at 1182. Exhibit 3 to NS Decl. Redactions “[C]ontains sensitive GRANTED. ECF No. 66 and confidential P&G business information, including information regarding P&G’s brand strategy and objectives.” ECF No. 8 at 5. Exhibit 4 to NS Decl. Entire Document Designated by DENIED as overly ECF No. 66 Defendant as broad. Confidential. ECF No. 64 at 3. There is no indication this document should be sealed in its entirety rather than redacted, and Defendants do not argue in support to seal this exhibit. Exhibit 5 to NS Decl. Entire Document Designated by DENIED as overly ECF No. 66 Defendant as broad. Confidential. ECF No. 64 at 3. There is no indication this document should be sealed in its entirety rather than redacted, and Defendants do not argue in support to seal this exhibit. Exhibit 6 to NS Decl. Entire Document Designated by DENIED as overly ECF No. 66 Defendant as broad. Confidential. ECF No. 64 at 3. There is no indication this document should be sealed in its entirety rather than redacted, and Defendants do not argue in support to seal this exhibit. Exhibit 7 to NS Decl. Entire Document “[C]ontains sensitive GRANTED. ECF No. 66 and confidential business information regarding P&G’s internal product certification efforts and related product- safety strategy.” ECF No. 80 at 6. Exhibit 8 to NS Decl. Entire Document “[C]ontains sensitive DENIED as overly ECF No. 66 and confidential P&G broad. business information.” ECF There is no indication No. 80 at 6. this document should be sealed in its entirety rather than redacted. Additionally, the reasons provided are conclusory and “do not rise to the level of ‘compelling reasons’ sufficiently specific to bar the public access to the documents.” Kamankana, 447 F.3d at 1182. Exhibit 9 to NS Decl. Entire Document Identical to Exhibit 2. DENIED as overly ECF No. 66 ECF No. 80 at 6. broad.
There is no indication this document should be sealed in its entirety rather than redacted. Additionally, the reasons provided are conclusory and “do not rise to the level of ‘compelling reasons’ sufficiently specific to bar the public access to the documents.” Kamankana, 447 F.3d at 1182. Exhibit 10 to NS Decl. Entire Document Identical to Exhibit 2. DENIED as overly ECF No. 66 ECF No. 80 at 6. broad. There is no indication this document should be sealed in its entirety rather than redacted. Additionally, the reasons provided are conclusory and “do not rise to the level of ‘compelling reasons’ sufficiently specific to bar the public access to the documents.” Kamankana, 447 F.3d at 1182. Exhibit 12 to NS Decl. Entire Document “[C]ontains sensitive DENIED as overly ECF No. 66 and confidential P&G broad. business information.” ECF There is no indication No. 80 at 7. this document should be sealed in its entirety rather than redacted. Additionally, the reasons provided are conclusory and “do not rise to the level of ‘compelling reasons’ sufficiently specific to bar the public access to the documents.” Kamankana, 447 F.3d at 1182. Exhibit 13 to NS Decl. Entire Document Designated by DENIED as overly ECF No. 66 Defendant as broad. Confidential. ECF No. 64 at 3. There is no indication this document should be sealed in its entirety rather than redacted, and Defendants do not argue in support to seal this exhibit. Exhibit 14 to NS Decl. Partial redactions “[C]ontains sensitive DENIED. Defendant ECF No. 66 and confidential P&G has provided no business information particularized factual regarding P&G’s showing to justify vendors and sealing the name of suppliers, and its supplier. In fact, discussion regarding courts have rejected the development of similar attempts to business plans, which file supplier names would be under seal. See, e.g., competitively HDT Bio Corp. v. harmful.” ECF No. Emcure Pharms., 80 at 7. Ltd., No. C22- 0334JLR, 2023 WL 8433121, at *3 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 5, 2023); Fitzhenry-Russell v. Dr. Pepper Snapple Grp., Inc., No. 17- CV-00564 NC, 2018 WL 10472795, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 23, 2018). Beyond suppliers and vendors, the document only specifies dates and discussions on lead. Defendant has not articulated what harm might result from disclosure of this information. Exhibit 15 to NS Decl. 144:8-20 “Contains sensitive GRANTED. ECF No. 66 and confidential data reflecting P&G’s sales of and revenue from the Products.” ECF No. 80 at 7. Exhibit 20 to NS Decl. Entire Document Designated by DENIED as overly ECF No. 66 Defendant as broad. Confidential. ECF No. 64 at 3. There is no indication this document should be sealed in its entirety rather than redacted, and Defendants do not argue in support to seal this exhibit. Exhibit 21 to NS Decl. Entire Document “[C]ontains sensitive DENIED as overly ECF No. 66 and confidential P&G broad. business information.” ECF There is no indication No. 80 at 8. this document should be sealed in its entirety rather than redacted. Additionally, the reasons provided are conclusory and “do not rise to the level of ‘compelling reasons’ sufficiently specific to bar the public access to the documents.” Kamankana, 447 F.3d at 1182. Exhibit 22 to NS Decl. Redactions “[C]ontains sensitive GRANTED. ECF No. 66 and confidential P&G business information regarding P&G’s strategic goals and objectives, P&G’s budgeting for and financial investment into corporate initiatives, and data reflecting P&G’s sales of and revenue from the Products.” ECF No. 80 at 8. Exhibit 23 to NS Decl. Entire Document Designated by DENIED as overly ECF No. 66 Defendant as broad. Confidential. ECF No. 64 at 4. There is no indication this document should be sealed in its entirety rather than redacted, and Defendants do not argue in support to seal this exhibit. Exhibit 24 to NS Decl. Redactions “[C]ontains sensitive GRANTED. ECF No. 66 and confidential P&G business information, including information regarding P&G’s internal communications strategy, product- safety strategy, risk- mitigation planning, and internal investigation of non- public testing issues.” Exhibit 25 to NS Decl. Redactions “[C]ontains sensitive GRANTED. ECF No. 66 and confidential P&G business information regarding P&G budgeting for and financial investment into corporate initiatives. ECF No. 80 at 9. Exhibit 26 to NS Decl. Entire Document Designated by DENIED as overly ECF No. 66 Defendant as broad. Confidential. ECF No. 64 at 4. There is no indication this document should be sealed in its entirety rather than redacted, and Defendants do not argue in support to seal this exhibit. Exhibit 29 to NS Decl. Redactions “[C]ontains sensitive GRANTED. ECF No. 66 and confidential P&G business information regarding P&G’s sales of and revenue from the Products.” ECF No. 80 at 9.
II. Defendant’s Motion to Seal – Opposition to Class Certification Defendant, in relation to its opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for class certification, has also sought to file certain documents or excerpts thereof under seal. ECF No. 109. Because the documents are in relation to a motion for class certification, the compelling reasons standard continues to apply. Adtrader, Inc., 2020 WL 6391210, at *2. Plaintiff opposes the motion, arguing that Defendant fails to provide compelling reasons, the documents are already publicly disclosed, and Defendant’s expert relies upon the documents. ECF No. 98 at 10-15. As with the declaration in support of Plaintiff’s motion to seal, Defendant’s declaration largely fails to articulate compelling reasons supported by factual findings to warrant sealing each particular document or piece of information. Specifically, Defendant fails to demonstrate concrete “prejudice or harm flowing from the disclosure of [each] specific document.” Al Otro Lado, Inc. v. McAleenan, No. 17-CV-02366-BAS-KSC, 2019 WL 6220898, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2019) (citing Unknown Parties v. Johnson, No. CV-15-00250-TUC-DCB, 2016 WL 8199309, at *4 (D. Ariz. June 27, 2016)). The Court rules on Defendant’s motion to seal, ECF No. 77, as follows: / / / / / / DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SEAL – OPPOSITION TO MOTION Document Portion to be Sealed Alleged reason to Court’s Ruling Seal Opposition Portions of pages 3-6, “References sensitive GRANTED as to 8, 15-18, 20-21, 23. competitive pages 3, 5:25-28, 6:1- information.” ECF 13. No. 77 at 6. DENIED as to the remaining redactions. The reasons provided are conclusory and “do not rise to the level of ‘compelling reasons’ sufficiently specific to bar the public access to the documents.” Kamankana, 447 F.3d at 1182. Iraolagoitia Declaration Portions of ¶¶ 3, 7- “References sensitive DENIED. The 11, 17-28, 31-45. competitive reasons provided are information.” ECF conclusory and “do No. 77 at 6. not rise to the level of ‘compelling reasons’ sufficiently specific to bar the public access to the documents.” Kamankana, 447 F.3d at 1182. Exhibit 4-13 and 15-22 to the Entire Document “Contains sensitive GRANTED as to Iraolagoitia Declaration and confidential P&G Exhibits 20-22. business information regarding P&G’s DENIED as overly internal testing broad as to the procedures, the remaining exhibits. results of P&G’s While Plaintiffs may confidential testing be able to identify and analysis of specific information Tampax and to be sealed (e.g., competitor products, product materials, and information confidential third- identifying P&G’s party vendors), this is vendors and not a basis to seal the suppliers.” ECF No. document in its 77 at 6. entirety. Also contain analyses of potential sources of lead, countries materials were sourced, information collected about competitors, and proprietary business strategies. ECF No. 102 at 8. Exhibit 2 to the Soukup Portions of pages “[R]eferences DENIED. The Opposition Declaration 161-166, 182-183 sensitive competitive reasons provided are information.” ECF conclusory and “do No. 77 at 7. not rise to the level of ‘compelling reasons’ sufficiently specific to bar the public access to the documents.” Kamankana, 447 F.3d at 1182. Exhibit 4 to the Soukup Portions of pages 3, “References sensitive DENIED. The Opposition Declaration 8, 10-11, 16, 21-26, competitive reasons provided are 32-33. information.” ECF conclusory and “do No. 77 at 7. not rise to the level of ‘compelling reasons’ sufficiently specific to bar the public access to the documents.” Kamankana, 447 F.3d at 1182. Exhibit 5 to the Soukup Portions of pages 11, “References sensitive DENIED. The Opposition Declaration 14-15. competitive reasons provided are information in conclusory and “do response to the 2024 not rise to the level of study.” ECF No. 77 ‘compelling reasons’ at 7. sufficiently specific to bar the public access to the documents.” Kamankana, 447 F.3d at 1182. Motion to Exclude Portions of pages i, “References sensitive DENIED. The 8-9, 18-20, 22-23. competitive reasons provided are information.” ECF conclusory and “do No. 77 at 7. not rise to the level of ‘compelling reasons’ sufficiently specific to bar the public access to the documents.” Kamankana, 447 F.3d at 1182. Exhibit 2 to the Soukup Portions of pages “References sensitive DENIED. The Exclusion Declaration 161-166, 182-183, competitive reasons provided are 194. information.” ECF conclusory and “do No. 77 at 7. not rise to the level of ‘compelling reasons’ sufficiently specific to bar the public access to the documents.” Kamankana, 447 F.3d at 1182. Exhibit 21 to the Soukup Portions of pages “[C]ertain pages of DENIED as Plaintiff Sealing Declaration 118, 125, 126, 130- Plaintiff’s deposition did not provide 132. transcript contained compelling reasons. private information about Plaintiff’s personal history that was designated as confidential.” ECF No. 8.
III. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Seal – Reply to Class Certification Plaintiff, in relation to her reply to the class certification motion, has also sought to file certain documents under seal. ECF No. 87. Because the documents are in relation to a motion for class certification, the compelling reasons standard continues to apply. Adtrader, Inc., 2020 WL 6391210, at *2. The Court rules on Plaintiff’s motion to seal, ECF No. 87, as follows: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SEAL – REPLY TO MOTION TO CERTIFY CLASS Document Portion to be Alleged reason to Seal Court’s Ruling Sealed Plaintiff’s Reply Redactions Contains “internal GRANTED as to consumer sentiment 2:6-7, 2: 8-9, 4:4, 4 survey involving fn.6, 5:19-21, 6:1-7, competitor brands, 6:15-18, 6 fn.13, internal analysis of 7:13. these surveys, and internal brand and DENIED as to the product-messaging remaining strategy plans, which redactions, which do would be competitively not show clear harmful…[C]ompetitors references to the could potentially confidential leverage information to information emulate P&G’s testing Defendant alludes to procedures, make and provides copies of its products, compelling reasons duplicate its marketing for. Additionally, strategies or marketing some of the research, or attempt to redactions identified disrupt P&G’s attempt to seal relationships with its already public suppliers.” ECF No. information. 103 at 5. Exhibit 1 to the Decl. of Redactions Some pages are not GRANTED. Naomi B. Spector in cited to in the Reply, Support of Plaintiff’s and there are not Motion for Class compelling reasons to Certification (“NS Decl.”) make those pages public. ECF No. 103 at 6. Page 43 contains test information that were done on a per- component basis and could assist competitors in identifying the material composition and raw materials suppliers for each of the component parts of the Products. Id. Exhibit 2 to NS Decl. Entire Document Designated by DENIED as overly Defendant as broad. Confidential. ECF No. 87 at 2. There is no indication this document should be sealed in its entirety rather than redacted, and Defendants do not argue in support to seal this exhibit. Exhibit 3 to NS Decl. Entire Document Designated by DENIED as overly Defendant as broad. Confidential. ECF No. 87 at 2. There is no indication this document should be sealed in its entirety rather than redacted, and Defendants do not argue in support to seal this exhibit. Exhibit 4 to NS Decl. Entire Document “Public disclosure of DENIED as overly this information would broad. reveal what brands and products P&G considers There is no competitors to Tampax indication this and proprietary business document should be strategies and sealed in its entirety recommendations rather than redacted. which competitors Additionally, the could emulate to gain reasons provided are competitive advantage.” conclusory and “do ECF No. 103 at 7. not rise to the level of ‘compelling reasons’ sufficiently specific to bar the public access to the documents.” Kamankana, 447 F.3d at 1182. Exhibit 5 to NS Decl. Entire Document Contains summary of DENIED as overly internal consumer broad. sentiment research and internal suggestions for There is no changes to brand indication this strategy that document should be competitors could sealed in its entirety emulate. ECF No. 103 rather than redacted. at 7. Additionally, the reasons provided are conclusory and “do not rise to the level of ‘compelling reasons’ sufficiently specific to bar the public access to the documents.” Kamankana, 447 F.3d at 1182. IV. Defendant’s Motion to Seal – Reply to Motion to Exclude Expert Defendant, in relation to its reply in support of its motion to exclude Plaintiff’s expert, has also sought to file certain documents or excerpts thereof under seal. ECF No. 94. Because the documents are in relation to a motion for class certification, the compelling reasons standard continues to apply. Adtrader, Inc., 2020 WL 6391210, at *2. The Court rules on Defendant’s motion to seal, ECF No. 94, as follows: DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SEAL – REPLY TO MOTION TO EXCLUDE Document Portion to be Sealed Alleged reason to Court’s Ruling Seal Defendant’s Reply Portions of pages 8, “References to DENIED. The 9, and 10. sensitive competitive reasons provided are information conclusory and “do regarding P&G’s not rise to the level of internal testing ‘compelling reasons’ procedures and the sufficiently specific results of P&G’s to bar the public confidential testing access to the and analysis of documents.” Tampax and Kamankana, 447 competitor products.” F.3d at 1182. ECF No. 94 at 6. V. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Seal – Opposition to Motion to Seal Plaintiff, in relation to its opposition to Defendant’s motion to seal, has also sought to file certain documents or excerpts thereof under seal. ECF No. 94. The motion to seal is not subject to the compelling reasons standard previously analyzed. Instead, “a ‘particularized showing’ . . . under the ‘good cause’ standard of Rule 26(c) will ‘suffice[] to warrant preserving the secrecy of sealed discovery material attached to non-dispositive motions.’” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180 (quoting Foltz, 331 F. 3d at 1135, 1138). However, even under the good cause standard, parties must show more than the mere fact that information is subject to a protective order. See Anderson v. Marsh, 312 F.R.D. 584, 594 (E.D. Cal. 2015). The Court rules on Plaintiff’s motion to seal, ECF No. 97, as follows: PLAINITFFS’ MOTION TO SEAL – OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO SEAL Document Portion to be Sealed Alleged reason to Court’s Ruling Seal Plaintiff’s Opposition to Redactions Portions include DENIED as overly Motion to Seal results of internal broad as they cover product-safety entire pages of the analysis, the results document rather than of an internal line-by-line consumer sentiment redactions. Also, the survey involving reasons provided are competitor brands, conclusory and do internal analysis of not meet a good these surveys, and cause showing. internal brand and Anderson, 312 F.R.D. product-messaging at 594. strategy plans.” ECF No. 110 at 5. Exhibit 1 of the Declaration Redactions Portions not cited in GRANTED as to of Benjamin J. Sweet in the Sealing pages 2, 4-7, 9-15, support of Plaintiff’s Opposition, and other 17-21, 23-26. Opposition to Defendant’s portions contain Motion to Seal and business information DENIED as overly Defendant’s Joinder in Part regarding internal broad to the to Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal product-safety remaining four pages. (“BJS Decl.”) analysis and The reasons provided assessment of non- are conclusory and public testing do not meet a good information. ECF No. cause showing. 110 at 6. As to page Anderson, 312 F.R.D. 7, the page contains at 594. information that could assist competitors in identifying the material composition and raw materials suppliers for each of the component parts of the Tampax products. Id. Exhibit 2 of BJS Decl. Redactions Portions not cited in GRANTED as to the Sealing pages 1-45, 47-85, Opposition, and other 88-118, 122-234. portions discuss nonpublic product- DENIED as overly safety testing. broad to the remaining six pages. The reasons provided are conclusory and do not meet a good cause showing. Anderson, 312 F.R.D. at 594. Exhibit 3 of BJS Decl. Entire Document Designated by DENIED as overly Defendant as broad. Confidential. ECF No. 97 at 2. There is no indication this document should be sealed in its entirety rather than redacted, and Defendants do not argue in support to seal this exhibit. Exhibit 4 of BJS Decl. Entire Document Designated by DENIED as overly Defendant as broad. Confidential. ECF No. 97 at 2. There is no indication this document should “[C]ontains a be sealed in its discussion of entirety rather than nonpublic business redacted, and and marketing Defendants do not strategies” ECF No. argue in support to 110 at 7. seal this exhibit. Additionally, the reasons provided are conclusory and do not meet a good cause showing. Anderson, 312 F.R.D. at 594. Exhibit 5 of BJS Decl. Entire Document Designated by DENIED as overly Defendant as broad. Confidential. ECF No. 97 at 2. There is no indication this document should “[C]ontains summary be sealed in its of internal consumer entirety rather than sentiment research redacted, and and internal Defendants do not suggestions for argue in support to changes to brand seal this exhibit. strategy as a result of Additionally, the that research.” ECF reasons provided are No. 110 at 8. conclusory and do not meet a good cause showing. Anderson, 312 F.R.D. at 594. Exhibit 6 of BJS Decl. Entire Document Designated by DENIED as overly Defendant as broad. Confidential. ECF No. 97 at 2. There is no indication this document should be sealed in its entirety rather than redacted, and Defendants do not argue in support to seal this exhibit. Exhibit 7 of BJS Decl. Entire Document “Not cited in GRANTED. Plaintiff’s Sealing Opposition.” ECF No. 110 at 8. Exhibit 8 of BJS Decl. Entire Document Designated by DENIED as overly Defendant as broad.
Confidential. ECF There is no indication No. 97 at 3. this document should be sealed in its entirety rather than redacted, and Defendants do not argue in support to seal this exhibit. Exhibit 9 of BJS Decl. Entire Document Designated by DENIED as overly Defendant as broad. Confidential. ECF No. 97 at 3. There is no indication this document should be sealed in its entirety rather than redacted, and Defendants do not argue in support to seal this exhibit. Exhibit 10 of BJS Decl. Entire Document Designated by DENIED as overly Defendant as broad. Confidential. ECF No. 97 at 3. There is no indication this document should be sealed in its entirety rather than redacted, and Defendants do not argue in support to seal this exhibit. Exhibit 11 of BJS Decl. Entire Document Designated by DENIED as overly Defendant as broad. Confidential. ECF No. 97 at 3. There is no indication this document should be sealed in its entirety rather than redacted, and Defendants do not argue in support to seal this exhibit. Exhibit 12 of BJS Decl. Entire Document Designated by DENIED as overly Defendant as broad. Confidential. ECF No. 97 at 4. There is no indication this document should be sealed in its entirety rather than redacted, and Defendants do not argue in support to seal this exhibit. Exhibit 13 of BJS Decl. Entire Document Designated by DENIED as overly Defendant as broad. Confidential. ECF No. 97 at 3. There is no indication this document should be sealed in its entirety rather than redacted, and Defendants do not argue in support to seal this exhibit. Exhibit 14 of BJS Decl. Entire Document Designated by DENIED as overly Defendant as broad. Confidential. ECF No. 97 at 4. There is no indication this document should be sealed in its entirety rather than redacted, and Defendants do not argue in support to seal this exhibit. Exhibit 15 of BJS Decl. Entire Document Designated by DENIED as overly Defendant as broad. Confidential. ECF No. 97 at 4. There is no indication this document should be sealed in its entirety rather than redacted, and Defendants do not argue in support to seal this exhibit. Exhibit 16 of BJS Decl. Entire Document “Not cited in GRANTED. Plaintiff’s Sealing Opposition.” ECF No. 110 at 10. Exhibit 17 of BJS Decl. Entire Document Designated by DENIED as overly Defendant as broad. Confidential. ECF No. 97 at 4. There is no indication this document should “[C]ontains sensitive be sealed in its and confidential P&G entirety rather than business information redacted, and regarding internal Defendants do not product-safety argue in support to analysis.” ECF No. seal this exhibit. 110 at 10. Additionally, the reasons provided are conclusory and do not meet a good cause showing. Anderson, 312 F.R.D. at 594. Exhibit 18 of BJS Decl. Entire Document Designated by DENIED as overly Defendant as broad. Confidential. ECF No. 97 at 4. There is no indication this document should be sealed in its entirety rather than redacted, and Defendants do not argue in support to seal this exhibit.
VI. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Seal – Opposition to Motion to Seal Plaintiff, in relation to its opposition to Defendant’s motion to seal, has also sought to file certain documents or excerpts thereof under seal. ECF No. 106. The motion to seal is not subject to the compelling reasons standard previously analyzed. Instead, “a ‘particularized showing’ . . . under the ‘good cause’ standard of Rule 26(c) will ‘suffice[] to warrant preserving the secrecy of sealed discovery material attached to non-dispositive motions.’” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180 (quoting Foltz, 331 F. 3d at 1135, 1138). However, even under the good cause standard, parties must show more than the mere fact that information is subject to a protective order. See Anderson v. Marsh, 312 F.R.D. 584, 594 (E.D. Cal. 2015). The Court rules on Plaintiff’s motion to seal, ECF No. 106, as follows: PLAINITFFS’ MOTION TO SEAL – OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO SEAL Document Portion to be Sealed Alleged reason to Court’s Ruling Seal Plaintiff’s Opposition to Redactions Portions include DENIED. The Motion to Seal results of internal reasons provided are testing procedures conclusory and do and business strategy not meet a good discussions. ECF No. cause showing. 112 at 5. Anderson, 312 F.R.D. at 594.
VII. Counsel Must Provide the Court with Narrower Proposed Redactions All denials in this order are without prejudice. Within twenty (20) days of this order, the parties shall meet and confer and, subsequently, file a singular chart identifying by document name, sealed document number, and page and line/paragraph number the precise information they maintain should remain under seal. The chart shall also include citations to a declaration from a source with the required personal knowledge attesting as to the compelling reason why sealing is necessary. See, e.g., Krommenhock, 334 F.R.D. at 587; Mendell v. Am. Med. Response, Inc., No. 19-CV-01227-BAS-KSC, 2021 WL 398486, at 3 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 3, 2021). The filings now conditionally under seal will remain conditionally under seal until the Court’s final ruling on sealing after reviewing the chart and declarations. At that juncture, the parties will be directed to file redacted documents that redact only the information the Court has determined may remain under seal. For the foregoing reasons, the motions to seal are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The parties are ORDERED to meet and confer and file with the Court, within twenty (20) days of this Order, a chart identifying narrower redactions and sealing requests. Dated: August 26, 2026 72 st Hon. athe Cee United States District Judge 30 24-cv-1332-GPC-SBC