J.J., C.D., C.B., and D.F., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ashlynn Marketing Group, Inc.

Opinion

J.J., C.D., C.B., and D.F., individually and Case No.: 3:24-cv-00311-GPC-MSB on behalf of all others similarly situated, ORDER DENYING WITHOUT Plaintiffs, PREJUDICE PLAINTIFFS’ AND v. DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS TO SEAL

ASHLYNN MARKETING GROUP, [ECF Nos. 103, 109, 112] INC., Defendant.

This case concerns Defendant’s alleged failure to warn consumers of the purportedly addictive nature of kratom when marketing and labeling its kratom-based products. Currently pending before the Court are both Plaintiffs’ and Defendant’s motions to file documents under seal. ECF Nos. 103, 109, & 112. For the reasons set forth below, the motions are DENIED without prejudice. BACKGROUND The factual background of this case has been outlined by this Court in previous orders. See ECF No. 77. Thus, the Court will address only those facts relevant to the motions now before it. On March 7, 2025, Plaintiffs J.J., C.D., C.B., and D.F. filed their Consolidated Class Action Complaint (CCAC), individually and on behalf of three putative classes, alleging that Defendant failed to warn consumers of the potentially addictive nature of its products, which contain dried leaves from a plant called kratom. ECF No. 50. Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that Defendant misled consumers by espousing the purported health benefits of kratom without disclosing kratom’s addictive properties on its product labels or in its advertising. Id. at 8, 16. Before Plaintiffs filed the operative complaint, on April 18, 2024, the parties filed a joint motion for entry of a stipulated protective order. ECF No. 13. The joint stipulation noted that this case is likely to involve confidential or sensitive information, and provided that either party may designate any materials as confidential. ECF No. 13-1, at 4-5. The stipulation goes on to mandate that, should either party file a document designated as confidential with the Court, the party must seek permission from the Court to file the material under seal. Id. at 9. On April 26, 2024, United States Magistrate Judge Michael S. Berg granted the joint motion for entry of stipulated protective order. ECF No. 14. Plaintiffs have now moved for class certification. ECF No. 105. In support of their motion, Plaintiffs have 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. 103. In opposing Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, ECF No. 111, Defendant has also sought to file information designated as confidential pursuant to the protective order. Defendant has moved to file those documents under seal. ECF No. 109. Lastly, Plaintiffs have moved for sanctions. ECF No. 114. To abide by the protective order, Plaintiffs have again filed an accompanying motion to file documents under 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 three sets of documents: (1) exhibits supporting Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification; (2) Defendant’s opposition to class certification and supporting exhibits; and (3) exhibits supporting Plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions. 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, Plaintiffs note that each piece of information they seek to seal has been designated as confidential by Defendant. ECF No. 103, at 2-3. Further, Plaintiffs state that they “take no position with regard to whether these documents have been properly designated,” ECF No. 103, at 4, and ask to seal the documents only “to comply with their obligations pursuant to the Protective Order in this matter,” ECF No. 103-1, at 2. Thus, Plaintiffs do 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 ECF No. 103-1, at 3 “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. Defendant’s counsel has filed a declaration in support of Plaintiffs’ motion to seal, wherein he asserts that “there are compelling reasons to seal the testimony and documents identified in Plaintiffs’ motion.” ECF No. 108, at 2. However, the Court finds that Defendant’s conclusory explanations regarding why a piece of information should be sealed—for example, “the [testimony] identif[ies] Defendant’s suppliers,” ECF No. 108, at 2—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 most of the information identified in Plaintiffs’ motion to seal—which includes such vague testimony as a witness’ opinion that Defendant could, if needed, add up units sold over a given period—would cause Defendant competitive harm. In addition, the declaration does not, with two exceptions, address the filings on a line-by-line basis. See Kommenhock, 334 F.R.D. at 587. Further, to the extent Defendant argues that publication of the information will harm Defendant’s business interests, Defendant’s counsel lacks the required personal knowledge of such business interests for his declaration to constitute factual evidence supporting a compelling reason. See Mendell v. Am. Med. Response, Inc., No. 19-CV-01227-BAS-KSC, 2021 WL 398486, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 3, 2021) (“[D]eclarations by counsel who lacks personal knowledge of or the foundation for the alleged harm from disclosure—for example, harm to the business interests of [defendant]—cannot constitute factual evidence that supports a ‘compelling reason’”); Pac. Marine Propellers, Inc. v. Wartsila Def., Inc., No. 17-CV-555-L-NLS, 2018 WL 6601671, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2018) (finding that the declaration by counsel was not enough to meet the “compelling reasons” standard because counsel lacked personal knowledge of or foundation for the assertions that the information at issue might harm the defendant company's competitive standing); Signal Hill Serv., Inc. v. Macquarie Bank Ltd., No. CV-11-01539-MMM-JEMX, 2013 WL 12244287, at *3 (C.D. Cal. May 14, 2013) (assigning “no weight” to the conclusory declaration by plaintiff's counsel that disclosure of the information at issue could harm the plaintiff's business where the plaintiff did not demonstrate that counsel had personal knowledge about the harm asserted). Lastly, the parties ask to seal most of the documents in their entirety rather than via partial redactions. See ECF No. 103, at 2-3. This includes over three hundred pages of expert reports produced by Plaintiffs. See ECF Nos. 104-1, 104-2, & 104-3. Defendant also seeks to seal entire exhibits because, for example, they “include cell phone numbers.” ECF No. 108, at 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 Plaintiffs’ first motion to seal, ECF No. 103, as follows: PLAINITFFS’ MOTION TO SEAL – MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION Record Description Record and Portion Alleged reason to seal Court’s Ruling of Record to be Sealed Exhibit 1 to the 57:8-10 “The redacted portions DENIED as to 57:8-10 Declaration of 58:1-2; of Exhibit 1 at 57:8-10, 58:1-2; 58:5. Defendant has Neal J. 58:5 58:1-2, and 58:5 identify provided no particularized Deckant in 286:22- Defendant’s suppliers. factual showing to justify Support of 287:8 The redacted portions of sealing the name of its Plaintiff’s 299:5-15 Exhibit 1 at 286:22- supplier. In fact, courts have Motion for 287:8 discuss proprietary rejected similar attempts to Class marketing/search engine file supplier names under Certification optimization strategy seal. See, e.g., HDT Bio (“NJD and methods. The Corp. v. Emcure Pharms., Declaration”) – redacted portions of Ltd., No. C22-0334JLR, Excerpts from Exhibit 1 at 299:4-15 2023 WL 8433121, at *3 Wasem explain Defendant’s (W.D. Wash. Dec. 5, 2023); Saliman pricing structure.” ECF Fitzhenry-Russell v. Dr. deposition No. 108, at 2. Pepper Snapple Grp., Inc., No. 17-CV-00564 NC, 2018 ECF 104, at 6 WL 10472795, at *1 (N.D. – 34 Cal. Apr. 23, 2018).

DENIED as to 286:22- 287:8. The testimony does not reveal proprietary marketing information. It only states that Defendant could, if needed, add up all units sold over a given period.

DENIED as to 299:5-15. The testimony only stands for the general proposition that Defendant’s item prices are consistent on its website and across states. It is unclear how this information—discussed using hypothetical prices— would harm Defendant’s market position, and Defendant does not provide a factual basis for such a finding.

NJD Decl. Entire Sales information is DENIED. Exhibit 2 – Document “broken down in such Excel table detail that it could While the pricing, sales, and depicting top undermine Defendant’s revenue information line sales, position if made public.” contained in the document profit margin, ECF No. 108, at 3. may be “detailed enough to total units sold constitute the kind of sales and average data that could undermine unit price for [Defendant’s] market Defendant position if made public,” from 2023- Lucas v. Breg, Inc., No. 15- 2024, broken cv-00258-BAS-NLS, 2016 down by WL 5464549, *2 (S.D. Cal. California, Sept. 28, 2016), Defendant Florida, New has offered no supporting York, Texas, evidence from a declarant and with personal knowledge of Washington Defendant’s business interests that publication of ECF No. 104, such information would at 35 – 36 cause Defendant competitive harm. NJD Decl. 121:8 “The redacted portion of DENIED as to 121:8 for Exhibit 4 – 203:1-11 Exhibit 4 at 121:8 reasons articulated above Excerpts from 204:1-5 identifies Defendant’s regarding Defendant’s Wasem supplier. The redacted supplier. Saliman portions of Exhibit 4 at deposition 203:1-11 and DENIED as to 203:1-11 and 204:1-5 identifies 204:1-5. The testimony ECF No. 104, internal shipping review reveals only that at 40 – 62 practices and Defendant’s suppliers ship documentation handling. to Defendant domestically The redacted portions rather than internationally. are narrowly tailored to This is not sufficiently protect only sensitive detailed to harm information.” ECF No. Defendant’s competitive 108, at 3. standing, and Defendant has not articulated what harm might result from disclosure.

NJD Decl. The document was DENIED as overly broad. Exhibit 5 – E- Entire identified as mail produced Document “CONFIDENTIAL” and There is no indication this in discovery the “email includes document should be sealed designated as confidential pricing in its entirety rather than confidential by information.” ECF No. redacted. Defendant 108, at 3. If Defendant provides evidence from a party with personal knowledge of ECF No. 104, Defendant’s business at 63 – 64 interests that publication of the pricing information included in the document may harm Defendant’s market position, then Defendant may redact specific account numbers, quantities, and dollar amounts. However, it may not redact non-confidential materials. See HDT Bio Corp. v. Emcure Pharms., Ltd., 2023 WL 8433121, at *3. NJD Decl. “The information DENIED as overly broad. Exhibit 6 – Entire identifies Defendant’s Copy of bills Document supplier” ECF No. 108, Defendant seeks to seal the of lading at 3. document only because the document identifies ECF No. 104, Defendant’s supplier. The at 65 – 68 Court has already found that Defendant has not presented a compelling reason for sealing such information. If Defendant does provide such a reason, it would not justify sealing this document in its entirety. NJD Decl. The documents were DENIED as to the Exhibit 8 – Entire identified as document as a whole. While WhatsApp Document “CONFIDENTIAL” and Defendant vaguely alleges message thread “include cell phone that the document contains and images numbers for non-parties “proprietary information,” produced in to the action and Defendant provides no discovery and proprietary information.” additional detail, and it is designated as ECF No. 108, at 3. not at all clear to the Court confidential by what proprietary Defendant information is contained within the document nor ECF No. 104, what harm its publication at 101 – 104 might cause. Conversely, there are compelling reasons to seal the personal contact information contained in the document, and such information should be redacted. See Clark v. InComm Fin. Servs., Inc., No. ED-CV-22-1839-JGB- SHKX, 2024 WL 1699346, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 9, 2024). Dr. Lynn Entire “The results generated DENIED as overly broad. Matthews Document by the report are based Expert Report on Plaintiffs’ proposed The Parties seek to seal a warning label (which 313-page expert report ECF No. 104-2 does not exist on because it discusses a study Defendant’s products). wherein participants were The report, therefore, is shown kratom products with based on Plaintiffs’ a warning label. The request litigation strategy and is overbroad, and the parties the results may be used have made no good faith by competitors to harm effort to limit the Defendant.” ECF No. information subject to seal. 108, at 3-4. Additionally, the Court notes that the results of the study are included in Plaintiffs’ unsealed motion for class certification, ECF No. 105, at 17. Dr. Daniel Entire “[R]efers, describes DENIED as overly broad. Overbeek Document and/or relies on Expert Report documents and “Courts throughout the information that Ninth Circuit have ECF No. 104-3 Plaintiffs designated as recognized that the need to ‘Confidential,’ namely protect medical privacy discussion of the named generally qualifies as a Plaintiffs’ medical compelling reason histories and their to seal records.” Salgado v. discovery responses, and Iqvia, Inc., No. 18-CV- ‘screenshots’ of 2785-BAS-WVG, 2020 WL webpages . . . 1322949, at *2 (S.D. Cal. purportedly from ‘Krave Mar. 20, 2020) (collecting Botanicals Website’ cases). However, while [that are] not publicly Plaintiffs may be able to available. There are identify specific medical compelling reasons to information to be sealed, seal the report because it this is not a basis to seal the is based upon Plaintiffs’ expert report in its entirety. discovery responses (which they have designated as ‘Confidential’) and non- publicly available screenshots.” ECF No. 108, at 4. Dr. William Entire “[R]efers to, describes, DENIED as overly broad. Ingersol Expert Document and relies on documents Report and information that Defendant designated as ECF No. 104-1 ‘Confidential’ pursuant to the Protective Order [including] (1) pages 286-287 of the Declaration of Wasem Saliman . . . a portion of which is the subject of Plaintiffs’ motion to seal, . . . (2) excel spreadsheets . . . which identify Defendant’s profit margin by year, then by state and year . . . as well as number of products sold by year, and (3) . . . aggregated sales numbers by city . . . which is information broken down in sufficient detail that such information would not be publicly available.” ECF No. 108, at 4.

II. Defendant’s Motion to Seal – Opposition to Class Certification Defendant, in relation to its opposition to Plaintiffs’ 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. In Defendant’s motion, it is not always clear which party has designated certain information as confidential. For example, Defendant notes that the declaration of Dr. Kristen Smith “relies on and contains references to information produced by Plaintiffs and designated as ‘Confidential,’” and “[b]ecause Dr. Smith’s declaration refers to and quotes materials from the expert reports filed by Plaintiffs, Defendant agrees that Dr. Smith’s declaration should be sealed.” ECF No. 109-1, at 2. However, Plaintiffs previously noted that Defendant, not Plaintiffs, designated Plaintiffs’ expert reports as confidential. ECF No. 103, at 3. Defendant is clear that some redactions—specifically, redactions in Plaintiffs’ deposition transcripts—are proposed solely due to Plaintiff’s designation of the information as confidential, and that Defendant “takes no position regarding whether . . . [the] information [has] been properly designated.” ECF No. 109, at 5. Despite allegedly being the party hoping to maintain portions of Plaintiffs’ transcripts confidential, Plaintiffs have not provided a declaration in support of Defendant’s motion. Thus, the only evidence and reasoning in support of Defendant’s motion to seal is in a declaration provided by Defendant’s counsel. ECF No. 109, at 2-3; ECF No. 109-1. As with the declaration in support of Plaintiffs’ 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)). Further, Defendant’s requests—as with Plaintiffs’—largely seek to seal documents in their entirety rather than through carefully considered, line-by-line redactions. A party should not seal an entire document when narrowly tailored redactions may serve the purpose of ameliorating harm or prejudice. See Ameranth, Inc., 2021 WL 3678415, at *7; Matthew, 2025 WL 1811828. Accordingly, the Court rules on Defendant’s motion to seal, ECF No. 109, as follows: DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SEAL – OPPOSITION TO CLASS Record Description Record and Portion Alleged reason to seal Court’s Ruling of Record to be Sealed Declaration of Entire “[R]elies on and DENIED as overly broad. Dr. Kirsten Document contains references to Smith information produced by Plaintiffs and ECF No. 110- designated as 5 ‘Confidential’ pursuant to the Protective Order. Because Dr. Smith’s declaration refers to and quotes materials from the expert reports filed by Plaintiffs, Defendant agrees that Dr. Smith’s declaration should be sealed.” ECF No. 109-1, at 2. Declaration of Entire “[R]elies on and DENIED as overly broad. Rob Wallace Document contains references to information produced ECF No. 110- by Defendant 6 and designated as ‘Confidential’ pursuant to the Protective Order. Although Defendant’s product labeling is publicly available, a comprehensive survey of consumers’ understanding of Defendant’s labels is not publicly available. The information contained in Mr. Wallace’s report has the potential to be misused by competitors.” ECF No. 109-1, at 2–3. Declaration of Entire “Dr. Forister’s report DENIED as overly broad. Dr. Eric Document references and relies Forister upon documents (and references reports that ECF No. 110- rely upon documents) 4 that constitute Defendant’s marketing and business practices and confidential pricing information, which information is broken down into sufficient detail that such information would not be publicly available.” ECF No. 109-1, at 3. Declaration of Entire The declaration DENIED as overly broad. Dr. Edward Document “contains references to Boyer expert report of Dr. Andrea Matthews.” ECF No. 110- ECF No. 109-1, at 3. 3

Exhibit A to 64:9-25, “Plaintiffs have DENIED as overly broad. Declaration of 79:9-15, designated limited Andrew P. 80:1-25, portions of [the As an initial matter, Plaintiff Young in 81:1-21, testimony] as has failed to provide any Support of 82:20-25, ‘Confidential’ pursuant compelling reason for Defendant’s 83:1-88:21, to the Protective Order.” sealing the information, and Opposition to 90:1-11, ECF No. 109-1, at 4. Defendant’s only asserted Plaintiffs’ 114:2- reason for sealing is that Motion for 115:25, Plaintiff has designated the Class 155:1-8, information as confidential. Certification 160:9- Further, portions of the (“APY Decl.”) 162:8, health information discussed – 201:1-25 in the transcript are also Excerpts of contained in Plaintiffs’ deposition of unsealed amended class Plaintiff C.B. action complaint. ECF No. 50. Lastly, the proposed redactions include entire ECF No. 110- pages of transcript, including 1, at 5 – 41 conversation amongst counsel. Such content is not properly subject to seal. See Al Otro Lado, Inc. v. Wolf, No. 317CV02366BASKSC, 2020 WL 4336064, at *6 (S.D. Cal. July 27, 2020).

Exhibit D to 43:11- “Plaintiffs have DENIED as overly broad for APY Decl. – 46:18, designated limited the same reasons outlined Excerpts of 69:1-25 portions of [the above. Declaration testimony] as with Plaintiff ‘Confidential’ pursuant D.F to the Protective Order.” ECF No. 109-1, at 4. ECF No. 110- 1, at 76 – 94 Exhibit E to Entire “Since Plaintiffs’ expert DENIED as overly broad APY Decl. – Document reports were designated Excerpts of as confidential in their Deposition of entirety, Plaintiffs Dr. William indicated that the expert Robert testimony should also Ingersoll. be designated as confidential in its entirety. Defendant ECF No. 110- agrees that the 1, at 95 – 102 deposition testimony of Dr. Ingersoll should be sealed, as the testimony relies on and refers to confidential pricing information produced by Defendant, which is broken down into sufficient detail that it is not publicly available.” ECF No. 109-1, at 4. Exhibit F to Entire “Since Plaintiffs’ expert DENIED as overly broad APY Decl. – Document reports were designated Excerpts of as confidential in their Deposition of entirety, Plaintiffs Dr. Daniel indicated that the expert Overbeek testimony should also be designated as ECF No. 110- confidential in its 1, at 103 – 114 entirety. Defendant agrees that the deposition testimony of Dr. Overbeek should be sealed, as the testimony relies on Plaintiffs’ discovery responses and discusses Plaintiffs’ medical history.” ECF No. 109-1, at 4. Exhibit G to Entire “Since Plaintiffs’ expert DENIED as overly broad APY Decl. – Document reports were designated Excerpts of as confidential in their Deposition of entirety, Plaintiffs Dr. Andrea indicated that the expert Matthews testimony should also be designated as ECF No. 110- confidential in its 1, at 115 – 124 entirety. Defendant agrees that the deposition testimony of Dr. Matthews should be sealed.” ECF No. 109-1, at 5. Defendant’s 15:13-15, “Because Defendant’s DENIED. For reasons Memorandum 15:28, Opposition quotes articulated in this order, of Points and 16:20-24, deposition testimony many of the materials Authorities in 16:28, that has been marked as referenced in Defendant’s Support of 17:10-12, ‘Confidential,’ memorandum of points and Opposition 17:1314, Defendant redacted that authorities in support of its 17:24-28, quoted testimony in its opposition are not properly ECF No. 110 24:16-19, Memorandum of Points subject to seal. Once the (unredacted); 24:25-28, and Authorities filed in scope of the proposed seal ECF No. 11 30:21-22 support of its has been narrowed, (redacted) Opposition.” ECF No. Defendant should adjust the 109-1, at 5. redactions in its memorandum accordingly. Declaration of Entire “Defendant designated DENIED as overly broad Wasem Document the declaration of Saliman Wasem Saliman, Defendant’s Chief ECF No. 110- Executive Officer, as 2 ‘Confidential’ because it refers to trade secret and proprietary information with respect to Defendant’s labelling.” III. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Seal – Motion for Sanctions Lastly, Plaintiffs have sought to redact exhibits to their motion for sanctions. Specifically, Plaintiff seeks to seal portions of Wasem Saliman’s deposition transcript. ECF No. 113. Plaintiffs again note that the information they seek to seal has been designated as confidential by Defendant and that Plaintiffs “take no position on whether Defendant’s confidentiality designations are substantively justified . . . To the extent any further showing is required, Defendant bears the burden of establishing good cause of compelling reasons for maintaining the seal.” ECF No. 112, at 2-3. Because the excerpts are in support of Plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions, 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 protective order entered in this case was the product of a stipulation. See ECF No. 14. While Magistrate Judge Berg found the stipulated order was supported by good cause, he did not make “an individualized determination as to specific documents.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1183. Thus, this is not the “kind of protective order[] . . . that can automatically supply the good cause required to seal the documents [it] cover[s].” BT Collective v. IP Holdings, LLC, No. 11-CV-0021-LAB-WVG, 2011 WL 5873388, at *5 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 23, 2011); see also 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.”). Instead, “[g]ood cause exists where the party seeking protection shows that specific prejudice or harm will result” if the request to seal is denied.” Anderson, 312 F.R.D. at 594. Here, neither party—Plaintiffs, who have moved to seal, nor Defendant, who has designated the information as confidential—has made a particularized showing of good cause such that specific prejudice or harm will result if the request for seal is denied. Reviewing the redacted information in the transcript, it is not evident to the Court how publication of the redacted information would cause any party harm or prejudice. Thus, Plaintiffs’ second motion to seal, ECF No. 112, is DENIED. IV. 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 yuncture, 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, it is HEREBY ORDERED: e Plaintiffs’ motion to file documents under seal in connection with their motion for class certification, ECF No. 103, is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. e Defendant’s motion to file documents under seal in connection with its opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, ECF No. 109, is DENIED WITHOUT e Plaintiffs’ motion to file documents under seal in connection with their motion for sanctions, ECF No. 112, is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 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: March 13, 2026 2 Hon. athe Ck United States District Judge 21 3:24-ev-00311-GPC-MSB