Prescott v. Reckitt Benckiser LLC

Opinion

STEVEN PRESCOTT, et al., individually Case No. 20-cv-02101-BLF and on behalf of others similarly situated Plaintiffs, OMNIBUS ORDER RE ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO v. FILE UNDER SEAL IN CONNECTION RECKITT BENCKISER LLC, BRIEFING Defendant. [Re: ECF 154, 155, 158, 159, 164, 165]

This order addresses six administrative sealing motions filed by Plaintiffs and Defendant Reckitt Benckiser LLC (“Reckitt”) in connection with the briefing on Reckitt’s motion for summary judgment: (1) Reckitt’s administrative motion to file under seal portions of its motion for summary judgment and related documents (ECF 154); (2) Reckitt’s administrative motion to consider whether another party’s materials should be sealed in connection with Reckitt’s motion for summary judgment (ECF 155); (3) Plaintiffs’ administrative motion to file under seal excerpt of Exhibit 13 to Reckitt’s motion for summary judgment (ECF 158); (4) Plaintiffs’ administrative motion to consider whether another party’s materials should be sealed in connection with Plaintiffs’ opposition (ECF 159); (5) Reckitt’s administrative motion to seal portions of Plaintiffs’ opposition and related documents (ECF 164); and Reckitt’s administrative motion to file under seal portions of its reply and related documents (ECF 165). “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City and 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)). Consequently, access to motions and their attachments that are “more than tangentially related to the merits of a case” may be sealed only upon a showing of “compelling reasons” for sealing. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101-02 (9th Cir. 2016). Filings that are only tangentially related to the merits may be sealed upon a lesser showing of “good cause.” Id. at 1097. Under this Court’s Civil Local Rules, a party moving to seal a document in whole or in part must file a statement identifying the legitimate private or public interests that warrant sealing, the injury that will result if sealing is denied, and why a less restrictive alternative to sealing is not sufficient. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(1). A supporting declaration shall be submitted if necessary. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(2). Finally, the moving party must submit “a proposed order that is narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable material[.]” Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(3). Where the moving party requests sealing of material that has been designated confidential by another party, the designating party has the burden to establish that the material should be sealed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(f). “The compelling reasons standard applies to sealing of documents relating to motions for class certification and summary judgment because those motions are ‘more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action.’” Freitas v. Cricket Wireless, LLC, No. C 19-7270 WHA, 2022 WL 971578, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2022) (quoting Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1099). The sealing motions before the Court address three sets of documents: Reckitt’s motion for summary judgment and supporting exhibits; Plaintiffs’ opposition to summary judgment and supporting exhibits; and Reckitt’s reply in support of summary judgment and supporting exhibits. The Court addresses the parties’ motions related to these three sets of documents in turn. A. Sealing Motions Re Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF 154, 155, 158) Reckitt has filed a motion to seal portions of its summary judgment motion and supporting documents (ECF 154) on the basis that those filings contain confidential Reckitt materials that satisfy the compelling reasons test for sealing. This motion is supported by the declarations of Chris Tyrell (ECF 154-2) and Sascha Henry (ECF 154-1), who state that the materials contain confidential information regarding Reckitt’s detergent formulas, product development, testing protocols, internal business strategies, internal communications, and financial information. See Tyrell Decl. ¶¶ 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16; Henry Decl. ¶¶ 2-4, 6, 8, 10, 12. The Ninth Circuit has found this type of information to be sealable, and this Court previously has found the same or similar materials appropriate for sealing in this case. See In re Elec. Arts, Inc., 298 F. App’x 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008); Prescott v. Reckitt Benckiser LLC, No. 20-CV-02101-BLF, 2022 WL 847309, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 22, 2022). Based on the declarations of Mr. Tyrell and Mr. Henry, and after evaluating the materials in question, the Court is satisfied that Reckitt has demonstrated compelling reasons for sealing the designated portions of its summary judgment motion and supporting exhibits and that Reckitt’s sealing requests are narrowly tailored to seal only sealable material. Reckitt seeks targeted redactions with respect to its summary judgment brief and Exhibits 1-5, and 31 to the Bunker Declaration. Reckitt requests sealing of two exhibits in their entirety – Exhibits 6, containing confidential trade secrets, and Exhibit 7, containing information about confidential proceedings before the National Advertising Division (“NAD”) – and the Court finds that more limited redactions of those exhibits would not be sufficient to protect Reckitt’s confidential information. It is the Court’s determination that, given the sensitive nature of the information in question, Reckitt has demonstrated that its interest in keeping its confidential information private outweighs the public’s interest in access to the information. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (“[T]he court must conscientiously balance[ ] the competing interests of the public and the party who seeks to keep certain judicial records secret.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). Accordingly, Reckitt’s motion to seal portions of its summary judgment motion and related Reckitt also has filed a motion to consider whether another party’s materials should be sealed (ECF 155), specifically Exhibits 13, 15, and 16 to the declaration of Khirin Bunker, on the basis that Plaintiffs have designated those materials confidential. Plaintiffs have responded by filing an administrative motion to seal (ECF 158) which is limited to a single line of Exhibit 13 to the Bunker Declaration, containing Plaintiff Robert Prescott’s email address. Plaintiffs do not seek to seal any other portions of Exhibits 13, 15, or 16 to the Bunker Declaration. District courts within the Ninth Circuit have found that a party’s legitimate interest in ensuring the privacy of personal information outweighs the public’s interest in access to court filings. See Activision Publ’g, Inc. v. EngineOwning UG, No. CV 2:22-cv-00051-MWF (JCx), 2023 WL 2347134, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2023) (“[C]ompelling reasons exist to keep personal information confidential to protect an individual’s privacy interest and to prevent exposure to harm or identity theft.”). Reckitt’s motion to consider whether another party’s materials should be sealed (ECF 155) is GRANTED as to the materials designated in Plaintiffs’ companion motion to seal (ECF 158), which also is GRANTED. B. Sealing Motions Re Opposition to Summary Judgment (ECF 159, 164) Plaintiffs have filed a motion to consider whether another party’s materials should be sealed (ECF 159), noting that portions of their opposition brief and related documents contain materials designated confidential by Reckitt. Reckitt has responded by filing a motion to seal portions of Plaintiffs’ opposition brief and supporting exhibits (ECF 164). Reckitt’s motion is supported by the declarations of Chris Tyrell (ECF 164-2) and Khirin Bunker (ECF 164-1), who state that the materials contain confidential information regarding Reckitt’s detergent formulas, product development, testing protocols, internal business strategies, internal communications, and financial information. See Tyrell Decl. ¶¶ 2-3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25, 27, 29, 31, 33, 35, 37, 39, 41, 43, 45-46, and 48; Bunker Decl. ¶¶ 2-14. The Ninth Circuit has found this type of information to be sealable, and this Court has found similar material appropriate for sealing in this case. See In re Elec. Arts, Inc., 298 F. App’x at 569; Prescott, 2022 WL 847309, at *2. Based on the declarations of Mr. Tyrell and Mr. Bunker, and after evaluating the materials designated portions of Plaintiffs’ opposition and supporting exhibits and that Reckitt’s sealing requests are narrowly tailored to seal only sealable material. Reckitt seeks targeted redactions with respect to Plaintiffs’ opposition brief and Exhibits 1-4, 6, 10-11, 13-14, 16-23, and 25-26 to the declaration of Eric Kafka. Reckitt requests sealing of four exhibits in their entirety, Exhibits 12, 24, 27, and 28 to the Kafka Declaration. The Court finds that more limited redactions of those exhibits would not be sufficient to protect Reckitt’s confidential information contained therein. It is the Court’s determination that, given the sensitive nature of the information in question, Reckitt has demonstrated that its interest in keeping its confidential information private outweighs the public’s interest in access to the information. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion to consider whether another party’s materials should be sealed (ECF 159) is GRANTED as to the materials specified in Reckitt’s companion motion to seal (ECF 164), which also is GRANTED. C. Sealing Motion Re Reply in Support of Summary Judgment (ECF 165) Reckitt has filed a motion to seal portions of its reply and related documents (ECF 165). The motion is supported by the declarations of Chris Tyrell (ECF 165-2) and Khirin Bunker (ECF 165-1), who state that the materials contain confidential information regarding Reckitt’s detergent formulas, product development, testing protocols, internal business strategies, internal communications, and financial information. See Tyrell Decl. ¶¶ 2-4; Bunker Decl. ¶¶ 2-7. The Ninth Circuit has found this type of information to be sealable, and this Court has found such material appropriate for sealing in this case. See In re Elec. Arts, Inc., 298 F. App’x at 569; Prescott, 2022 WL 847309, at *2. Based on the declarations of Mr. Tyrell and Mr. Bunker, and after evaluating the materials in question, the Court is satisfied that Reckitt has demonstrated compelling reasons for sealing the designated portions of its reply and supporting exhibits and that Reckitt’s sealing requests are narrowly tailored to seal only sealable material. Reckitt seeks targeted redactions with respect to its reply brief and Exhibits 1-2 and 4 to the reply declaration of Sascha Henry. Reckitt does not seek sealing of any reply exhibits in their entirety. It is the Court’s determination that, given the 1 keeping its confidential information private outweighs the public’s interest in access to the 2 information. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. 3 Reckitt’s motion to seal portions of its reply and relate documents is GRANTED. 4 Il. ORDER 5 (1) Reckitt’s motion to seal portions of its summary judgment motion and 6 related documents (ECF 154) is GRANTED. 7 (2) Reckitt’s motion to consider whether another party’s materials should be 8 sealed (ECF 155) is GRANTED as to the material designated in Plaintiffs’ 9 companion motion to seal (ECF 158). 10 (3) Plaintiffs’ motion to seal (ECF 158) is GRANTED. 11 (4) Plaintiffs’ motion to consider whether another party’s materials should be 12 sealed (ECF 159) is GRANTED as to the materials specified in Reckitt’s 13 companion motion to seal (ECF 164). 14 (5) Reckitt’s motion to seal portions of Plaintiffs’ opposition brief and supporting exhibits (ECF 164) is GRANTED. a 16 (6) Reckitt’s motion to seal portions of its reply and related documents (ECF 165) is GRANTED. 18 (7) The specific portions of the briefs and exhibits as to which sealing is granted are 19 identified in the charts appended to this order. 20 (8) This order terminates ECF 154, 155, 158, 159, 164, and 165. 21 22 Dated: March 9, 2023

BETH LABSON FREEMAN 24 United States District Judge 25 26 27 28

ECF Document Portion(s) to Seal Reason(s) for Sealing / Ex. No. Reckitt’s Motion Highlighted portions of: The portions that Reckitt seeks for Summary Page 5 line 25 and Page 6 to seal contain confidential Judgment lines 1, 4-5, 11-12, 17-18 information regarding the suppliers of Reckitt’s enzyme materials and

information regarding product testing and Reckitt’s trade secret claims substantiation protocol referred to internally as CS-3775. (Tyrell Decl. ¶¶ 2-3.) Public disclosure of this information could cause competitive harm to Reckitt. (Id.) Portions also contain information related to a confidential proceeding before the NAD. (Henry Decl., ¶¶ 3-4, 12.) Public disclosure of this information could cause competitive harm to Reckitt. (Id.) Ex. 1 Internal Page RB0007632. The portions that Reckitt seeks Presentation to seal contain confidential Excerpts, information regarding formula RB0007631- changes to Woolite products over RB0007632 time and includes confidential project names. (Tyrell Decl. ¶¶ 4-5.) Public disclosure of this information could cause competitive harm to Reckitt. (Id.) Ex. 2 Expert Rebuttal Highlighted portions of: 1. The portions that Reckitt seeks Report of Martin Page 3, Paragraphs 6 and 2. to seal contain confidential Bide, Ph.D dated 8; Page 5, Paragraph 14; 3. information regarding product October 17, 2022 Page 6, Paragraphs 14-16; testing and Reckitt’s trade secret Page 8, Paragraph 23; Page claims substantiation protocol 9, Paragraphs 26, 27, and referred to internally as CS-3775. 28; Page 10, Paragraphs 29 (Tyrell Decl. ¶¶ 6-7.) Public and 30; Page 11, Paragraph disclosure of this information could 30; Page 12, Paragraphs cause competitive harm to Reckitt. 30, 31, and 32; Page 13, (Id.) Portions also contain Paragraph 32; Page 14, information related to a confidential Paragraphs 34, 35, and 36; proceeding before the NAD. (Henry Page 15, Paragraphs 36 Decl., ¶¶ 3-4, 6-7.) Public and 37; Page 22, Paragraph disclosure of this information could 50 and Footnote 19; Page cause competitive harm to Reckitt. 24, Paragraph 56 and (Id.) ECF Document Portion(s) to Seal Reason(s) for Sealing / Ex. No. Paragraphs 57, 58, and 59; The Court has previously found that Page 26, Paragraph 60; this same material warrants sealing. Page 27, Paragraphs 61, See ECF No. 128. 63, and Footnote 25; Page 28, Paragraphs 64, 65, 66, and Footnote 26; Page 29, Paragraphs 66, 67, 68, and 69; Page 30, Paragraphs 69 and 74; Page 31, Paragraphs 72, 75(a), 75(b), and 75(c); and Exhibit 2, Supplier Materials. Ex. 3 Excerpts from the Highlighted portions of: 5. The portions that Reckitt seeks deposition of 52:16-23 and 62:10, 25. 6. to seal contain confidential Heidi Fuentes information regarding Reckitt’s Woolite laundry detergent formulation, development, and confidential project names. (Tyrell Decl. ¶¶ 8-9.) Public disclosure of this information could cause competitive harm to Reckitt. (Id.) Ex. 4 Excerpts from the Highlighted portions of: 7. The portions that Reckitt seeks deposition of 227:1-18, 228:5-11. 8. to seal contain confidential Randy Emil information regarding product testing Meirowitz, Ph.D. and Reckitt’s trade secret claims substantiation protocol referred to internally as CS-3775. (Tyrell Decl. ¶¶ 10-11.) Public disclosure of this information could cause competitive harm to Reckitt. (Id.) Portions also contain information related to a confidential proceeding before the NAD. (Henry Decl., ¶¶ 3-4, 8-9.) Public disclosure of this information could cause competitive harm to Reckitt. (Id.) Ex. 5 “Bronze Launch Page RB0001779. The portions that Reckitt seeks Reco” Excerpts, to seal contain confidential RB0001764, information regarding formulations of RB0001779 Woolite and supporting enzyme ECF Document Portion(s) to Seal Reason(s) for Sealing / Ex. No. Public disclosure of this information could cause competitive harm to Reckitt. (Id.)

Ex. 6 CS-3775, In its entirety. Defendant seeks to seal a copy of RB0000073 Reckitt’s confidential trade secret claims substantiation testing protocol (CS-3775). (Tyrell Decl. ¶¶ 14-15.) The methodology behind the protocol was specifically developed by Reckitt’s internal Research & Development team and constitutes highly sensitive information that is treated as a trade secret by Reckitt in the ordinary course of business. (Id.) The public disclosure of this information could cause competitive harm to Reckitt’s. (Id.) The Court has previously found that this same material warrants sealing. See ECF No. 128.

Ex. 7 March 17, 2019 In its entirety. Defendant seeks to seal a submission letter from by Procter & Gamble regarding Proctor & Gamble Reckitt’s advertising as part of a to the National confidential NAD proceeding. Advertising (Henry Decl., ¶¶ 2-5.) This Division confidentiality requirement is important to facilitate NAD’s dispute resolution process, and Reckitt would be harmed if the materials it submitted in the NAD proceedings were publicly disclosed despite the parties and NAD’s expectations and requirements that this information remain confidential. (Id.) The Court has previously found that this same material warrants sealing. See ECF No. 128.

Ex. Excerpts of Line 140:3 The line contains Plaintiff Steven Deposition Prescott’s email address ECF Document Portion(s) to Seal Reason(s) for Sealing / Ex. No. Transcript of Steven Prescott Ex. Expert Trial Highlighted portions of The portions that Reckitt seeks to 31 Report of Randy Expert Report of Randy seal contain discussions of Reckitt’s Emil Meirowitz, Emil Meirowitz, Ph.D. trade secret claims substantiation Ph.D. dated August 17, 2021 protocol referred to internally as CS- September 12, (“Report”): Report Page 2, 3775. (Tyrell Decl., ¶¶ 16-17.) The 2022 Paragraph 10; Report Page methodology behind the protocol 7, Paragraph 29; Report was specifically developed by Page 10, Paragraph 35; Reckitt’s internal Research & Report Page 12, Paragraph Development team and constitutes 37; Report Page 14, highly sensitive information that is Paragraph 43; Report Page treated as a trade secret by Reckitt in 17, Paragraph 47; Report the ordinary course of business. (Id.) Page 18, Paragraphs 49, Public disclosure of this information 50, 51, and 52; Report could cause competitive harm to Page 19, Paragraphs 52, Reckitt. (Id.) Portions also contain 53, and 54; Report Page information related to a confidential 20, Paragraphs 54 and 55; proceeding before the NAD. (Henry Report Page 21, Paragraph Decl., ¶¶ 3-4, 10-11.) Public 56 and Table 2; Report disclosure of this information could Page 22, Paragraph 57. cause competitive harm to Reckitt. (Id.) Highlighted portions of Rebuttal Report of Randy The Court has previously found that Emil Meirowitz, Ph.D. this same material warrants sealing. October 15, 2021 See ECF No. 128. (“Rebuttal”): Rebuttal Page 3, Footnote 9; Rebuttal Page 4, Paragraphs 10, 11, and 12; Rebuttal Page 5, Paragraphs 12, 13, and 14.

ECF Document Portion(s) to Seal Reason(s) for Sealing / Ex. No. Plaintiffs’ Table of Contents; The portions that Reckitt seeks Opposition 2:4-5, 2:10-11, 2:16 to seal contain confidential 3:3-4, 3:10, 3:15-16, 3:21- information regarding Reckitt’s 24, 3:27 financial information, wholesale 4:11 pricing strategies, competitive 5:3, 5:5, 5:7-13, 17-21, 27 analysis, timing of internal 10:21-23 processes, wholesale sales including 25:6-7, 25:10-11 specific Woolite Laundry Detergent unit sales information, and market research. (Tyrell Decl., ¶¶ 2-4.) These portions further contain information derived from Reckitt’s trade secret claims substantiation protocol, referred to internally as CS- 3775. (Id.) Public disclosure of this information could cause competitive harm to Reckitt (Id.) Portions also contain information related to a confidential proceeding before the NAD. (Bunker Decl., ¶¶ 8-9, 11-12.)

Ex. 1 Excerpts from Highlighted portions of: The portions that Reckitt seeks to transcript of Table of Contents seal contain confidential deposition of 8:22-23 information regarding wholesale Christopher 73:5-10, 17-25 pricing strategies and Reckitt’s Tedesco 74:1-4, 12-15, 18-25 employee compensation 75:1-2, 4-8 structure. (Tyrell Decl., ¶¶ 5-6.) 87:18, 24-25 Public disclosure of this information 88:4-6 could cause competitive harm to 89:6, 10 Reckitt. (Id.) The portions further 91:1, 8-12, 15 contain Mr. Tedesco’s private home 92:17, 20 address, the public disclosure of which would negatively impact his privacy rights. (Bunker Decl. ¶¶ 13- 14.) The Court has previously found “compelling reasons” to seal this information. (ECF No. 128.)

Ex. 2 Woolite Brand Highlighted portions of: The portions that Reckitt seeks to History, RB0000246 seal contain confidential information RB0000244 RB0000247 regarding household penetration RB0000249 rates and reflects Reckitt’s target consumer demographics developed Decl., ¶¶ 7-8.) Public disclosure of this information could cause competitive harm to Reckitt. (Id.) The Court has previously found “compelling reasons” to seal this information. (ECF No. 128.) Ex. 3 2018 Media Plan Highlighted portions of: The portions that Reckitt seeks to Communications RB0000733 seal contain confidential information Brief, RB000073 RB0000734 regarding household penetration RB0000735 rates, marketing campaign results, budgeting, and competitive strategies. (Tyrell Decl., ¶¶ 9-10.) Public disclosure of this information could cause competitive harm to Reckitt (Id.) The Court has previously found “compelling reasons” to seal this information. (ECF No. 128.)

Ex. 4 Project Highlighted portions of: The portions that Reckitt seeks to Document, RB0013572 seal contain confidential information RB0013572 regarding budgeting and target consumer demographics developed through market research. (Tyrell Decl., ¶¶ 11-12.) Public disclosure of this information could cause competitive harm to Reckitt. (Id.) The Court has previously found “compelling reasons” to seal this information. (ECF No. 128.)

Ex. 6 Reckitt’s Sixth Highlighted portions of: The portions that Reckitt seeks to Supplemental Table at Page 6 seal contain confidential information Response to Table at Page 7 regarding circulation dates for Plaintiffs’ First Table at Page 8 certain Woolite product SKUs, the Set of Tables at Page 10 company’s financial tracking and Interrogatories 11:1-2 accounting capabilities, specific 12:1-2, 17-26 wholesale sales figures, unit counts, 13:4-12 internal Finished Good Numbers and Page 14, footnote 1 component codes, and 16:16, manufacturing data. (Tyrell Decl., Table at Page 16 ¶¶ 13-14.) Public disclosure of this Tables at Page 17 information could cause competitive Table at Page 18 harm to Reckitt (Id.) The Court has Attachment A, Page 1 previously found “compelling Attachment A, Page 2 reasons” to seal this information. Attachment A, Page 4 Attachment A, Page 5 Attachment A, Page 6 Attachment A, Page 7 Attachment A, Page 8 Attachment A, Page 9 Attachment A, Page 10 Attachment A, Page 11 Attachment A, Page 12 Attachment A, Page 13 Attachment A, Page 14 Attachment A, Page 15 Attachment A, Page 16 Attachment A, Page 17 Attachment A, Page 18 Attachment B Ex. 10 Presentation titled Highlighted portions of: The portions that Reckitt seeks to “Follow up from RB0002630 seal contain confidential information LR sign off RB0002631 regarding business strategy, product meeting,” RB0002633 development efforts, claims RB0002630 RB0002634 substantiation work, marketing RB0002635 objectives, sales data, consumer RB0002636 target/market research, budgeting, RB0002637 and complete profit and loss RB0002638 statements and financial analysis for RB0002639 Europe and the United States for RB0002640 Reckitt’s entire household brands. RB0002642 (Tyrell Decl., ¶¶ 15-16.) Public RB0002643 disclosure of this information could RB0002645 cause competitive harm to Reckitt. RB0002646 (Id.) The Court has previously RB0002647 found “compelling reasons” to seal RB0002648 this information. (ECF No. 128.) RB0002649 RB0002652 RB0002653 RB0002654 RB0002655 RB0002656 RB0002657 RB0002658 RB0002659 RB0002662 RB0002663 RB0002664 RB0002665 RB0002668 RB0002669 RB0002670

Ex. 11 Presentation titled Highlighted portions of: The portions that Reckitt seeks to “2017 US Plan RB0001320 seal contain confidential information Woolite,” March RB0001321 regarding household penetration 28, 2016, RB0001322 rates, marketing campaign results, RB0001319 RB0001323 budgeting, pricing analyses, RB0001325 profit statements, business RB0001329 objectives, and competitive RB0001331 strategies. (Tyrell Decl., ¶¶ 17-18.) RB0001332 Public disclosure of this information RB0001333 could cause competitive harm to RB0001334 Reckitt. (Id.) The Court has RB0001335 previously found “compelling RB0001336 reasons” to seal this information. RB0001337 (ECF No. 128.) RB0001338 RB0001339 RB0001341

Ex. 12 Woolite RB Pre- In its entirety. Reckitt seeks to seal highly sensitive Read November, financial information including RB0011710 Reckitt’s profit and loss statements for the Woolite brand, cost of goods, pricing analysis, capital expenditures, forward looking product innovation and explanations of Reckitt’s detergent formulations and active ingredients. (Tyrell Decl., ¶¶ 19-20.) Public disclosure of this information could cause competitive harm to Reckitt. (Id.) The Court has previously found “compelling reasons” to seal this document in its entirety. (ECF No. 128.) Ex. 13 Internal email Highlighted portions of: The portions that Reckitt seeks to communications, RB0002721 seal contain internal communications RB0002721 RB0002722 regarding the development of RB0002723 marketing claims and competitor RB0002724 analysis. (Tyrell Decl., ¶¶ 21-22.) RB0002725 Public disclosure of this information RB0002726 could cause competitive harm to RB0002727 Reckitt. (Id.)

Ex. 14 August 5, 2016 Highlighted portions of: The portions that Reckitt seeks to e-mail chain, RB0001401 information regarding market RB0001401 performance, marketing spend, target market, and business strategy. (Tyrell Decl., ¶¶ 23-24.) Public disclosure of this information could cause competitive harm to Reckitt. (Id.) The Court has previously found “compelling reasons” to seal this information. (ECF No. 128.)

Ex. 16 Presentation titled Highlighted portions of: The portions that Reckitt seeks to Woolite October RB0017973 seal contain confidential RB0017973 RB0017974 information regarding Reckitt’s RB0017975 profit and loss statements for the RB0017976 Woolite brand, competitive pricing RB0017977 analysis, and retailer partnership RB0017978 strategies. (Tyrell Decl., ¶¶ 25-26.) RB0017979 The portions further contain business RB0017980 strategy, market research, and RB0017981 financial information regarding RB0017982 Reckitt’s “Athly” product, which is RB0017983 not at issue in this litigation. (Id.) RB0017984 Public disclosure of this information RB0017985 could cause competitive harm to RB0017987 Reckitt. (Id.) The Court has RB0017988 previously found “compelling RB0017989 reasons” to seal this information. RB0017990 (ECF No. 128.) RB0017993 RB0017994 RB0017995 RB0017996 RB0017997 RB0017998 RB0017999 RB0018001 RB0018002 RB0018003 RB0018004 RB0018005 RB0018006 RB0018007 RB0018008 RB0018009 RB0018010 RB0018011 RB0018013 RB0018014 RB0018015 RB0018016 RB0018017 RB0018018 RB0018020 RB0018021 RB0018022 RB0018023 RB0018024 RB0018025 RB0018026 Ex. 17 Trial Expert Highlighted portions of: The portions that Reckitt seeks to Report of Gregory Trial Expert Report seal contain confidential A. Pinsonneault Table of Contents, 1:19-20 information regarding wholesale ¶¶ 29-35 financial information for the ¶¶ 37-39 Woolite brand, market performance, Figure 1 strategic business decisions, retail ¶¶ 40-46 partners and pricing – including Footnote 22 enormous amounts of financial Figure 2 information and pricing analyses ¶¶ 47-60 derived from several years of Footnote 34 Reckitt’s sensitive wholesale sales ¶¶ 62-67 data. (Tyrell Decl., ¶¶ 27-28.) ¶¶ 69-71 Public disclosure of this information Footnotes 69-70, 74 could cause competitive harm to ¶¶ 72-73 Reckitt. (Id.) The Court has Figure 3 previously found “compelling ¶ 75 reasons” to seal much of this same Figure 4 information in connection with Mr. Figure 5 Pinsonneault’s class certification ¶¶ 76-80 expert report and rebuttal report Footnotes 80-82 attached as Exhibits “D” and “E” to Figures 6 and 7 Mr. Pinsonneault’s Trial Expert ¶¶ 81-87 Report. (ECF No. 128.) Footnotes 90-92 ¶ 89 Figure 8 ¶¶ 90-92 Footnote 98 ¶¶ 94-99 Figure 9 ¶ 100 Footnote 106 Figure 10 Footnote 108 ¶¶ 112-116 ¶ 118 ¶ 120 Footnote 125 ¶ 129 ¶ 140 Footnotes 142, 149 ¶¶ 146-48 ¶ 152

Trial Expert Report Ex. B In its entirety Highlighted portions of: Trial Expert Report Ex. D Table of Contents 1:17-18 ¶¶ 23-29 Footnotes 40-42 ¶ 32 Figure 1 ¶¶ 34-40 Footnote 23 Figure 2 Footnote 35 ¶¶ 41-54 ¶¶ 56-58 Footnotes 49-50 ¶ 60 Footnote 51 Figure 3 ¶ 61 ¶¶ 63-64 ¶ 66 Figure 4 ¶ 67 Footnote 56 Figure 5 ¶¶ 69-70 ¶¶ 72-73 Footnote 58 ¶ 75 Highlighted portions of: Trial Expert Report Ex. D’s internal Ex. B Pages 2-5 Pages 29-30 Page 33 Pages 35-100

Highlighted Portions of: Trial Expert Report Ex. E Table of Contents, Lines 7- 8 ¶ 3 ¶¶ 7-12 Footnote 19 ¶¶ 13-14 ¶¶ 16-18 Footnotes 29 and 30 ¶¶ 19-20 Figures 1 and 3 ¶¶ 23-27 Figures 4 and 5 ¶¶ 28-32 Footnote 53 ¶¶ 34-37 ¶¶ 39-45 ¶ 47 Highlighted portions of: Trial Expert Report Ex. E’s internal Ex. B Pages 2-31 Pages 33-34 Pages 36-37 Pages 39-104

Ex. 18 Project Brief, Highlighted portions of: The portions that Reckitt seeks to RB0001867 RB0001867 seal contain confidential RB0001868 information regarding sensitive RB0001869 business strategy, financial RB0001870 information, and product RB0001871 development targets and reflects RB0001872 Reckitt’s internal processes for new product development. (Tyrell Decl., ¶¶ 29-30.) Public disclosure of this information could cause competitive harm to Reckitt. (Id.) The Court has previously found “compelling reasons” to seal this information. (ECF No. 128.) Ex. 19 Presentation titled Highlighted portions of: The portions that Reckitt seeks to Detergent 2017 RB0002702 information regarding pricing Category Growth RB0002703 strategies and analyses. (Tyrell Strategy,” RB0002704 Decl., ¶¶ 31-32.) Public disclosure RB0002700 RB0002707 of this information could cause RB0002709 competitive harm to Reckitt. (Id.) RB0002711 The Court has previously found RB0002712 “compelling reasons” to seal this RB0002713 information. (ECF No. 128.)

Ex. 20 October 13, 2016 Highlighted portions of: The portions that Reckitt seeks to internal Reckitt RB0017933 seal contain confidential email chain, RB0017934 information regarding the emails for RB0017930 RB0017935 over seventy Reckitt employees. RB0017936 (Tyrell Decl., ¶¶ 33-34.) Public RB0017937 disclosure of this information could RB0017938 cause competitive harm to Reckitt. RB0017939 (Id.) Portions of RB00017933-39 also include references to confidential project names and summaries of Reckitt’s business planning for Woolite and other products. (Id.) The Court has previously found “compelling reasons” to seal this information. (ECF No. 128.) Ex. 21 Presentation titled Highlighted portions of: The portions that Reckitt seeks to “Woolite 2017 RB0005910 seal contain confidential Priorities and RB0005911 information regarding household Supporting RB0005912 penetration rates, budgeting and Materials,” RB0005913 investment, Woolite Laundry RB0005909 RB0005916 Detergent product formulation RB0005919 ingredients, and Reckitt’s target RB0005920 consumer demographics developed RB0005922 through market research and other RB0005924 market research conclusions. (Tyrell RB0005925 Decl., ¶¶ 35-36.) Public disclosure RB0005926 of this information could cause RB0005927 competitive harm to Reckitt. (Id.) RB0005928 The Court has previously found “compelling reasons” to seal this information. (ECF No. 128.) Ex. 22 December 13, Highlighted portions of: The portions that Reckitt seeks to 2016 internal RB0013129 seal contain confidential internal Reckitt email communications regarding pricing chain, changes. (Tyrell Decl., ¶¶ 37-38.) could cause competitive harm to Reckitt. (Id.) The Court has previously found “compelling reasons” to seal this information. (ECF No. 128.) Ex. 23 Presentation titled Highlighted portions of: The portions that Reckitt seeks to “Resolve Carpet RB0013135 seal contain confidential financial 2017 Category RB0013136 information regarding household Growth Strategy,” RB0013137 penetration rates, budgeting and RB0013134 RB0013138 investment, and Woolite Laundry RB0013139 Detergent product formulation RB0013140 ingredients. (Tyrell Decl., ¶¶ 39-40.) RB0013141 The portions also reflect Reckitt’s RB0013142 target consumer demographics RB0013143 developed through market research RB0013144 and other market research RB0013145 conclusions. (Id.) Further, RB0013146 RB0013135, RB0013136, RB0013147 RB0013137, RB0013138, RB0013148 RB0013139, RB0013140, RB0013149 RB0013141, RB0013142, RB0013151 RB0013143, RB0013144, RB0013152 RB0013145, RB0013146, RB0013153 RB0013147, RB0013148, RB0013154 RB0013149, RB0013164, RB0013157 RB0013165, RB0013166, RB0013159 RB0013167, RB0013168, RB0013161 RB0013169, RB0013170, RB0013162 RB0013171, RB0013172, RB0013163 RB0013173, RB0013174, RB0013164 RB0013175, and RB0013176 include RB0013165 over twenty-five pages of business RB0013166 strategy, market research, and RB0013167 financial information regarding RB0013168 Reckitt’s Resolve product, VMS, and RB0013169 Multi-Surface and Personal Care RB0013170 products. (Id.) Public disclosure of RB0013171 this information could cause RB0013172 competitive harm to Reckitt. (Id.) RB0013173 The Court has previously found RB0013174 “compelling reasons” to seal this RB0013175 information. (ECF No. 128.) RB0013176 Ex. 24 Pricing In its entirety. Defendant seeks to seal a copy of Information, Reckitt’s confidential and highly RB0002943 sensitive pricing analyses conducted (Produced in internally by Reckitt. (Tyrell Decl. Native Excel information could cause competitive Format) harm to Reckitt. (Id.) The Court has previously found “compelling reasons” to seal this document in its entirety. (ECF No. 128.)

Ex. 25 Trial Expert Highlighted Portions of: The portions that Reckitt seeks to Report of Randy Expert Report seal contain confidential discussions Emil Meirowitz, ¶ 10 of Reckitt’s trade secret claims Ph.D. ¶ 29 substantiation protocol referred to ¶ 35 internally as CS-3775. (Tyrell Decl., ¶ 37 ¶¶ 43-44.) The methodology behind ¶ 43 the protocol was specifically ¶ 47 developed by Reckitt’s internal ¶ 49 Research & Development team and ¶¶ 51-57 constitutes highly sensitive Footnote 26 information that is treated as a trade Table 2 secret by Reckitt in the ordinary ¶ 61 course of business. (Id.) Public disclosure of this information could Rebuttal Report cause competitive harm to Reckitt. ¶ 7 (Id.) Portions of the document also Footnote 9 contains information derived from ¶¶ 11-14 confidential submissions to the NAD. (Bunker Decl. ¶¶ 11-12.) The Court has previously found “compelling reasons” to seal this information in connection with Dr. Meirowitz’s class certification expert report and rebuttal report which are copied and pasted into his trial report. (ECF No. 128.)

Ex. 26 Reckitt ’s Highlighted portions of: The portions that Reckitt seeks to Supplemental Table at Page 6 seal contain confidential Response to Table at Page 7 information regarding Reckitt’s Plaintiffs’ First Table at Page 8 product supply chain, financial Set of 10:17-18 information, and trade secret Interrogatories 11:5-6, 9-14, 20-28 testing protocols. (Tyrell Decl., ¶¶ 13:13-28 45-47.) The portions further contain 14:1-11 information regarding Reckitt’s highly confidential testing protocol (CS-3775). (Id.) Public disclosure of this information could cause competitive harm to Reckitt. (Id.) The Court has previously found “compelling reasons” to seal this information. (ECF No. 128.) Ex. 27 CS-3775, In its entirety. Defendant seeks to seal a copy of RB0000073 Reckitt’s confidential trade secret claims substantiation testing protocol (CS-3775). (Tyrell Decl. ¶¶ 48-49.) The methodology behind the protocol was specifically developed by Reckitt’s internal Research & Development team and constitutes highly sensitive information that is treated as a trade secret by Reckitt in the ordinary course of business. (Id.) The public disclosure of this information could cause competitive harm to Reckitt’s. (Id.) The Court has previously found “compelling reasons” to seal this document in its entirety. (ECF No. 128.) Ex. 28 March 15, 2019 In its entirety. Defendant seeks to seal a submission letter from by Procter & Gamble regarding Proctor & Gamble Reckitt’s advertising as part of a to the National confidential NAD proceeding. Advertising (Bunker Decl., ¶¶ 7-10.) This Division confidentiality requirement is important to facilitate NAD’s dispute resolution process, and Reckitt would be harmed if the materials it submitted in the NAD proceedings were publicly disclosed despite the parties and NAD’s expectations and requirements that this information remain confidential. (Id.) The Court has previously found “compelling reasons” to seal this document in its entirety. (ECF No. 128.)

ECF Document Portion(s) to Seal Reason(s) for Sealing / Ex. No. Reckitt’s Reply Highlighted portions of: The portions that Reckitt seeks Footnote 2 to seal contain confidential Page 12, Line 9 information regarding wholesale Page 15, Lines 10, 12, 15- pricing strategies and confidential 16 project names used in Reckitt’s product development processes. (Tyrell Decl. ¶ 2.) Public disclosure of this information could cause competitive harm to Reckitt. (Id.) Portions also contain information related to a confidential proceeding before the NAD. (Bunker Decl., ¶¶ 2-5.) Public disclosure of this information could cause competitive harm to Reckitt. (Id.)

Ex. 1 Excerpts from the Highlighted portions of: The portions that Reckitt seeks deposition of 18:14, 16, and 22 to seal contain confidential Daniel Redmon information regarding Reckitt’s confidential project names and processes for product development. (Tyrell Decl. ¶¶ 3-4.) Public disclosure of this information could cause competitive harm to Reckitt. (Id.) Ex. 2 Excerpts from the Highlighted portions of: The portions that Reckitt seeks deposition of 8:22-23 to seal contain confidential Christopher 61:7, 9, 11-18, and 20 information regarding Reckitt’s Tedesco confidential project names and processes for product development. (Tyrell Decl. ¶¶ 3-4.) Public disclosure of this information could cause competitive harm to Reckitt. (Id.)

The portions further contain Mr. Tedesco’s private home address, the public disclosure of which would negatively impact his privacy rights. (Bunker Decl. ¶ 6.) The Court has previously found “compelling reasons” to seal this information. See ECF No. 128. ECF Document Portion(s) to Seal Reason(s) for Sealing / Ex. No. Ex. 4 Excerpts from the Highlighted portions of: The portions that Reckitt seeks to deposition of 50:3, 11-12, 16 seal contain information related to a Randy Meirowitz confidential proceeding before the NAD. (Bunker Decl., ¶¶ 2-5.) Public disclosure of this information could cause competitive harm to Reckitt. (Id.)