LeGrand v. Abbott Laboratories
- Thomas Hixson
- 3:22-cv-05815
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In LeGrand v. Abbott Laboratories, Judge Hixson denied Abbott’s motion to keep deposition and exhibit excerpts confidential because Abbott showed no specific harm from disclosure.
Abbott Laboratories and LeGrand; the ruling concerns whether certain deposition excerpts and portions of a deposition exhibit would remain confidential and unavailable for public disclosure.
What happened
In LeGrand v. Abbott Laboratories, Abbott asked the court to keep confidential certain excerpts from Meaghan Bird’s deposition and portions of an exhibit to that deposition. LeGrand opposed the request.
The court explained that a party seeking continued confidentiality must show specific harm from public disclosure, then show that private interests outweigh the public interest. The party must also consider whether redactions could permit disclosure.
Judge Hixson denied Abbott’s motion because Abbott offered only broad allegations of harm and did not identify specific examples or reasoning showing that disclosure would cause particularized harm.
The detailed version
- LeGrand v. Abbott Laboratories · No. 3:22-cv-05815
- Thomas Hixson
- Jan. 9, 2025
Background
Abbott Laboratories asked the court to retain confidentiality designations for certain excerpts from Meaghan Bird’s deposition and certain portions of Exhibit 59 to that deposition. LeGrand opposed the motion.
Legal standard
The court applied a two-step test for maintaining confidentiality under a protective order. First, the party seeking confidentiality must show that public disclosure would cause particularized harm. Broad and unsupported claims of harm are insufficient; the party must identify specific prejudice or harm.
Second, if particularized harm is shown, the court balances public and private interests to determine whether continued protection is necessary. The court may consider privacy, the purpose of disclosure, embarrassment, public health and safety, fairness and efficiency in sharing information, whether a public entity or official benefits from confidentiality, and the public importance of the case. Even when protection is justified, the court must consider whether redaction would allow the material to be disclosed.
Ruling
Judge Thomas S. Hixson ruled that Abbott’s motion failed at the first step. After reviewing the materials, the court could not identify any particularized harm that public disclosure would cause. The court found that Abbott’s confidentiality arguments were broad allegations unsupported by specific examples or articulated reasoning, and it denied Abbott’s motion.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.