LeGrand v. Abbott Laboratories

Background

Condalisa LeGrand brought a proposed class action against Abbott Laboratories, alleging that statements on the labels of Abbott’s Ensure nutrition drinks are false and misleading. The opinion concerns five administrative motions to file documents under seal: two filed by LeGrand and three filed by Abbott. The court did not decide the allegations about Ensure’s labels or whether a class should be certified.

Legal standard

The court explained that judicial records generally carry a strong presumption of public access. Because the documents were connected to class-certification motions or to an expert-evidence motion addressing central class-certification issues, the parties had to show “compelling reasons” for sealing them. That requires specific facts showing that the need for secrecy outweighs the public’s interest in access. The court also applied Northern District of California Local Rule 79-5, which requires specific explanations, narrowly tailored redactions, and supporting statements or declarations identifying the harm that disclosure would cause and why less restrictive measures would not suffice.

LeGrand’s first motion, ECF No. 137

LeGrand sought sealing based on Abbott’s designations of documents as confidential or highly confidential. Abbott supported sealing portions concerning its marketing strategies, market research, competitor analysis, survey data, financial information, and possible product-formula changes. LeGrand opposed sealing some portions, arguing that they contained general or publicly available information and that Abbott had not shown competitive harm.

The court found compelling reasons to redact specified portions of LeGrand’s motion for class certification, several exhibits to the Monroe Declaration, and portions of the Greger and Weir Declarations because they related to confidential business documents. It also found compelling reasons to redact portions of Monroe Declaration Exhibit 7 at pages 5, 13, and 16. But it agreed with LeGrand that compelling reasons did not exist to redact Exhibit 7 at pages 4, 6, and 14 because those portions contained general information and publicly available advertising information.

The court therefore GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART LeGrand’s first administrative motion. It directed Abbott to file the identified documents in the public record within three days, with the specified redactions. Because Abbott stated that it did not seek sealing of Monroe Declaration Exhibits 23, 24, 25, 27, 29, and 31, the court DENIED LeGrand’s first motion as to those exhibits and directed LeGrand to file them publicly no sooner than three days and no later than seven days after the order.

The court also DENIED LeGrand’s administrative motion at ECF No. 125 concerning an exhibit to the parties’ joint statement. Abbott had not filed the narrowly tailored redactions previously ordered by the court. LeGrand was directed to file the exhibit publicly no sooner than three days and no later than seven days after the order. If material overlapped with material the court had ordered sealed in another exhibit, the public filing of ECF No. 125-3 would take precedence.

LeGrand’s second motion, ECF No. 171

LeGrand sought to seal portions of a deposition exhibit and related material in her reply supporting class certification because Abbott had designated the material confidential. Abbott did not file the statement or declaration required by Local Rule 79-5 within seven days.

The court DENIED LeGrand’s second administrative motion and directed LeGrand to file the item publicly no sooner than three days and no later than seven days after the order.

Abbott’s first motion, ECF No. 161

Abbott sought to seal a deposition of LeGrand and portions of Abbott’s opposition to class certification that quoted from it, based on LeGrand’s confidentiality designation. LeGrand did not file the required statement or declaration justifying the sealing.

The court DENIED Abbott’s first administrative motion and directed Abbott to file the identified items publicly no sooner than three days and no later than seven days after the order.

Abbott’s second motion, ECF No. 162

Abbott sought to seal a declaration exhibit and specified portions of its opposition to class certification and related exhibits. Abbott described the material as involving non-public marketing strategies, pricing strategies, market research, sales data, survey results, draft marketing materials, and confidential financial or expert-report information.

The court found compelling reasons to redact the requested portions because they related to confidential business documents. It GRANTED Abbott’s second administrative motion. Because redacted versions of the documents had already been filed publicly, the court stated that no further action was needed for those documents.

Abbott’s third motion, ECF No. 170

Abbott sought to seal a deposition of LeGrand and portions of its reply supporting a motion to exclude that quoted from the deposition, based on LeGrand’s confidentiality designation. LeGrand did not file the required statement or declaration justifying sealing.

The court DENIED Abbott’s third administrative motion and directed Abbott to file the identified items publicly no sooner than three days and no later than seven days after the order.

Disposition

The court’s conclusion states that LeGrand’s first administrative motion was GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, LeGrand’s second administrative motion was DENIED, Abbott’s first administrative motion was DENIED, Abbott’s second administrative motion was GRANTED, and Abbott’s third administrative motion was DENIED.