LeGrand v. Laboratories
- Thomas Hixson
- 3:22-cv-05815
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 8
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate and have been consolidated across spelling variants.
In Condalisa LeGrand v. Abbott Laboratories, Judge Hixson granted LeGrand’s sealing motion and granted in part and denied in part Abbott’s.
LeGrand and Abbott are affected by the sealing rulings, and the order determines which materials connected to the class-certification proceedings remain confidential or become available on the public docket.
What happened
Condalisa LeGrand v. Abbott Laboratories is a putative class action about allegedly false or misleading statements on Abbott’s Ensure nutrition-drink labels. The order addressed two requests to keep documents connected to class-certification filings from public view.
Abbott sought to seal business, marketing, market-research, sales, and consumer-information materials. LeGrand opposed sealing two of Abbott’s documents, arguing that the information was public, factual, or too old to cause competitive harm. Abbott also responded to LeGrand’s request to seal portions of a presentation containing Abbott’s internal business and marketing strategies.
Judge Hixson granted LeGrand’s sealing motion. He granted in part and denied in part Abbott’s motion: some materials remain sealed or redacted, while Abbott must file other materials publicly within three days, either unredacted or with specified redactions.
The detailed version
- LeGrand v. Laboratories · No. 3:22-cv-05815
- Thomas Hixson
- Mar. 5, 2026
Background
LeGrand brings a putative class action alleging that statements on Abbott’s Ensure nutrition-drink labels are false and misleading. The court considered two administrative motions to file materials under seal: Abbott’s motion, docket number 210, concerning its opposition to LeGrand’s renewed motion for class certification, and LeGrand’s motion, docket number 218, concerning her reply in support of that motion.
Legal standard
The court explained that judicial records generally carry a strong presumption of public access. Because the materials were filed in connection with class certification, which is more than tangentially related to the case’s merits, the parties had to show “compelling reasons” to seal them. That required specific facts showing that the need for secrecy outweighed the public’s interest in access. The court also emphasized that sealing must be narrowly tailored and that parties should redact only genuinely sensitive information rather than seal entire documents.
Abbott’s motion
Abbott sought to seal portions of its opposition and several exhibits containing information about its marketing and pricing strategy, internal marketing research and analysis, financial data, sales and market-share information, consumer surveys, and related materials. LeGrand opposed sealing Abbott’s internal draft marketing document and certain slides containing sales and market-share information.
The court found compelling reasons to seal or redact portions of Abbott’s opposition and the following materials because they concerned confidential business information:
- Glick Declaration, Exhibit 1, slides 6–8; - Glick Declaration, Exhibit 7, slides 24–25; - Glick Declaration, Exhibit 13, page 32 paragraph 77 and page 33 paragraph 79; - Glick Declaration, Exhibit 21, slides 34–37; and - portions of Abbott’s opposition that referred to those materials.
The court denied sealing for Glick Declaration, Exhibit 2, because it contained factual information, much of which was publicly available. The court also denied sealing for several other portions because the information was several years old and Abbott had not shown that disclosure would cause current competitive harm. Those portions included Exhibit 1, slides 16 and 18; Exhibit 5, slides 6–8; Exhibit 6, slides 45–46; Exhibit 8, slides 1 and 4–5; and Exhibit 9, slides 44–45 and 95–97.
The court therefore granted Abbott’s administrative motion as to the specified confidential materials and denied it as to the other specified materials. Abbott was directed to file unredacted versions of the documents for which sealing was denied within three days. Abbott was also directed to file its opposition publicly within three days with the redactions specified by the court. Because redacted versions of certain exhibits had already been filed publicly, the court required no further action for those exhibits.
LeGrand’s motion
LeGrand sought to seal Exhibit 1 to the declaration of Melanie R. Monroe. Abbott supported redacting portions of that three-page presentation because it revealed internal business and marketing strategies, consumer feedback, and marketing analysis. The court found compelling reasons to protect that information and granted LeGrand’s administrative motion. Because Abbott had already filed a redacted version publicly, the court required no further action.
Disposition
The court’s conclusion was that LeGrand’s administrative motion was granted, while Abbott’s administrative motion was granted in part and denied in part.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.