Prescott v. Reckitt Benckiser LLC
- Beth Freeman
- 5:20-cv-02101
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 27
In Prescott v. Reckitt Benckiser LLC, Judge Freeman granted six sealing motions and granted in part and denied in part one.
The plaintiffs, Reckitt Benckiser LLC, and the public’s access to court filings were affected. Some information remained sealed or redacted, including specified confidential business materials and a plaintiff’s telephone number.
What happened
In Prescott v. Reckitt Benckiser LLC, the plaintiffs and Reckitt Benckiser asked the court to seal parts of filings and exhibits connected to the plaintiffs’ motion to certify a class of people in the case.
The court applied a demanding standard requiring strong reasons to keep court records from public view because the records related to class certification. Reckitt identified trade secrets, product formulas, testing methods, financial information, business strategies, and other confidential material. The plaintiffs opposed sealing some of Reckitt’s materials, while the parties also sought to protect a plaintiff’s telephone number and other designated information.
Judge Beth Labson Freeman granted the sealing motions concerning the plaintiffs’ class-certification motion, Reckitt’s opposition, and the plaintiffs’ reply. She granted in part and denied in part Reckitt’s motion concerning materials designated confidential by the plaintiffs, and granted the plaintiffs’ related motion concerning part of a deposition exhibit.
The detailed version
- Prescott v. Reckitt Benckiser LLC · No. 5:20-cv-02101
- Beth Freeman
- Mar. 22, 2022
Background
This omnibus order addressed seven administrative motions to seal filings connected to the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification:
- Plaintiffs’ motion concerning another party’s materials in the plaintiffs’ class-certification motion (ECF 110).
- Reckitt’s motion to seal the plaintiffs’ class-certification motion and related documents (ECF 114).
- Reckitt’s motion to seal its opposition to class certification and related documents (ECF 119).
- Reckitt’s motion concerning another party’s materials in its opposition filings (ECF 120).
- Plaintiffs’ motion to seal an excerpt of Exhibit 7 to Reckitt’s opposition (ECF 122).
- Plaintiffs’ motion concerning another party’s materials in their reply supporting class certification (ECF 123).
- Reckitt’s motion to seal the plaintiffs’ reply supporting class certification and related documents (ECF 125).
The materials included portions of briefs, declarations, expert reports, deposition transcripts, internal emails, presentations, pricing information, and other exhibits.
Legal Standard
The court explained that the public generally has a right to inspect and copy judicial records. Because the records here were more than tangentially related to the merits of the case and to class certification, sealing required “compelling reasons.” Under the court’s local rules, a sealing request also had to identify the harm from disclosure, explain why a less restrictive alternative would not work, and be narrowly tailored to seal only material that could properly be kept confidential. When one party had designated another party’s information as confidential, the designating party had the burden to show that sealing was justified.
Court’s Analysis
For the plaintiffs’ class-certification motion and supporting exhibits, Reckitt sought to seal information about product formulas, product-development and testing protocols, internal communications and strategies, financial information, wholesale pricing and sales, market research, and confidential submissions to the National Advertising Division. The court found that these materials included protectable trade secrets and confidential business and financial information. It also found that Reckitt’s proposed redactions were narrowly tailored and that Reckitt’s interest in confidentiality outweighed the public’s interest in access. The court therefore approved ECF 110 and ECF 114 as set forth in the order.
For Reckitt’s opposition and supporting exhibits, the court granted ECF 119 as set forth in the order. The court found compelling reasons to seal Reckitt’s internal business strategies, competitive analyses, trade secrets, product-development plans, and financial information, and found the requested redactions narrowly tailored.
The court granted in part and denied in part ECF 120, which concerned materials that the plaintiffs had designated confidential. The court allowed sealing of the portions of Exhibit 7 designated by the plaintiffs, but denied the motion otherwise. Exhibit 7 was an excerpt from the deposition of plaintiff Maria Christine Anello, and the material approved for sealing included Anello’s telephone number. The court separately granted ECF 122, the plaintiffs’ motion to seal those designated portions of Exhibit 7.
For the plaintiffs’ reply and supporting exhibits, the court granted ECF 123 and ECF 125 as set forth in the order. The court found that the materials contained confidential information about Reckitt’s trade secrets, financial information, wholesale pricing strategies, retailer and channel price increases, internal processes, pricing research, and a confidential National Advertising Division proceeding. It again found compelling reasons for sealing and concluded that the proposed redactions were narrowly tailored.
Disposition
Judge Beth Labson Freeman ordered the following:
- ECF 110: granted as set forth in the order. - ECF 114: granted as set forth in the order. - ECF 119: granted as set forth in the order. - ECF 120: granted in part and denied in part as set forth in the order. - ECF 122: granted as set forth in the order. - ECF 123: granted as set forth in the order. - ECF 125: granted as set forth in the order.
The order terminated ECF 110, 114, 119, 120, 122, 123, and 125. This order addressed access to specified court filings; it did not decide the underlying motion for class certification.
Read the full 27-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.