Perez v. Bath & Body Works, LLC

Background

Carmen Perez filed an administrative motion asking the court to decide whether material designated confidential by Bath & Body Works, LLC (BBW) should be sealed in Perez’s Second Amended Complaint. Perez identified the portions of the complaint that BBW had designated confidential or highly confidential. BBW submitted a declaration supporting narrower redactions than those originally proposed by Perez. Perez opposed BBW’s proposed redactions.

BBW asserted that the information concerned internal market-research processes and product testing that it considered highly confidential information or trade secrets, and that competitors could use the information to obtain an unfair advantage. Perez argued that BBW’s declaration was conclusory and that the proposed redactions did not satisfy the standard for sealing.

Legal standard

Because the motion concerned a complaint, the court applied the “compelling reasons” standard. Under that standard, information may be sealed when disclosure could harm competitive interests, including information about product formulas, product development, and testing protocols. Conclusory statements, hypotheses, or speculation about possible harm are not enough. The proposed sealing also had to be narrowly tailored to the material that could properly be sealed.

Ruling

The court ruled on BBW’s proposed redactions as follows:

- Denied: Page 12, lines 20–28, and page 13, line 1, because the material concerned the role of the Director of Regulatory Affairs in planning, drafting, and approving label claims and did not include information that competitors could use for a competitive advantage. - Denied: Page 14, lines 8–9, because the material concerned competitors’ products and did not include BBW’s internal processes for market research, product positioning, product research and development, product testing, or claims and safety testing that could provide a competitive advantage. - Granted: Page 20, lines 3–13 and 15–20, because the material concerned training related to BBW’s internal product-positioning processes and could potentially benefit competitors. - Granted: Page 25, lines 4–20, because the material concerned BBW’s internal product-research, development, and testing processes and could potentially benefit competitors. - Denied: Page 25, lines 22–26, because the material concerned competitors’ products and did not include the types of BBW internal-process information that could provide a competitive advantage. - Granted: Page 26, lines 1–14, because the material concerned BBW’s internal product-research, development, and testing processes and could potentially benefit competitors.

The court’s final order stated that the sealing motion was GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.