Prescott v. Reckitt Benckiser LLC

Background

This order addressed six administrative motions to seal materials submitted in connection with Reckitt Benckiser LLC’s motion for summary judgment. The materials included portions of Reckitt’s motion and reply, Plaintiffs’ opposition, supporting exhibits, expert reports, deposition excerpts, and related documents.

Legal standard

The court explained that judicial records connected more than tangentially to the merits of a case may be sealed only for “compelling reasons.” Because these materials related to summary judgment, that stricter standard applied. A party seeking to seal material must identify the private or public interests supporting secrecy, the harm that would result from disclosure, and why a narrower alternative would not be sufficient. The proposed sealing also must be limited to material that is actually sealable. When one party seeks to seal information designated confidential by another party, the designating party bears the burden of showing that sealing is justified.

Rulings

The court granted Reckitt’s motion to seal portions of its summary-judgment motion and related documents, ECF 154. The sealed material included information about detergent formulas, product development, testing protocols, internal business strategies, internal communications, financial information, trade-secret testing methods, and confidential proceedings before the National Advertising Division. The court approved targeted redactions and sealing two exhibits in their entirety because narrower redactions would not adequately protect the information.

The court granted Reckitt’s motion to consider whether another party’s materials should be sealed, ECF 155, as to the material identified in Plaintiffs’ companion motion. The court also granted Plaintiffs’ motion to seal, ECF 158, which concerned one line containing Steven Prescott’s email address. Plaintiffs did not seek to seal the other portions of the exhibits identified in ECF 155.

The court granted Plaintiffs’ motion to consider whether another party’s materials should be sealed, ECF 159, as to the materials identified in Reckitt’s companion motion. The court also granted Reckitt’s motion to seal portions of Plaintiffs’ opposition brief and supporting exhibits, ECF 164. The approved sealing covered information concerning Reckitt’s pricing, sales, finances, marketing, product development, market research, business strategies, trade-secret testing protocol, and confidential National Advertising Division submissions. Some exhibits were sealed in their entirety because more limited redactions were not sufficient.

Finally, the court granted Reckitt’s motion to seal portions of its reply and related documents, ECF 165. The approved redactions concerned confidential pricing strategies, project names, product-development processes, confidential National Advertising Division proceedings, and a private home address. No reply exhibit was sealed in its entirety under that motion.

Disposition and effect

The specific portions approved for sealing were identified in charts appended to the order. The order terminated ECF 154, 155, 158, 159, 164, and 165. This order decided access to specified court filings; it did not decide the pending summary-judgment motion or the merits of the underlying dispute.