Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 ALLISON BARTON, individually and on Case No. 3:24-cv-1332-GPC-SBC behalf of others similarly situated, 11 ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND Plaintiffs, 12 DENYING IN PART MOTIONS TO v. SEAL 13 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE 14 [ECF Nos. 64, 77, 87, 94, 97, 106] COMPANY, a Delaware company, 15 Defendant. 16 17 This class action suit involves a number of consumer protection claims against 18 Defendant for allegedly misleading consumers regarding the safety of its tampon 19 products. Presently before the Court are both Plaintiffs’ and Defendant’s motions to file 20 documents under seal. ECF Nos. 64, 77, 87, 94, 97, 106. For the reasons set forth below, 21 the motions are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART without prejudice. 22 BACKGROUND 23 The factual background of this case has been outlined by this Court in previous 24 orders. See ECF No. 50. Thus, the Court will address only those facts relevant to the motions 25 now before it. 26 27 1 On February 2, 2026, United States Magistrate Judge Steve B. Chu filed a 2 protective order. ECF No. 57. On May 13, 2026, Plaintiff moved for class certification. 3 ECF No. 66. In support of their motion, Plaintiff has sought to file several documents 4 designated by Defendant as confidential pursuant to the protective order. Thus, Plaintiffs 5 have moved to file documents under seal. ECF No. 64. On June 10, 2026, Defendant filed 6 a joinder in part to Plaintiff’s motion to seal. ECF No. 80. 7 On June 10, 2026, Defendant filed its opposition to the motion to certify class as 8 well as a motion to exclude Plaintiff’s expert. ECF Nos. 79, 81. Defendant used several 9 materials in support of their filings that are either “competitively sensitive information” 10 for Defendant or designated by Plaintiff as confidential under the protective order. Thus, 11 Defendant has moved to file documents under seal. ECF No. 77. 12 On June 24, 2026, Plaintiff filed their reply in support of the motion for class 13 certification. ECF No. 88. In support of their motion, Plaintiff has sought to file several 14 documents designated by Defendant as confidential pursuant to the protective order. Thus, 15 Plaintiff has moved to file documents under seal. ECF No. 87. On July 8, 2026, Defendant 16 filed a joinder in part to Plaintiff’s motion to seal. ECF No. 103. 17 On July 1, 2026, Defendant filed a reply in support of its motion to exclude 18 Plaintiff’s expert. ECF No. 96. Defendant has sought to file several documents designated 19 by Defendant as confidential pursuant to the protective order. Thus, Defendant has moved 20 to file documents under seal. ECF No. 94. Plaintiff filed an opposition to this motion on 21 July 15, 2026. ECF No. 108. 22 On July 1, 2026, Plaintiff filed an opposition to Defendants June 10, 2026 motion 23 to seal. ECF No. 98. In support of their motion, Plaintiff has sought to file several 24 documents designated by Defendant as confidential pursuant to the protective order. Thus, 25 Plaintiff has moved to file documents under seal. ECF No. 97. On June 15, 2026, 26 Defendant filed a joinder in part to Plaintiff’s motion to seal. ECF No. 110. 27 1 On July 15, 2026, Plaintiff filed an opposition to the July 1, 2026 motion to seal. 2 ECF Nos. 94, 103. In support of their motion, Plaintiff has sought to file several 3 documents designated by Defendant as confidential pursuant to the protective order. Thus, 4 Plaintiff has moved to file documents under seal. ECF No. 106. On July 17, 2026, 5 Defendant filed a joinder in part to Plaintiff’s motion to seal. ECF No. 112. 6 LEGAL STANDARD 7 “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public 8 records and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & 9 Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner 10 Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 n.7 (1978)). Thus, “[u]nless a particular court record 11 is one ‘traditionally kept secret,’ a ‘strong presumption in favor of access is the starting 12 point.’” Id. (citing Foltz v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Insurance Company, 331 F.3d 1122, 13 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). 14 Courts in the Ninth Circuit have generally held that the “compelling reasons” 15 standard applies to motions to seal documents relating to class certification. See Adtrader, 16 Inc. v. Google LLC, No. 17-CV-07082-BLF, 2020 WL 6391210, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 17 2020) (collecting cases). Thus, a party seeking to seal a judicial record in relation to a 18 motion for class certification must “articulate[] compelling reasons supported by specific 19 factual findings . . . that outweigh the general history of access and public policies 20 favoring disclosure.” Kamakana, 447 F. 3d at 1178-79 (internal quotation marks and 21 citation omitted). Generally, “compelling reasons sufficient to outweigh the 22 public's interest in disclosure and justify sealing court records exist when such court files 23 might have become a vehicle for improper purposes, such as the use of records to gratify 24 private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade 25 secrets.” Id. at 1179. Even so, “‘[a]ny order sealing documents should be narrowly 26 tailored’ to serve those compelling reasons.” Doe v. L. Offs. of Winn & Sims, No. 06-CV- 27 1 00599-H-AJB, 2021 WL 9917688, at *1 (S.D. Cal. June 21, 2021), as modified (June 29, 2 2021) (quoting Ervine v. Warden, 214 F. Supp. 3d 917, 919 (E.D. Cal. 2016)). 3 “Filings that are only tangentially related to the merits [of a case] may be sealed 4 upon a lesser showing of ‘good cause.’” Adtrader, Inc., 2020 WL 6391210, at *2 (citing 5 Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101-02 (9th Cir. 2016)). More 6 specifically, “a ‘particularized showing’ . . . under the ‘good cause’ standard of Rule 7 26(c) will ‘suffice[] to warrant preserving the secrecy of sealed discovery material 8 attached to non-dispositive motions.’” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180 (quoting Foltz, 331 9 F. 3d at 1135, 1138). “Good cause exists where the party seeking protection shows that 10 specific prejudice or harm will result if no protective order is granted.” Anderson v. 11 Marsh, 312 F.R.D. 584, 594 (E.D. Cal. 2015) (citing Phillips ex rel. Ests. of Byrd v. Gen. 12 Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002)). A party asserting good cause 13 must offer more than “broad allegations of harm that are unsubstantiated by specific 14 examples or articulated reasoning.” Id. 15 Under both the good cause and compelling reasons standards, the presumption of 16 access is not rebutted where documents are the subject of a blanket protective order, and 17 parties must still meet the relevant standard for each piece of information they seek to file 18 under seal. Kamakana, 447 F. 3d at 1179-80 (“The compelling reasons standard is 19 invoked even if the dispositive motion, or its attachments, were previously filed under 20 seal or protective order.”) (internal quotation marks omitted); Foltz, 331 F. 3d at 1133 (“a 21 party seeking the protection of the court via a blanket protective order typically does not 22 make the ‘good cause’ showing required by Rule 26(c) with respect to any particular 23 document.”). 24 DISCUSSION 25 The sealing motions before the Court address several sets of documents: (1) 26 exhibits supporting Plaintiff’s motion for class certification; (2) Defendant’s opposition to 27 1 class certification and supporting exhibits; (3) exhibits supporting Plaintiff’s reply in 2 support of the motion for class certification; (4) portions of Defendant’s reply in support 3 of its motion to exclude Plaintiff’s expert; (5) exhibits in support of Plaintiff’s opposition 4 to Defendant’s motion to seal; and (6) exhibits in support of Plaintiff’s second opposition 5 to Defendant’s motion to seal. The Court addresses each in turn. 6 I. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Seal – Motion for Class Certification 7 In moving to seal various documents—or portions thereof—in support of their 8 motion for class certification, Plaintiff noted that each piece of information they seek to 9 seal has been designated as confidential by Defendant. ECF No. 64 at 2.1 Further, 10 Plaintiff states that they “take no position with regard to whether these documents have 11 been properly designated,” noting that certain documents do not appear to meet the 12 requirements of the motion. Id. at 5. Thus, Plaintiff does not present any reasons to seal 13 particular information beyond noting that a document (1) was designated by Defendant as 14 confidential or (2) relies on or refers to information designated by Defendant as 15 confidential. See id. at 2-4. 16 “Generally, a party seeking to seal judicial records bears the burden to demonstrate 17 ‘compelling reasons’ to deny the public access to public records.” Baldwin v. United 18 States, 732 F. Supp. 2d 1142, 1143 (D. N. Mar. I. 2010) (quoting Kamakana, 447 F. 3d at 19 1178). Here, while Plaintiffs are the party seeking to seal the records, Defendant is the 20 party aiming to keep the information confidential. Accordingly, the Court finds that the 21 burden is on Defendant to demonstrate compelling reasons for each document or piece of 22 information they seek to seal. 23 24 25 26 1 Throughout the order, the pagination for docketed documents is derived from the numbering generated by the ECF system. 27 1 Defendant’s counsel has filed a joinder in support of Plaintiff’s motion to seal, 2 wherein it asserts that “there are compelling reasons to seal the information” identified in 3 Plaintiff’s motion. ECF No. 80 at 2. However, the Court finds that Defendant’s 4 conclusory explanations regarding why a piece of information should be sealed—for 5 example, “the document contains sensitive and confidential P&G business information, 6 including information regarding P&G’s strategic goals and objectives,” id. at 5—do not 7 sufficiently “articulate[] compelling reasons supported by factual findings” to seal the 8 materials, Kamakana, 447 F. 3d at 1178. 9 When a party seeks to seal records to protect its own business interest, 10 “information may be sealed from the public only if it is truly confidential, not generally 11 known, and its disclosure would likely cause [the party] competitive harm.” 12 Krommenhock v. Post Foods, LLC, 334 F.R.D. 552, 587 (N.D. Cal. 2020). Defendant 13 does not specify how publication of much of the information identified in Plaintiffs’ 14 motion to seal would cause Defendant competitive harm. In addition, the declaration does 15 not address the filings on a line-by-line basis. See Kommenhock, 334 F.R.D. at 587. 16 Lastly, the parties ask to seal many of the documents in their entirety rather than 17 via partial redactions. See ECF No. 103, at 2-3. This includes over one hundred pages of 18 exhibits, encapsulating blank slides and a vague email and chat conversation. See ECF 19 No. 66-3. “Even where a document contains some information appropriate for sealing, a 20 party may not seal the entire document and must narrowly tailor that party's request by 21 only redacting the information appropriate for sealing.” Ameranth, Inc. v. Chownow, Inc., 22 No. 20-CV-02167-BEN-BLM, 2021 WL 3678415, at *7 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2021). 23 Where a party does seek to seal an entire document, “it must show that the possibility of 24 prejudice or harm would not be defeated by redacting only the sensitive portions of said 25 document.” Matthew v. United States, No. 3:25-CV-01664-JES-JLB, 2025 WL 1811828, 26 at *1 (S.D. Cal. July 1, 2025) (citing In re Roman Cath. Archbishop, 661 F.3d 417, 425 27 1 (9th Cir. 2011)). Defendant’s requests to seal are poorly explained and facially 2 overbroad. “These sorts of overbroad requests to seal will not be granted.” Krommenhock 3 v. Post Foods, LLC, 334 F.R.D. 552, 587 (N.D. Cal. 2020). Accordingly, the Court rules 4 on Plaintiff’s first motion to seal, ECF No. 64, as follows: 5 PLAINITFFS’ MOTION TO SEAL – MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION Document Portion to be Sealed Alleged reason to Court’s Ruling 6 Seal 7 Class Certification Motion Redactions “[R]eferences DENIED. The ECF No. 66 sensitive and reasons provided are 8 confidential P&G conclusory and “do 9 business not rise to the level of information.” ECF ‘compelling reasons’ 10 No. 80 at 4. sufficiently specific 11 to bar the public access to the 12 documents.” 13 Kamankana, 447 F.3d at 1182. 14 Exhibit 1 to the Decl. of Entire Document “[C]ontains sensitive DENIED as overly 15 Naomi B. Spector in Support and confidential P&G broad. of Plaintiff’s Motion for business 16 Class Certification (“NS information.” ECF There is no indication 17 Decl.”) No. 80 at 5. this document should ECF No. 66 be sealed in its 18 entirety rather than 19 redacted. Additionally, the 20 reasons provided are 21 conclusory and “do not rise to the level of 22 ‘compelling reasons’ 23 sufficiently specific to bar the public 24 access to the documents.” 25 Kamankana, 447 26 F.3d at 1182. 27 1 Exhibit 2 to NS Decl. Entire Document “[C]ontains sensitive DENIED as overly ECF No. 66 and confidential P&G broad. 2 business 3 information.” ECF There is no indication No. 80 at 5. this document should 4 be sealed in its 5 entirety rather than redacted. 6 Additionally, the 7 reasons provided are conclusory and “do 8 not rise to the level of 9 ‘compelling reasons’ sufficiently specific 10 to bar the public 11 access to the documents.” 12 Kamankana, 447 13 F.3d at 1182. Exhibit 3 to NS Decl. Redactions “[C]ontains sensitive GRANTED. 14 ECF No. 66 and confidential P&G 15 business information, including information 16 regarding P&G’s 17 brand strategy and objectives.” ECF No. 18 8 at 5. Exhibit 4 to NS Decl. Entire Document Designated by DENIED as overly 19 ECF No. 66 Defendant as broad. 20 Confidential. ECF No. 64 at 3. There is no indication 21 this document should 22 be sealed in its entirety rather than 23 redacted, and 24 Defendants do not argue in support to 25 seal this exhibit. 26 Exhibit 5 to NS Decl. Entire Document Designated by DENIED as overly ECF No. 66 Defendant as broad. 27 1 Confidential. ECF No. 64 at 3. There is no indication 2 this document should 3 be sealed in its entirety rather than 4 redacted, and 5 Defendants do not argue in support to 6 seal this exhibit. 7 Exhibit 6 to NS Decl. Entire Document Designated by DENIED as overly ECF No. 66 Defendant as broad. 8 Confidential. ECF 9 No. 64 at 3. There is no indication this document should 10 be sealed in its 11 entirety rather than redacted, and 12 Defendants do not 13 argue in support to seal this exhibit. 14 Exhibit 7 to NS Decl. Entire Document “[C]ontains sensitive GRANTED. 15 ECF No. 66 and confidential business information 16 regarding P&G’s 17 internal product certification efforts 18 and related product- safety strategy.” ECF 19 No. 80 at 6. 20 Exhibit 8 to NS Decl. Entire Document “[C]ontains sensitive DENIED as overly ECF No. 66 and confidential P&G broad. 21 business 22 information.” ECF There is no indication No. 80 at 6. this document should 23 be sealed in its 24 entirety rather than redacted. 25 Additionally, the 26 reasons provided are conclusory and “do 27 1 not rise to the level of ‘compelling reasons’ 2 sufficiently specific 3 to bar the public access to the 4 documents.” 5 Kamankana, 447 F.3d at 1182. 6 Exhibit 9 to NS Decl. Entire Document Identical to Exhibit 2. DENIED as overly 7 ECF No. 66 ECF No. 80 at 6. broad.

8 There is no indication 9 this document should be sealed in its 10 entirety rather than 11 redacted. Additionally, the 12 reasons provided are 13 conclusory and “do not rise to the level of 14 ‘compelling reasons’ 15 sufficiently specific to bar the public 16 access to the 17 documents.” Kamankana, 447 18 F.3d at 1182. Exhibit 10 to NS Decl. Entire Document Identical to Exhibit 2. DENIED as overly 19 ECF No. 66 ECF No. 80 at 6. broad. 20 There is no indication 21 this document should 22 be sealed in its entirety rather than 23 redacted. 24 Additionally, the reasons provided are 25 conclusory and “do 26 not rise to the level of ‘compelling reasons’ 27 1 sufficiently specific to bar the public 2 access to the 3 documents.” Kamankana, 447 4 F.3d at 1182. 5 Exhibit 12 to NS Decl. Entire Document “[C]ontains sensitive DENIED as overly ECF No. 66 and confidential P&G broad. 6 business 7 information.” ECF There is no indication No. 80 at 7. this document should 8 be sealed in its 9 entirety rather than redacted. 10 Additionally, the 11 reasons provided are conclusory and “do 12 not rise to the level of 13 ‘compelling reasons’ sufficiently specific 14 to bar the public 15 access to the documents.” 16 Kamankana, 447 17 F.3d at 1182. Exhibit 13 to NS Decl. Entire Document Designated by DENIED as overly 18 ECF No. 66 Defendant as broad. Confidential. ECF 19 No. 64 at 3. There is no indication 20 this document should be sealed in its 21 entirety rather than 22 redacted, and Defendants do not 23 argue in support to 24 seal this exhibit. Exhibit 14 to NS Decl. Partial redactions “[C]ontains sensitive DENIED. Defendant 25 ECF No. 66 and confidential P&G has provided no 26 business information particularized factual regarding P&G’s showing to justify 27 1 vendors and sealing the name of suppliers, and its supplier. In fact, 2 discussion regarding courts have rejected 3 the development of similar attempts to business plans, which file supplier names 4 would be under seal. See, e.g., 5 competitively HDT Bio Corp. v. harmful.” ECF No. Emcure Pharms., 6 80 at 7. Ltd., No. C22- 7 0334JLR, 2023 WL 8433121, at *3 (W.D. 8 Wash. Dec. 5, 2023); 9 Fitzhenry-Russell v. Dr. Pepper Snapple 10 Grp., Inc., No. 17- 11 CV-00564 NC, 2018 WL 10472795, at *1 12 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 23, 13 2018). Beyond suppliers and 14 vendors, the 15 document only specifies dates and 16 discussions on lead. Defendant has not 17 articulated what harm 18 might result from disclosure of this 19 information. 20 Exhibit 15 to NS Decl. 144:8-20 “Contains sensitive GRANTED. ECF No. 66 and confidential data 21 reflecting P&G’s 22 sales of and revenue from the Products.” 23 ECF No. 80 at 7. 24 Exhibit 20 to NS Decl. Entire Document Designated by DENIED as overly ECF No. 66 Defendant as broad. 25 Confidential. ECF 26 No. 64 at 3. There is no indication this document should 27 1 be sealed in its entirety rather than 2 redacted, and 3 Defendants do not argue in support to 4 seal this exhibit. 5 Exhibit 21 to NS Decl. Entire Document “[C]ontains sensitive DENIED as overly ECF No. 66 and confidential P&G broad. 6 business 7 information.” ECF There is no indication No. 80 at 8. this document should 8 be sealed in its 9 entirety rather than redacted. 10 Additionally, the 11 reasons provided are conclusory and “do 12 not rise to the level of 13 ‘compelling reasons’ sufficiently specific 14 to bar the public 15 access to the documents.” 16 Kamankana, 447 17 F.3d at 1182. Exhibit 22 to NS Decl. Redactions “[C]ontains sensitive GRANTED. 18 ECF No. 66 and confidential P&G business information 19 regarding P&G’s 20 strategic goals and objectives, P&G’s 21 budgeting for and 22 financial investment into corporate 23 initiatives, and data 24 reflecting P&G’s sales of and revenue 25 from the Products.” 26 ECF No. 80 at 8. 27 1 Exhibit 23 to NS Decl. Entire Document Designated by DENIED as overly ECF No. 66 Defendant as broad. 2 Confidential. ECF 3 No. 64 at 4. There is no indication this document should 4 be sealed in its 5 entirety rather than redacted, and 6 Defendants do not 7 argue in support to seal this exhibit. 8 Exhibit 24 to NS Decl. Redactions “[C]ontains sensitive GRANTED. 9 ECF No. 66 and confidential P&G business information, 10 including information 11 regarding P&G’s internal 12 communications 13 strategy, product- safety strategy, risk- 14 mitigation planning, 15 and internal investigation of non- 16 public testing issues.” 17 Exhibit 25 to NS Decl. Redactions “[C]ontains sensitive GRANTED. ECF No. 66 and confidential P&G 18 business information regarding P&G 19 budgeting for and 20 financial investment into corporate 21 initiatives. ECF No. 22 80 at 9. Exhibit 26 to NS Decl. Entire Document Designated by DENIED as overly 23 ECF No. 66 Defendant as broad. 24 Confidential. ECF No. 64 at 4. There is no indication 25 this document should 26 be sealed in its entirety rather than 27 1 redacted, and Defendants do not 2 argue in support to 3 seal this exhibit. Exhibit 29 to NS Decl. Redactions “[C]ontains sensitive GRANTED. 4 ECF No. 66 and confidential P&G 5 business information regarding P&G’s 6 sales of and revenue 7 from the Products.” ECF No. 80 at 9. 8 9 II. Defendant’s Motion to Seal – Opposition to Class Certification 10 Defendant, in relation to its opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for class certification, 11 has also sought to file certain documents or excerpts thereof under seal. ECF No. 109. 12 Because the documents are in relation to a motion for class certification, the compelling 13 reasons standard continues to apply. Adtrader, Inc., 2020 WL 6391210, at *2. 14 Plaintiff opposes the motion, arguing that Defendant fails to provide compelling 15 reasons, the documents are already publicly disclosed, and Defendant’s expert relies upon 16 the documents. ECF No. 98 at 10-15. 17 As with the declaration in support of Plaintiff’s motion to seal, Defendant’s 18 declaration largely fails to articulate compelling reasons supported by factual findings to 19 warrant sealing each particular document or piece of information. Specifically, Defendant 20 fails to demonstrate concrete “prejudice or harm flowing from the disclosure of [each] 21 specific document.” Al Otro Lado, Inc. v. McAleenan, No. 17-CV-02366-BAS-KSC, 22 2019 WL 6220898, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2019) (citing Unknown Parties v. Johnson, 23 No. CV-15-00250-TUC-DCB, 2016 WL 8199309, at *4 (D. Ariz. June 27, 2016)). 24 The Court rules on Defendant’s motion to seal, ECF No. 77, as follows: 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 1 DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SEAL – OPPOSITION TO MOTION Document Portion to be Sealed Alleged reason to Court’s Ruling 2 Seal 3 Opposition Portions of pages 3-6, “References sensitive GRANTED as to 8, 15-18, 20-21, 23. competitive pages 3, 5:25-28, 6:1- 4 information.” ECF 13. 5 No. 77 at 6. DENIED as to the 6 remaining redactions. 7 The reasons provided are conclusory and 8 “do not rise to the 9 level of ‘compelling reasons’ sufficiently 10 specific to bar the 11 public access to the documents.” 12 Kamankana, 447 13 F.3d at 1182. Iraolagoitia Declaration Portions of ¶¶ 3, 7- “References sensitive DENIED. The 14 11, 17-28, 31-45. competitive reasons provided are 15 information.” ECF conclusory and “do No. 77 at 6. not rise to the level of 16 ‘compelling reasons’ 17 sufficiently specific to bar the public 18 access to the 19 documents.” Kamankana, 447 20 F.3d at 1182. 21 Exhibit 4-13 and 15-22 to the Entire Document “Contains sensitive GRANTED as to Iraolagoitia Declaration and confidential P&G Exhibits 20-22. 22 business information regarding P&G’s DENIED as overly 23 internal testing broad as to the 24 procedures, the remaining exhibits. results of P&G’s While Plaintiffs may 25 confidential testing be able to identify 26 and analysis of specific information Tampax and to be sealed (e.g., 27 1 competitor products, product materials, and information confidential third- 2 identifying P&G’s party vendors), this is 3 vendors and not a basis to seal the suppliers.” ECF No. document in its 4 77 at 6. entirety. 5 Also contain analyses 6 of potential sources 7 of lead, countries materials were 8 sourced, information 9 collected about competitors, and 10 proprietary business 11 strategies. ECF No. 102 at 8. 12 Exhibit 2 to the Soukup Portions of pages “[R]eferences DENIED. The 13 Opposition Declaration 161-166, 182-183 sensitive competitive reasons provided are information.” ECF conclusory and “do 14 No. 77 at 7. not rise to the level of 15 ‘compelling reasons’ sufficiently specific 16 to bar the public 17 access to the documents.” 18 Kamankana, 447 F.3d at 1182. 19 Exhibit 4 to the Soukup Portions of pages 3, “References sensitive DENIED. The 20 Opposition Declaration 8, 10-11, 16, 21-26, competitive reasons provided are 32-33. information.” ECF conclusory and “do 21 No. 77 at 7. not rise to the level of 22 ‘compelling reasons’ sufficiently specific 23 to bar the public 24 access to the documents.” 25 Kamankana, 447 26 F.3d at 1182. 27 1 Exhibit 5 to the Soukup Portions of pages 11, “References sensitive DENIED. The Opposition Declaration 14-15. competitive reasons provided are 2 information in conclusory and “do 3 response to the 2024 not rise to the level of study.” ECF No. 77 ‘compelling reasons’ 4 at 7. sufficiently specific 5 to bar the public access to the 6 documents.” 7 Kamankana, 447 F.3d at 1182. 8 Motion to Exclude Portions of pages i, “References sensitive DENIED. The 9 8-9, 18-20, 22-23. competitive reasons provided are information.” ECF conclusory and “do 10 No. 77 at 7. not rise to the level of 11 ‘compelling reasons’ sufficiently specific 12 to bar the public 13 access to the documents.” 14 Kamankana, 447 15 F.3d at 1182. Exhibit 2 to the Soukup Portions of pages “References sensitive DENIED. The 16 Exclusion Declaration 161-166, 182-183, competitive reasons provided are 17 194. information.” ECF conclusory and “do No. 77 at 7. not rise to the level of 18 ‘compelling reasons’ sufficiently specific 19 to bar the public 20 access to the documents.” 21 Kamankana, 447 22 F.3d at 1182. Exhibit 21 to the Soukup Portions of pages “[C]ertain pages of DENIED as Plaintiff 23 Sealing Declaration 118, 125, 126, 130- Plaintiff’s deposition did not provide 24 132. transcript contained compelling reasons. private information 25 about Plaintiff’s 26 personal history that was designated as 27 1 confidential.” ECF No. 8. 2 3 III. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Seal – Reply to Class Certification 4 Plaintiff, in relation to her reply to the class certification motion, has also sought to 5 file certain documents under seal. ECF No. 87. Because the documents are in relation to a 6 motion for class certification, the compelling reasons standard continues to apply. 7 Adtrader, Inc., 2020 WL 6391210, at *2. The Court rules on Plaintiff’s motion to seal, 8 ECF No. 87, as follows: 9 PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SEAL – REPLY TO MOTION TO CERTIFY CLASS 10 Document Portion to be Alleged reason to Seal Court’s Ruling Sealed 11 Plaintiff’s Reply Redactions Contains “internal GRANTED as to 12 consumer sentiment 2:6-7, 2: 8-9, 4:4, 4 survey involving fn.6, 5:19-21, 6:1-7, 13 competitor brands, 6:15-18, 6 fn.13, 14 internal analysis of 7:13. these surveys, and 15 internal brand and DENIED as to the 16 product-messaging remaining strategy plans, which redactions, which do 17 would be competitively not show clear 18 harmful…[C]ompetitors references to the could potentially confidential 19 leverage information to information 20 emulate P&G’s testing Defendant alludes to procedures, make and provides 21 copies of its products, compelling reasons 22 duplicate its marketing for. Additionally, strategies or marketing some of the 23 research, or attempt to redactions identified 24 disrupt P&G’s attempt to seal relationships with its already public 25 suppliers.” ECF No. information. 26 103 at 5. 27 1 Exhibit 1 to the Decl. of Redactions Some pages are not GRANTED. Naomi B. Spector in cited to in the Reply, 2 Support of Plaintiff’s and there are not 3 Motion for Class compelling reasons to Certification (“NS Decl.”) make those pages 4 public. ECF No. 103 at 5 6. Page 43 contains test information that were 6 done on a per- 7 component basis and could assist competitors 8 in identifying the 9 material composition and raw materials 10 suppliers for each of the 11 component parts of the Products. Id. 12 Exhibit 2 to NS Decl. Entire Document Designated by DENIED as overly 13 Defendant as broad. Confidential. ECF No. 14 87 at 2. There is no 15 indication this document should be 16 sealed in its entirety 17 rather than redacted, and Defendants do 18 not argue in support to seal this exhibit. 19 Exhibit 3 to NS Decl. Entire Document Designated by DENIED as overly 20 Defendant as broad. Confidential. ECF No. 21 87 at 2. There is no 22 indication this document should be 23 sealed in its entirety 24 rather than redacted, and Defendants do 25 not argue in support 26 to seal this exhibit. 27 1 Exhibit 4 to NS Decl. Entire Document “Public disclosure of DENIED as overly this information would broad. 2 reveal what brands and 3 products P&G considers There is no competitors to Tampax indication this 4 and proprietary business document should be 5 strategies and sealed in its entirety recommendations rather than redacted. 6 which competitors Additionally, the 7 could emulate to gain reasons provided are competitive advantage.” conclusory and “do 8 ECF No. 103 at 7. not rise to the level 9 of ‘compelling reasons’ sufficiently 10 specific to bar the 11 public access to the documents.” 12 Kamankana, 447 13 F.3d at 1182. Exhibit 5 to NS Decl. Entire Document Contains summary of DENIED as overly 14 internal consumer broad. 15 sentiment research and internal suggestions for There is no 16 changes to brand indication this 17 strategy that document should be competitors could sealed in its entirety 18 emulate. ECF No. 103 rather than redacted. at 7. Additionally, the 19 reasons provided are 20 conclusory and “do not rise to the level 21 of ‘compelling 22 reasons’ sufficiently specific to bar the 23 public access to the 24 documents.” Kamankana, 447 25 F.3d at 1182. 26 27 1 IV. Defendant’s Motion to Seal – Reply to Motion to Exclude Expert 2 Defendant, in relation to its reply in support of its motion to exclude Plaintiff’s 3 expert, has also sought to file certain documents or excerpts thereof under seal. ECF No. 4 94. Because the documents are in relation to a motion for class certification, the 5 compelling reasons standard continues to apply. Adtrader, Inc., 2020 WL 6391210, at *2. 6 The Court rules on Defendant’s motion to seal, ECF No. 94, as follows: 7 DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SEAL – REPLY TO MOTION TO EXCLUDE Document Portion to be Sealed Alleged reason to Court’s Ruling 8 Seal 9 Defendant’s Reply Portions of pages 8, “References to DENIED. The 9, and 10. sensitive competitive reasons provided are 10 information conclusory and “do 11 regarding P&G’s not rise to the level of internal testing ‘compelling reasons’ 12 procedures and the sufficiently specific 13 results of P&G’s to bar the public confidential testing access to the 14 and analysis of documents.” 15 Tampax and Kamankana, 447 competitor products.” F.3d at 1182. 16 ECF No. 94 at 6. 17 V. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Seal – Opposition to Motion to Seal 18 Plaintiff, in relation to its opposition to Defendant’s motion to seal, has also sought 19 to file certain documents or excerpts thereof under seal. ECF No. 94. The motion to seal is 20 not subject to the compelling reasons standard previously analyzed. Instead, “a 21 ‘particularized showing’ . . . under the ‘good cause’ standard of Rule 26(c) will ‘suffice[] 22 to warrant preserving the secrecy of sealed discovery material attached to non-dispositive 23 motions.’” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180 (quoting Foltz, 331 F. 3d at 1135, 1138). 24 However, even under the good cause standard, parties must show more than the mere fact 25 that information is subject to a protective order. See Anderson v. Marsh, 312 F.R.D. 584, 26 594 (E.D. Cal. 2015). 27 1 The Court rules on Plaintiff’s motion to seal, ECF No. 97, as follows: 2 PLAINITFFS’ MOTION TO SEAL – OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO SEAL Document Portion to be Sealed Alleged reason to Court’s Ruling 3 Seal 4 Plaintiff’s Opposition to Redactions Portions include DENIED as overly Motion to Seal results of internal broad as they cover 5 product-safety entire pages of the 6 analysis, the results document rather than of an internal line-by-line 7 consumer sentiment redactions. Also, the 8 survey involving reasons provided are competitor brands, conclusory and do 9 internal analysis of not meet a good 10 these surveys, and cause showing. internal brand and Anderson, 312 F.R.D. 11 product-messaging at 594. 12 strategy plans.” ECF No. 110 at 5. 13 Exhibit 1 of the Declaration Redactions Portions not cited in GRANTED as to 14 of Benjamin J. Sweet in the Sealing pages 2, 4-7, 9-15, support of Plaintiff’s Opposition, and other 17-21, 23-26. 15 Opposition to Defendant’s portions contain 16 Motion to Seal and business information DENIED as overly Defendant’s Joinder in Part regarding internal broad to the 17 to Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal product-safety remaining four pages. 18 (“BJS Decl.”) analysis and The reasons provided assessment of non- are conclusory and 19 public testing do not meet a good 20 information. ECF No. cause showing. 110 at 6. As to page Anderson, 312 F.R.D. 21 7, the page contains at 594. information that 22 could assist 23 competitors in identifying the 24 material composition 25 and raw materials suppliers for each of 26 the component parts 27 1 of the Tampax products. Id. 2 Exhibit 2 of BJS Decl. Redactions Portions not cited in GRANTED as to 3 the Sealing pages 1-45, 47-85, Opposition, and other 88-118, 122-234. 4 portions discuss 5 nonpublic product- DENIED as overly safety testing. broad to the 6 remaining six pages. 7 The reasons provided are conclusory and 8 do not meet a good 9 cause showing. Anderson, 312 F.R.D. 10 at 594. 11 Exhibit 3 of BJS Decl. Entire Document Designated by DENIED as overly Defendant as broad. 12 Confidential. ECF 13 No. 97 at 2. There is no indication this document should 14 be sealed in its 15 entirety rather than redacted, and 16 Defendants do not 17 argue in support to seal this exhibit. 18 Exhibit 4 of BJS Decl. Entire Document Designated by DENIED as overly 19 Defendant as broad. Confidential. ECF 20 No. 97 at 2. There is no indication 21 this document should “[C]ontains a be sealed in its 22 discussion of entirety rather than nonpublic business redacted, and 23 and marketing Defendants do not 24 strategies” ECF No. argue in support to 110 at 7. seal this exhibit. 25 Additionally, the 26 reasons provided are conclusory and do 27 1 not meet a good cause showing. 2 Anderson, 312 F.R.D. 3 at 594. Exhibit 5 of BJS Decl. Entire Document Designated by DENIED as overly 4 Defendant as broad. 5 Confidential. ECF No. 97 at 2. There is no indication 6 this document should 7 “[C]ontains summary be sealed in its of internal consumer entirety rather than 8 sentiment research redacted, and 9 and internal Defendants do not suggestions for argue in support to 10 changes to brand seal this exhibit. 11 strategy as a result of Additionally, the that research.” ECF reasons provided are 12 No. 110 at 8. conclusory and do 13 not meet a good cause showing. 14 Anderson, 312 F.R.D. 15 at 594. Exhibit 6 of BJS Decl. Entire Document Designated by DENIED as overly 16 Defendant as broad. 17 Confidential. ECF No. 97 at 2. There is no indication 18 this document should be sealed in its 19 entirety rather than 20 redacted, and Defendants do not 21 argue in support to 22 seal this exhibit. Exhibit 7 of BJS Decl. Entire Document “Not cited in GRANTED. 23 Plaintiff’s Sealing 24 Opposition.” ECF No. 110 at 8. 25 Exhibit 8 of BJS Decl. Entire Document Designated by DENIED as overly 26 Defendant as broad.

27 1 Confidential. ECF There is no indication No. 97 at 3. this document should 2 be sealed in its 3 entirety rather than redacted, and 4 Defendants do not 5 argue in support to seal this exhibit. 6 Exhibit 9 of BJS Decl. Entire Document Designated by DENIED as overly 7 Defendant as broad. Confidential. ECF 8 No. 97 at 3. There is no indication 9 this document should be sealed in its 10 entirety rather than 11 redacted, and Defendants do not 12 argue in support to 13 seal this exhibit. Exhibit 10 of BJS Decl. Entire Document Designated by DENIED as overly 14 Defendant as broad. 15 Confidential. ECF No. 97 at 3. There is no indication 16 this document should 17 be sealed in its entirety rather than 18 redacted, and Defendants do not 19 argue in support to 20 seal this exhibit. Exhibit 11 of BJS Decl. Entire Document Designated by DENIED as overly 21 Defendant as broad. 22 Confidential. ECF No. 97 at 3. There is no indication 23 this document should 24 be sealed in its entirety rather than 25 redacted, and 26 Defendants do not 27 1 argue in support to seal this exhibit. 2 Exhibit 12 of BJS Decl. Entire Document Designated by DENIED as overly 3 Defendant as broad. Confidential. ECF 4 No. 97 at 4. There is no indication 5 this document should be sealed in its 6 entirety rather than 7 redacted, and Defendants do not 8 argue in support to 9 seal this exhibit. Exhibit 13 of BJS Decl. Entire Document Designated by DENIED as overly 10 Defendant as broad. 11 Confidential. ECF No. 97 at 3. There is no indication 12 this document should 13 be sealed in its entirety rather than 14 redacted, and 15 Defendants do not argue in support to 16 seal this exhibit. 17 Exhibit 14 of BJS Decl. Entire Document Designated by DENIED as overly Defendant as broad. 18 Confidential. ECF 19 No. 97 at 4. There is no indication this document should 20 be sealed in its entirety rather than 21 redacted, and 22 Defendants do not argue in support to 23 seal this exhibit. 24 Exhibit 15 of BJS Decl. Entire Document Designated by DENIED as overly Defendant as broad. 25 Confidential. ECF 26 No. 97 at 4. There is no indication this document should 27 1 be sealed in its entirety rather than 2 redacted, and 3 Defendants do not argue in support to 4 seal this exhibit. 5 Exhibit 16 of BJS Decl. Entire Document “Not cited in GRANTED. Plaintiff’s Sealing 6 Opposition.” ECF 7 No. 110 at 10. Exhibit 17 of BJS Decl. Entire Document Designated by DENIED as overly 8 Defendant as broad. 9 Confidential. ECF No. 97 at 4. There is no indication 10 this document should 11 “[C]ontains sensitive be sealed in its and confidential P&G entirety rather than 12 business information redacted, and 13 regarding internal Defendants do not product-safety argue in support to 14 analysis.” ECF No. seal this exhibit. 15 110 at 10. Additionally, the reasons provided are 16 conclusory and do 17 not meet a good cause showing. 18 Anderson, 312 F.R.D. at 594. 19 Exhibit 18 of BJS Decl. Entire Document Designated by DENIED as overly 20 Defendant as broad. Confidential. ECF 21 No. 97 at 4. There is no indication 22 this document should be sealed in its 23 entirety rather than 24 redacted, and Defendants do not 25 argue in support to 26 seal this exhibit.

27 1 VI. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Seal – Opposition to Motion to Seal 2 Plaintiff, in relation to its opposition to Defendant’s motion to seal, has also sought 3 to file certain documents or excerpts thereof under seal. ECF No. 106. The motion to seal 4 is not subject to the compelling reasons standard previously analyzed. Instead, “a 5 ‘particularized showing’ . . . under the ‘good cause’ standard of Rule 26(c) will ‘suffice[] 6 to warrant preserving the secrecy of sealed discovery material attached to non-dispositive 7 motions.’” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180 (quoting Foltz, 331 F. 3d at 1135, 1138). 8 However, even under the good cause standard, parties must show more than the mere fact 9 that information is subject to a protective order. See Anderson v. Marsh, 312 F.R.D. 584, 10 594 (E.D. Cal. 2015). 11 The Court rules on Plaintiff’s motion to seal, ECF No. 106, as follows: 12 PLAINITFFS’ MOTION TO SEAL – OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO SEAL Document Portion to be Sealed Alleged reason to Court’s Ruling 13 Seal 14 Plaintiff’s Opposition to Redactions Portions include DENIED. The Motion to Seal results of internal reasons provided are 15 testing procedures conclusory and do 16 and business strategy not meet a good discussions. ECF No. cause showing. 17 112 at 5. Anderson, 312 F.R.D. 18 at 594.

19 VII. Counsel Must Provide the Court with Narrower Proposed Redactions 20 All denials in this order are without prejudice. Within twenty (20) days of this 21 order, the parties shall meet and confer and, subsequently, file a singular chart identifying 22 by document name, sealed document number, and page and line/paragraph number the 23 precise information they maintain should remain under seal. The chart shall also include 24 citations to a declaration from a source with the required personal knowledge attesting as 25 to the compelling reason why sealing is necessary. See, e.g., Krommenhock, 334 F.R.D. 26 27 1 || at 587; Mendell v. Am. Med. Response, Inc., No. 19-CV-01227-BAS-KSC, 2021 WL 2 398486, at 3 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 3, 2021). 3 The filings now conditionally under seal will remain conditionally under seal until 4 || the Court’s final ruling on sealing after reviewing the chart and declarations. At that 5 ||juncture, the parties will be directed to file redacted documents that redact only the 6 || information the Court has determined may remain under seal. 7 CONCLUSION 8 For the foregoing reasons, the motions to seal are GRANTED IN PART and 9 || DENIED IN PART. The parties are ORDERED to meet and confer and file with the 10 || Court, within twenty (20) days of this Order, a chart identifying narrower redactions and 11 sealing requests. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 Dated: August 26, 2026 72 st 14 Hon. athe Cee 15 United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 30 28 24-cv-1332-GPC-SBC