J.J et al v. Ashlynn Marketing Group, Inc.

1
3:24-cv-00311-GPC-MSB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
J.J., C.D., C.B., and D.F., individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
ASHLYNN MARKETING GROUP,
INC.,
Defendant.
Case No.: 3:24-cv-00311-GPC-MSB
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE PLAINTIFFS’ AND
DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS TO SEAL
[ECF Nos. 103, 109, 112]
This case concerns Defendant’s alleged failure to warn consumers of the purportedly
addictive nature of kratom when marketing and labeling its kratom-based products.
Currently pending before the Court are both Plaintiffs’ and Defendant’s motions to file
documents under seal. ECF Nos. 103, 109, & 112. For the reasons set forth below, the
motions are DENIED without prejudice.
BACKGROUND
The factual background of this case has been outlined by this Court in previous
orders. See ECF No. 77. Thus, the Court will address only those facts relevant to the motions
now before it.
Case 3:24-cv-00311-GPC-MSB Document 117 Filed 03/13/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 1 of 21

2
3:24-cv-00311-GPC-MSB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
On March 7, 2025, Plaintiffs J.J., C.D., C.B., and D.F. filed their Consolidated Class
Action Complaint (CCAC), individually and on behalf of three putative classes, alleging
that Defendant failed to warn consumers of the potentially addictive nature of its products,
which contain dried leaves from a plant called kratom. ECF No. 50. Specifically, Plaintiffs
allege that Defendant misled consumers by espousing the purported health benefits of
kratom without disclosing kratom’s addictive properties on its product labels or in its
advertising. Id. at 8, 16.
Before Plaintiffs filed the operative complaint, on April 18, 2024, the parties filed a
joint motion for entry of a stipulated protective order. ECF No. 13. The joint stipulation
noted that this case is likely to involve confidential or sensitive information, and provided
that either party may designate any materials as confidential. ECF No. 13-1, at 4-5. The
stipulation goes on to mandate that, should either party file a document designated as
confidential with the Court, the party must seek permission from the Court to file the
material under seal. Id. at 9.
On April 26, 2024, United States Magistrate Judge Michael S. Berg granted the joint
motion for entry of stipulated protective order. ECF No. 14.
Plaintiffs have now moved for class certification. ECF No. 105. In support of their
motion, Plaintiffs have sought to file several documents designated by Defendant as
confidential pursuant to the protective order. Thus, Plaintiffs have moved to file documents
under seal. ECF No. 103.
In opposing Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, ECF No. 111, Defendant has
also sought to file information designated as confidential pursuant to the protective order.
Defendant has moved to file those documents under seal. ECF No. 109.
Lastly, Plaintiffs have moved for sanctions. ECF No. 114. To abide by the protective
order, Plaintiffs have again filed an accompanying motion to file documents under seal.
ECF No. 112.
Case 3:24-cv-00311-GPC-MSB Document 117 Filed 03/13/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 2 of 21

3
3:24-cv-00311-GPC-MSB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
LEGAL STANDARD
“Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public
records and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City &
Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner
Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 n.7 (1978)). Thus, “[u]nless a particular court record is
one ‘traditionally kept secret,’ a ‘strong presumption in favor of access is the starting
point.’” Id. (citing Foltz v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Insurance Company, 331 F.3d 1122,
1135 (9th Cir. 2003)).
Courts in the Ninth Circuit have generally held that the “compelling reasons”
standard applies to motions to seal documents relating to class certification. See Adtrader,
Inc. v. Google LLC, No. 17-CV-07082-BLF, 2020 WL 6391210, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 24,
2020) (collecting cases). Thus, a party seeking to seal a judicial record in relation to a
motion for class certification must “articulate[] compelling reasons supported by specific
factual findings . . . that outweigh the general history of access and public policies favoring
disclosure.” Kamakana, 447 F. 3d at 1178-79 (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted). Generally, “compelling reasons sufficient to outweigh the public's interest in
disclosure and justify sealing court records exist when such court files might have become
a vehicle for improper purposes, such as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote
public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Id. at 1179. Even so,
“‘[a]ny order sealing documents should be narrowly tailored’ to serve those compelling
reasons.” Doe v. L. Offs. of Winn & Sims, No. 06-CV-00599-H-AJB, 2021 WL 9917688,
at *1 (S.D. Cal. June 21, 2021), as modified (June 29, 2021) (quoting Ervine v. Warden,
214 F. Supp. 3d 917, 919 (E.D. Cal. 2016)).
“Filings that are only tangentially related to the merits [of a case] may be sealed
upon a lesser showing of ‘good cause.’” Adtrader, Inc., 2020 WL 6391210, at *2 (citing
Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101-02 (9th Cir. 2016)). More
Case 3:24-cv-00311-GPC-MSB Document 117 Filed 03/13/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 3 of 21

4
3:24-cv-00311-GPC-MSB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
specifically, “a ‘particularized showing’ . . . under the ‘good cause’ standard of Rule
26(c) will ‘suffice[] to warrant preserving the secrecy of sealed discovery material attached
to non-dispositive motions.’” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180 (quoting Foltz, 331 F. 3d at
1135, 1138). “Good cause exists where the party seeking protection shows that specific
prejudice or harm will result if no protective order is granted.” Anderson v. Marsh, 312
F.R.D. 584, 594 (E.D. Cal. 2015) (citing Phillips ex rel. Ests. of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp.,
307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002)). A party asserting good cause must offer more
than “broad allegations of harm that are unsubstantiated by specific examples or articulated
reasoning.” Id.
Under both the good cause and compelling reasons standards, the presumption of
access is not rebutted where documents are the subject of a blanket protective order, and
parties must still meet the relevant standard for each piece of information they seek to file
under seal. Kamakana, 447 F. 3d at 1179-80 (“The compelling reasons standard is invoked
even if the dispositive motion, or its attachments, were previously filed under seal or
protective order.”) (internal quotation marks omitted); Foltz, 331 F. 3d at 1133 (“a party
seeking the protection of the court via a blanket protective order typically does not make
the ‘good cause’ showing required by Rule 26(c) with respect to any particular
document.”).
DISCUSSION
The sealing motions before the Court address three sets of documents: (1) exhibits
supporting Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification; (2) Defendant’s opposition to class
certification and supporting exhibits; and (3) exhibits supporting Plaintiffs’ motion for
sanctions. The Court addresses each in turn.
I. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Seal – Motion for Class Certification
In moving to seal various documents—or portions thereof—in support of their
motion for class certification, Plaintiffs note that each piece of information they seek to seal
Case 3:24-cv-00311-GPC-MSB Document 117 Filed 03/13/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 4 of 21

5
3:24-cv-00311-GPC-MSB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
has been designated as confidential by Defendant. ECF No. 103, at 2-3. Further, Plaintiffs
state that they “take no position with regard to whether these documents have been properly
designated,” ECF No. 103, at 4, and ask to seal the documents only “to comply with their
obligations pursuant to the Protective Order in this matter,” ECF No. 103-1, at 2. Thus,
Plaintiffs do not present any reasons to seal particular information beyond noting that a
document (1) was designated by Defendant as confidential or (2) relies on or refers to
information designated by Defendant as confidential. See ECF No. 103-1, at 3
“Generally, a party seeking to seal judicial records bears the burden to demonstrate
‘compelling reasons’ to deny the public access to public records.” Baldwin v. United States,
732 F. Supp. 2d 1142, 1143 (D. N. Mar. I. 2010) (quoting Kamakana, 447 F. 3d at 1178).
Here, while Plaintiffs are the party seeking to seal the records, Defendant is the party
aiming to keep the information confidential. Accordingly, the Court finds that the burden
is on Defendant to demonstrate compelling reasons for each document or piece of
information they seek to seal.
Defendant’s counsel has filed a declaration in support of Plaintiffs’ motion to seal,
wherein he asserts that “there are compelling reasons to seal the testimony and documents
identified in Plaintiffs’ motion.” ECF No. 108, at 2. However, the Court finds that
Defendant’s conclusory explanations regarding why a piece of information should be
sealed—for example, “the [testimony] identif[ies] Defendant’s suppliers,” ECF No. 108,
at 2—do not sufficiently “articulate[] compelling reasons supported by factual findings” to
seal the materials. Kamakana, 447 F. 3d at 1178.
When a party seeks to seal records to protect its own business interest, “information
may be sealed from the public only if it is truly confidential, not generally known, and its
disclosure would likely cause [the party] competitive harm.” Krommenhock v. Post Foods,
LLC, 334 F.R.D. 552, 587 (N.D. Cal. 2020). Defendant does not specify how publication
of most of the information identified in Plaintiffs’ motion to seal—which includes such
Case 3:24-cv-00311-GPC-MSB Document 117 Filed 03/13/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 5 of 21

6
3:24-cv-00311-GPC-MSB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
vague testimony as a witness’ opinion that Defendant could, if needed, add up units sold
over a given period—would cause Defendant competitive harm. In addition, the declaration
does not, with two exceptions, address the filings on a line-by-line basis. See Kommenhock,
334 F.R.D. at 587.
Further, to the extent Defendant argues that publication of the information will harm
Defendant’s business interests, Defendant’s counsel lacks the required personal knowledge
of such business interests for his declaration to constitute factual evidence supporting a
compelling reason. See Mendell v. Am. Med. Response, Inc., No. 19-CV-01227-BAS-KSC,
2021 WL 398486, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 3, 2021) (“[D]eclarations by counsel who lacks
personal knowledge of or the foundation for the alleged harm from disclosure—for
example, harm to the business interests of [defendant]—cannot constitute factual evidence
that supports a ‘compelling reason’”); Pac. Marine Propellers, Inc. v. Wartsila Def., Inc.,
No. 17-CV-555-L-NLS, 2018 WL 6601671, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2018) (finding that
the declaration by counsel was not enough to meet the “compelling reasons” standard
because counsel lacked personal knowledge of or foundation for the assertions that the
information at issue might harm the defendant company's competitive standing); Signal
Hill Serv., Inc. v. Macquarie Bank Ltd., No. CV-11-01539-MMM-JEMX, 2013 WL
12244287, at *3 (C.D. Cal. May 14, 2013) (assigning “no weight” to the conclusory
declaration by plaintiff's counsel that disclosure of the information at issue could harm the
plaintiff's business where the plaintiff did not demonstrate that counsel had personal
knowledge about the harm asserted).
Lastly, the parties ask to seal most of the documents in their entirety rather than via
partial redactions. See ECF No. 103, at 2-3. This includes over three hundred pages of
expert reports produced by Plaintiffs. See ECF Nos. 104-1, 104-2, & 104-3. Defendant also
seeks to seal entire exhibits because, for example, they “include cell phone numbers.” ECF
No. 108, at 3. “Even where a document contains some information appropriate for sealing,
Case 3:24-cv-00311-GPC-MSB Document 117 Filed 03/13/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 6 of 21

7
3:24-cv-00311-GPC-MSB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
a party may not seal the entire document and must narrowly tailor that party's request by
only redacting the information appropriate for sealing.” Ameranth, Inc. v. Chownow, Inc.,
No. 20-CV-02167-BEN-BLM, 2021 WL 3678415, at *7 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2021). Where
a party does seek to seal an entire document, “it must show that the possibility of prejudice
or harm would not be defeated by redacting only the sensitive portions of said document.”
Matthew v. United States, No. 3:25-CV-01664-JES-JLB, 2025 WL 1811828, at *1 (S.D.
Cal. July 1, 2025) (citing In re Roman Cath. Archbishop, 661 F.3d 417, 425 (9th Cir.
2011)). Defendant’s requests to seal are poorly explained and facially overbroad. “These
sorts of overbroad requests to seal will not be granted.” Krommenhock v. Post Foods, LLC,
334 F.R.D. 552, 587 (N.D. Cal. 2020). Accordingly, the Court rules on Plaintiffs’ first
motion to seal, ECF No. 103, as follows:
PLAINITFFS’ MOTION TO SEAL – MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION
Record
Record
Description
and Portion
of Record to
be Sealed
Alleged reason to seal Court’s Ruling
Exhibit 1 to the
Declaration of
Neal J.
Deckant in
Support of
Plaintiff’s
Motion for
Class
Certification
(“NJD
Declaration”) –
Excerpts from
Wasem
Saliman
deposition
57:8-10
58:1-2;
58:5
286:22-
287:8
299:5-15
“The redacted portions
of Exhibit 1 at 57:8-10,
58:1-2, and 58:5 identify
Defendant’s suppliers.
The redacted portions of
Exhibit 1 at 286:22-
287:8 discuss proprietary
marketing/search engine
optimization strategy
and methods. The
redacted portions of
Exhibit 1 at 299:4-15
explain Defendant’s
pricing structure.” ECF
No. 108, at 2.
DENIED as to 57:8-10
58:1-2; 58:5. Defendant has
provided no particularized
factual showing to justify
sealing the name of its
supplier. In fact, courts have
rejected similar attempts to
file supplier names under
seal. See, e.g., HDT Bio
Corp. v. Emcure Pharms.,
Ltd., No. C22-0334JLR,
2023 WL 8433121, at *3
(W.D. Wash. Dec. 5, 2023);
Fitzhenry-Russell v. Dr.
Pepper Snapple Grp., Inc.,
No. 17-CV-00564 NC, 2018
Case 3:24-cv-00311-GPC-MSB Document 117 Filed 03/13/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 7 of 21

8
3:24-cv-00311-GPC-MSB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ECF 104, at 6
– 34
WL 10472795, at *1 (N.D.
Cal. Apr. 23, 2018).
DENIED as to 286:22-
287:8. The testimony does
not reveal proprietary
marketing information. It
only states that Defendant
could, if needed, add up all
units sold over a given
period.
DENIED as to 299:5-15.
The testimony only stands
for the general proposition
that Defendant’s item prices
are consistent on its website
and across states. It is
unclear how this
information—discussed
using hypothetical prices—
would harm Defendant’s
market position, and
Defendant does not provide
a factual basis for such a
finding.
NJD Decl.
Exhibit 2 –
Excel table
depicting top
line sales,
profit margin,
total units sold
and average
unit price for
Defendant
from 2023-
2024, broken
Entire
Document
Sales information is
“broken down in such
detail that it could
undermine Defendant’s
position if made public.”
ECF No. 108, at 3.
DENIED.
While the pricing, sales, and
revenue information
contained in the document
may be “detailed enough to
constitute the kind of sales
data that could undermine
[Defendant’s] market
position if made public,”
Lucas v. Breg, Inc., No. 15-
cv-00258-BAS-NLS, 2016
Case 3:24-cv-00311-GPC-MSB Document 117 Filed 03/13/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 8 of 21

9
3:24-cv-00311-GPC-MSB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
down by
California,
Florida, New
York, Texas,
and
Washington
ECF No. 104,
at 35 – 36
WL 5464549, *2 (S.D. Cal.
Sept. 28, 2016), Defendant
has offered no supporting
evidence from a declarant
with personal knowledge of
Defendant’s business
interests that publication of
such information would
cause Defendant
competitive harm.
NJD Decl.
Exhibit 4 –
Excerpts from
Wasem
Saliman
deposition
ECF No. 104,
at 40 – 62
121:8
203:1-11
204:1-5
“The redacted portion of
Exhibit 4 at 121:8
identifies Defendant’s
supplier. The redacted
portions of Exhibit 4 at
203:1-11 and
204:1-5 identifies
internal shipping review
practices and
documentation handling.
The redacted portions
are narrowly tailored to
protect only sensitive
information.” ECF No.
108, at 3.
DENIED as to 121:8 for
reasons articulated above
regarding Defendant’s
supplier.
DENIED as to 203:1-11 and
204:1-5. The testimony
reveals only that
Defendant’s suppliers ship
to Defendant domestically
rather than internationally.
This is not sufficiently
detailed to harm
Defendant’s competitive
standing, and Defendant has
not articulated what harm
might result from
disclosure.
NJD Decl.
Exhibit 5 – E-
mail produced
in discovery
designated as
confidential by
Defendant
Entire
Document
The document was
identified as
“CONFIDENTIAL” and
the “email includes
confidential pricing
information.” ECF No.
108, at 3.
DENIED as overly broad.
There is no indication this
document should be sealed
in its entirety rather than
redacted.
If Defendant provides
evidence from a party with
personal knowledge of
Case 3:24-cv-00311-GPC-MSB Document 117 Filed 03/13/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 9 of 21

10
3:24-cv-00311-GPC-MSB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ECF No. 104,
at 63 – 64
Defendant’s business
interests that publication of
the pricing information
included in the document
may harm Defendant’s
market position, then
Defendant may redact
specific account numbers,
quantities, and dollar
amounts. However, it may
not redact non-confidential
materials. See HDT Bio
Corp. v. Emcure Pharms.,
Ltd., 2023 WL 8433121, at
*3.
NJD Decl.
Exhibit 6 –
Copy of bills
of lading
ECF No. 104,
at 65 – 68
Entire
Document
“The information
identifies Defendant’s
supplier” ECF No. 108,
at 3.
DENIED as overly broad.
Defendant seeks to seal the
document only because the
document identifies
Defendant’s supplier. The
Court has already found that
Defendant has not presented
a compelling reason for
sealing such information. If
Defendant does provide
such a reason, it would not
justify sealing this
document in its entirety.
NJD Decl.
Exhibit 8 –
WhatsApp
message thread
and images
produced in
discovery and
designated as
confidential by
Defendant
Entire
Document
The documents were
identified as
“CONFIDENTIAL” and
“include cell phone
numbers for non-parties
to the action and
proprietary information.”
ECF No. 108, at 3.
DENIED as to the
document as a whole. While
Defendant vaguely alleges
that the document contains
“proprietary information,”
Defendant provides no
additional detail, and it is
not at all clear to the Court
what proprietary
information is contained
Case 3:24-cv-00311-GPC-MSB Document 117 Filed 03/13/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 10 of 21

11
3:24-cv-00311-GPC-MSB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ECF No. 104,
at 101 – 104
within the document nor
what harm its publication
might cause.
Conversely, there are
compelling reasons to seal
the personal contact
information contained in the
document, and such
information should be
redacted. See Clark v.
InComm Fin. Servs., Inc.,
No. ED-CV-22-1839-JGB-
SHKX, 2024 WL 1699346,
at *3 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 9,
2024).
Dr. Lynn
Matthews
Expert Report
ECF No. 104-2
Entire
Document
“The results generated
by the report are based
on Plaintiffs’ proposed
warning label (which
does not exist on
Defendant’s products).
The report, therefore, is
based on Plaintiffs’
litigation strategy and
the results may be used
by competitors to harm
Defendant.” ECF No.
108, at 3-4.
DENIED as overly broad.
The Parties seek to seal a
313-page expert report
because it discusses a study
wherein participants were
shown kratom products with
a warning label. The request
is overbroad, and the parties
have made no good faith
effort to limit the
information subject to seal.
Additionally, the Court
notes that the results of the
study are included in
Plaintiffs’ unsealed motion
for class certification, ECF
No. 105, at 17.
Dr. Daniel
Overbeek
Expert Report
ECF No. 104-3
Entire
Document
“[R]efers, describes
and/or relies on
documents and
information that
Plaintiffs designated as
DENIED as overly broad.
“Courts throughout the
Ninth Circuit have
recognized that the need to
Case 3:24-cv-00311-GPC-MSB Document 117 Filed 03/13/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 11 of 21

12
3:24-cv-00311-GPC-MSB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
‘Confidential,’ namely
discussion of the named
Plaintiffs’ medical
histories and their
discovery responses, and
‘screenshots’ of
webpages . . .
purportedly from ‘Krave
Botanicals Website’
[that are] not publicly
available. There are
compelling reasons to
seal the report because it
is based upon Plaintiffs’
discovery responses
(which they have
designated as
‘Confidential’) and non-
publicly available
screenshots.” ECF No.
108, at 4.
protect medical privacy
generally qualifies as a
compelling reason
to seal records.” Salgado v.
Iqvia, Inc., No. 18-CV-
2785-BAS-WVG, 2020 WL
1322949, at *2 (S.D. Cal.
Mar. 20, 2020) (collecting
cases). However, while
Plaintiffs may be able to
identify specific medical
information to be sealed,
this is not a basis to seal the
expert report in its entirety.
Dr. William
Ingersol Expert
Report
ECF No. 104-1
Entire
Document
“[R]efers to, describes,
and relies on documents
and information that
Defendant designated as
‘Confidential’ pursuant
to the Protective Order
[including] (1) pages
286-287 of the
Declaration of Wasem
Saliman . . . a portion of
which is the subject of
Plaintiffs’ motion to
seal, . . . (2) excel
spreadsheets . . . which
identify Defendant’s
profit margin by year,
then by state and
year . . . as well as
DENIED as overly broad.
Case 3:24-cv-00311-GPC-MSB Document 117 Filed 03/13/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 12 of 21

13
3:24-cv-00311-GPC-MSB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
number of products sold
by year, and (3) . . .
aggregated sales
numbers by city . . .
which is information
broken down in
sufficient detail that such
information would not
be publicly available.”
ECF No. 108, at 4.
II. Defendant’s Motion to Seal – Opposition to Class Certification
Defendant, in relation to its opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification,
has also sought to file certain documents or excerpts thereof under seal. ECF No. 109.
Because the documents are in relation to a motion for class certification, the compelling
reasons standard continues to apply. Adtrader, Inc., 2020 WL 6391210, at *2.
In Defendant’s motion, it is not always clear which party has designated certain
information as confidential. For example, Defendant notes that the declaration of Dr.
Kristen Smith “relies on and contains references to information produced by Plaintiffs and
designated as ‘Confidential,’” and “[b]ecause Dr. Smith’s declaration refers to and quotes
materials from the expert reports filed by Plaintiffs, Defendant agrees that Dr. Smith’s
declaration should be sealed.” ECF No. 109-1, at 2. However, Plaintiffs previously noted
that Defendant, not Plaintiffs, designated Plaintiffs’ expert reports as confidential. ECF No.
103, at 3.
Defendant is clear that some redactions—specifically, redactions in Plaintiffs’
deposition transcripts—are proposed solely due to Plaintiff’s designation of the information
as confidential, and that Defendant “takes no position regarding whether . . . [the]
information [has] been properly designated.” ECF No. 109, at 5. Despite allegedly being
the party hoping to maintain portions of Plaintiffs’ transcripts confidential, Plaintiffs have
not provided a declaration in support of Defendant’s motion. Thus, the only evidence and
Case 3:24-cv-00311-GPC-MSB Document 117 Filed 03/13/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 13 of 21

14
3:24-cv-00311-GPC-MSB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
reasoning in support of Defendant’s motion to seal is in a declaration provided by
Defendant’s counsel. ECF No. 109, at 2-3; ECF No. 109-1.
As with the declaration in support of Plaintiffs’ motion to seal, Defendant’s
declaration largely fails to articulate compelling reasons supported by factual findings to
warrant sealing each particular document or piece of information. Specifically, Defendant
fails to demonstrate concrete “prejudice or harm flowing from the disclosure of [each]
specific document.” Al Otro Lado, Inc. v. McAleenan, No. 17-CV-02366-BAS-KSC, 2019
WL 6220898, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2019) (citing Unknown Parties v. Johnson, No. CV-
15-00250-TUC-DCB, 2016 WL 8199309, at *4 (D. Ariz. June 27, 2016)).
Further, Defendant’s requests—as with Plaintiffs’—largely seek to seal documents
in their entirety rather than through carefully considered, line-by-line redactions. A party
should not seal an entire document when narrowly tailored redactions may serve the purpose
of ameliorating harm or prejudice. See Ameranth, Inc., 2021 WL 3678415, at *7; Matthew,
2025 WL 1811828. Accordingly, the Court rules on Defendant’s motion to seal, ECF No.
109, as follows:
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SEAL – OPPOSITION TO CLASS
CERTIFICATION
Record
Record
Description
and Portion
of Record to
be Sealed
Alleged reason to seal Court’s Ruling
Declaration of
Dr. Kirsten
Smith
ECF No. 110-
5
Entire
Document
“[R]elies on and
contains references to
information produced
by Plaintiffs and
designated as
‘Confidential’ pursuant
to the Protective Order.
Because Dr. Smith’s
declaration refers to and
DENIED as overly broad.
Case 3:24-cv-00311-GPC-MSB Document 117 Filed 03/13/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 14 of 21

15
3:24-cv-00311-GPC-MSB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
quotes materials from
the expert reports filed
by Plaintiffs, Defendant
agrees that Dr. Smith’s
declaration should be
sealed.” ECF No. 109-1,
at 2.
Declaration of
Rob Wallace
ECF No. 110-
6
Entire
Document
“[R]elies on and
contains references to
information produced
by Defendant
and designated as
‘Confidential’ pursuant
to the Protective Order.
Although Defendant’s
product labeling is
publicly available, a
comprehensive survey
of consumers’
understanding of
Defendant’s labels is
not publicly available.
The information
contained in Mr.
Wallace’s report has the
potential to be misused
by
competitors.” ECF No.
109-1, at 2–3.
DENIED as overly broad.
Declaration of
Dr. Eric
Forister
ECF No. 110-
4
Entire
Document
“Dr. Forister’s report
references and relies
upon documents (and
references reports that
rely upon documents)
that constitute
Defendant’s marketing
and business practices
and confidential pricing
information, which
DENIED as overly broad.
Case 3:24-cv-00311-GPC-MSB Document 117 Filed 03/13/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 15 of 21

16
3:24-cv-00311-GPC-MSB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
information is broken
down into sufficient
detail that such
information would
not be publicly
available.” ECF No.
109-1, at 3.
Declaration of
Dr. Edward
Boyer
ECF No. 110-
3
Entire
Document
The declaration
“contains references to
expert report of Dr.
Andrea Matthews.”
ECF No. 109-1, at 3.
DENIED as overly broad.
Exhibit A to
Declaration of
Andrew P.
Young in
Support of
Defendant’s
Opposition to
Plaintiffs’
Motion for
Class
Certification
(“APY Decl.”)
–
Excerpts of
deposition of
Plaintiff C.B.
ECF No. 110-
1, at 5 – 41
64:9-25,
79:9-15,
80:1-25,
81:1-21,
82:20-25,
83:1-88:21,
90:1-11,
114:2-
115:25,
155:1-8,
160:9-
162:8,
201:1-25
“Plaintiffs have
designated limited
portions of [the
testimony] as
‘Confidential’ pursuant
to the Protective Order.”
ECF No. 109-1, at 4.
DENIED as overly broad.
As an initial matter, Plaintiff
has failed to provide any
compelling reason for
sealing the information, and
Defendant’s only asserted
reason for sealing is that
Plaintiff has designated the
information as confidential.
Further, portions of the
health information discussed
in the transcript are also
contained in Plaintiffs’
unsealed amended class
action complaint. ECF No.
50. Lastly, the proposed
redactions include entire
pages of transcript, including
conversation amongst
counsel. Such content is not
properly subject to seal. See
Al Otro Lado, Inc. v. Wolf,
No. 317CV02366BASKSC,
Case 3:24-cv-00311-GPC-MSB Document 117 Filed 03/13/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 16 of 21

17
3:24-cv-00311-GPC-MSB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2020 WL 4336064, at *6
(S.D. Cal. July 27, 2020).
Exhibit D to
APY Decl. –
Excerpts of
Declaration
with Plaintiff
D.F
ECF No. 110-
1, at 76 – 94
43:11-
46:18,
69:1-25
“Plaintiffs have
designated limited
portions of [the
testimony] as
‘Confidential’ pursuant
to the Protective Order.”
ECF No. 109-1, at 4.
DENIED as overly broad for
the same reasons outlined
above.
Exhibit E to
APY Decl. –
Excerpts of
Deposition of
Dr. William
Robert
Ingersoll.
ECF No. 110-
1, at 95 – 102
Entire
Document
“Since Plaintiffs’ expert
reports were designated
as confidential in their
entirety, Plaintiffs
indicated that the expert
testimony should also
be designated as
confidential in its
entirety. Defendant
agrees that the
deposition testimony of
Dr. Ingersoll should be
sealed, as the testimony
relies on and refers to
confidential pricing
information produced
by Defendant, which is
broken down into
sufficient detail that it is
not publicly available.”
ECF No. 109-1, at 4.
DENIED as overly broad
Exhibit F to
APY Decl. –
Excerpts of
Deposition of
Dr. Daniel
Overbeek
Entire
Document
“Since Plaintiffs’ expert
reports were designated
as confidential in their
entirety, Plaintiffs
indicated that the expert
testimony should also
DENIED as overly broad
Case 3:24-cv-00311-GPC-MSB Document 117 Filed 03/13/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 17 of 21

18
3:24-cv-00311-GPC-MSB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ECF No. 110-
1, at 103 – 114
be designated as
confidential in its
entirety. Defendant
agrees that the
deposition testimony of
Dr. Overbeek should be
sealed, as the testimony
relies on Plaintiffs’
discovery responses and
discusses Plaintiffs’
medical history.” ECF
No. 109-1, at 4.
Exhibit G to
APY Decl. –
Excerpts of
Deposition of
Dr. Andrea
Matthews
ECF No. 110-
1, at 115 – 124
Entire
Document
“Since Plaintiffs’ expert
reports were designated
as confidential in their
entirety, Plaintiffs
indicated that the expert
testimony should also
be designated as
confidential in its
entirety. Defendant
agrees that the
deposition testimony of
Dr. Matthews should be
sealed.” ECF No. 109-1,
at 5.
DENIED as overly broad
Defendant’s
Memorandum
of Points and
Authorities in
Support of
Opposition
ECF No. 110
(unredacted);
ECF No. 11
(redacted)
15:13-15,
15:28,
16:20-24,
16:28,
17:10-12,
17:1314,
17:24-28,
24:16-19,
24:25-28,
30:21-22
“Because Defendant’s
Opposition quotes
deposition testimony
that has been marked as
‘Confidential,’
Defendant redacted that
quoted testimony in its
Memorandum of Points
and Authorities filed in
support of its
Opposition.” ECF No.
109-1, at 5.
DENIED. For reasons
articulated in this order,
many of the materials
referenced in Defendant’s
memorandum of points and
authorities in support of its
opposition are not properly
subject to seal. Once the
scope of the proposed seal
has been narrowed,
Defendant should adjust the
redactions in its
memorandum accordingly.
Case 3:24-cv-00311-GPC-MSB Document 117 Filed 03/13/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 18 of 21

19
3:24-cv-00311-GPC-MSB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Declaration of
Wasem
Saliman
ECF No. 110-
2
Entire
Document
“Defendant designated
the declaration of
Wasem Saliman,
Defendant’s Chief
Executive Officer, as
‘Confidential’ because
it refers to trade secret
and proprietary
information with respect
to Defendant’s
labelling.”
DENIED as overly broad
III. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Seal – Motion for Sanctions
Lastly, Plaintiffs have sought to redact exhibits to their motion for sanctions.
Specifically, Plaintiff seeks to seal portions of Wasem Saliman’s deposition transcript. ECF
No. 113. Plaintiffs again note that the information they seek to seal has been designated as
confidential by Defendant and that Plaintiffs “take no position on whether Defendant’s
confidentiality designations are substantively justified . . . To the extent any further showing
is required, Defendant bears the burden of establishing good cause of compelling reasons
for maintaining the seal.” ECF No. 112, at 2-3.
Because the excerpts are in support of Plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions, the motion to
seal is not subject to the compelling reasons standard previously analyzed. Instead, “a
‘particularized showing’ . . . under the ‘good cause’ standard of Rule 26(c) will ‘suffice[]
to warrant preserving the secrecy of sealed discovery material attached to non-dispositive
motions.’” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180 (quoting Foltz, 331 F. 3d at 1135, 1138).
However, even under the good cause standard, parties must show more than the mere
fact that information is subject to a protective order. See Anderson v. Marsh, 312 F.R.D.
584, 594 (E.D. Cal. 2015). The protective order entered in this case was the product of a
stipulation. See ECF No. 14. While Magistrate Judge Berg found the stipulated order was
supported by good cause, he did not make “an individualized determination as to specific
documents.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1183. Thus, this is not the “kind of protective order[]
Case 3:24-cv-00311-GPC-MSB Document 117 Filed 03/13/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 19 of 21

20
3:24-cv-00311-GPC-MSB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
. . . that can automatically supply the good cause required to seal the documents [it]
cover[s].” BT Collective v. IP Holdings, LLC, No. 11-CV-0021-LAB-WVG, 2011 WL
5873388, at *5 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 23, 2011); see also Foltz, 331 F. 3d at 1133 (“a party
seeking the protection of the court via a blanket protective order typically does not make
the ‘good cause’ showing required by Rule 26(c) with respect to any particular
document.”). Instead, “[g]ood cause exists where the party seeking protection shows that
specific prejudice or harm will result” if the request to seal is denied.” Anderson, 312
F.R.D. at 594.
Here, neither party—Plaintiffs, who have moved to seal, nor Defendant, who has
designated the information as confidential—has made a particularized showing of good
cause such that specific prejudice or harm will result if the request for seal is denied.
Reviewing the redacted information in the transcript, it is not evident to the Court how
publication of the redacted information would cause any party harm or prejudice. Thus,
Plaintiffs’ second motion to seal, ECF No. 112, is DENIED.
IV. Counsel Must Provide the Court with Narrower Proposed Redactions
All denials in this order are without prejudice. Within twenty (20) days of this order,
the parties shall meet and confer and, subsequently, file a singular chart identifying by
document name, sealed document number, and page and line/paragraph number the precise
information they maintain should remain under seal. The chart shall also include citations
to a declaration from a source with the required personal knowledge attesting as to the
compelling reason why sealing is necessary. See, e.g., Krommenhock, 334 F.R.D. at 587;
Mendell v. Am. Med. Response, Inc., No. 19-CV-01227-BAS-KSC, 2021 WL 398486, at 3
(S.D. Cal. Feb. 3, 2021).
The filings now conditionally under seal will remain conditionally under seal until
the Court’s final ruling on sealing after reviewing the chart and declarations. At that
Case 3:24-cv-00311-GPC-MSB Document 117 Filed 03/13/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 20 of 21

21
3:24-cv-00311-GPC-MSB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
juncture, the parties will be directed to file redacted documents that redact only the
information the Court has determined may remain under seal.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, it is HEREBY ORDERED:
• Plaintiffs’ motion to file documents under seal in connection with their motion for
class certification, ECF No. 103, is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
• Defendant’s motion to file documents under seal in connection with its opposition
to Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, ECF No. 109, is DENIED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.
• Plaintiffs’ motion to file documents under seal in connection with their motion for
sanctions, ECF No. 112, is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
The parties are ORDERED to meet and confer and file with the Court, within twenty
(20) days of this Order, a chart identifying narrower redactions and sealing requests.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 13, 2026
Case 3:24-cv-00311-GPC-MSB Document 117 Filed 03/13/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 21 of 21