1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 Nicole KRAUSE-PETTAI, et al., Case No.: 20-cv-1672-AGS-BLM individually and on behalf of 5 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S all others similarly situated, RENEWED MOTION TO SEAL 6 Plaintiffs, (ECF 91) 7 v. 8 UNILEVER UNITED STATES, INC., et al., 9 Defendants. 10

11 After the Court granted summary judgment for defendant Unilever (see ECF 90), 12 the defense renewed its previously denied request to seal certain filings. 13 BACKGROUND 14 Unilever moves to seal or redact: (1) portions of David Tropia’s declaration (ECF 68 15 (unredacted); ECF 69-22 (redacted)); (2) Exhibits A through E to that declaration 16 (ECF 68-1, 68-2, 68-3, 68-4, 68-5 (unredacted); ECF 69-23, 69-24, 69-25, 69-26, 69-27 17 (redacted)); and (3) parts of Exhibits 1 through 3 to Naoki S. Kaneko’s declaration 18 (ECF 67-1, 67-2, 67-3 (unredacted); ECF 69-2, 69-3, 69-4 (redacted)). 19 Paragraphs 34–38 and 41 of David Tropia’s declaration “reference internal technical 20 design drawings” for Unilever’s packaging designs and “identify the manufacturer and 21 supplier of Unilever’s sticks.” (ECF 91, at 4; see ECF 68, at 11–12, 14.) Its Exhibit A, a 22 spreadsheet table, contains “highly confidential and proprietary . . . product formulas and 23 specifications for all of the antiperspirant and deodorant products at issue.” (See ECF 68-1.) 24 Exhibits B, C, and D comprise highly detailed technical drawings of each of the stick styles. 25 (See ECF 68-2, 68-3, 68-3.) And Exhibit E consists of “internal technical information 26 concerning the fill capacities and design specifications” of the sticks, information “not 27 known by Unilever’s competitors.” (ECF 91, at 4; see ECF 68-5.) 28 1 The exhibits to the Kaneko declaration consist of Unilever’s expert and expert- 2 rebuttal reports. In exhibit 1, figures 4, 7, and 10 contain the same images that appear in 3 paragraphs 34, 35, and 37 of the Tropia declaration. (See ECF 67-1, at 16–18.) Its figure 12 4 is a photograph of Unilever’s production facilities, capturing its private and proprietary 5 assembly line. (See id. at 20.) In exhibit 2, paragraphs 20, 21, and 22 again reveal “the 6 name and identity of the manufacturer and supplier of the sticks, information which is not 7 publicly available.” (ECF 91, at 5; see ECF 67-2, at 10.) Figure A to exhibit 2 refers to 8 “specific data taken from the technical design drawings” submitted with the Tropia 9 declaration. Finally, exhibit 3 comprises excerpts from “internal marketing, product, and 10 consumer research that Unilever conducted or commissioned.” (ECF 91, at 6.) 11 DISCUSSION 12 The Court denied the initial sealing request (ECF 66) because Unilever made no 13 “particularized showing of good cause” for each item beyond boilerplate assertions that the 14 material was “confidential” or “proprietary.” (See ECF 88, at 3.) Defendant’s renewed 15 motion corrects these deficiencies and fully supports the proposed redactions. 16 A party seeking “to maintain the secrecy of documents attached to dispositive 17 motions must meet the high threshold of showing that ‘compelling reasons’ support 18 secrecy,” whereas a “‘good cause’ showing” suffices to seal “records attached to 19 non-dispositive motions.” Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,

, 1180 20 (9th Cir. 2003). The relevant documents here were attached to declarations that at least 21 partially supported Unilever’s summary-judgment motion (ECF 70), so the more stringent 22 “compelling reasons” standard applies. That standard is met when the court finds the 23 “public interest in understanding the judicial process” is outweighed by “whether 24 disclosure of the material could result in improper use . . . or infringement upon trade 25 secrets.” Hagestad v. Tragesser,

(9th Cir. 1995). The court must base 26 any sealing decision “on a compelling reason and articulate the factual basis for its ruling.” 27

“[A]ny order sealing documents should be narrowly tailored to remove from public 28 view only the material that is protected.” Wasito v. City of San Diego, No. 19-CV-2395- 1 || JLS-JLB,

, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2019) (cleaned up). Rather than 2 ||sealing an entire document, courts prefer “limited and clear” redactions. See Kamakana v. 3 || City & County of Honolulu,

, 1183 (9th Cir. 2006). 4 The Court finds that all the proposed redactions and sealings here involve 5 “confidential and commercially sensitive” business data or “trade secrets” that “meet the 6 || ‘compelling reasons’ standard.” See In re Electronic Arts, Inc.,

, □□□□□□ 7 Cir. 2008); see also GPNE Corp. v. Apple Inc., No. 12-cv-02885-LHK,

|/4381244, at *1 (N.D. Cal. July 16, 2015) (noting that a “court has broad discretion to permit 9 ||sealing of... confidential research, development, or commercial information”). Unilever 10 sufficiently explained the commercial harm it would suffer if these details were 11 ||revealed, which overcomes the strong presumption in favor of public access to court 12 documents. In addition, this information is only tangentially related to the case’s merits, so 13 is of little aid to the “public interest in understanding the judicial process.” See Hagestad, 14 ||

. 15 CONCLUSION 16 Unilever’s motion to seal is GRANTED. The Clerk will seal the unredacted versions 17 || of David Tropia’s declaration and its exhibits A through E (ECF 68, 68-1, 68-2, 68-3, 68-4, 18 || 68-5) and the unredacted versions of exhibits 1 through 3 to Naoki S. Kaneko’s declaration 19 || (ECF 67-1, 67-2, 67-3). 20 || Dated: August 12, 2024 21 = | f. 07 Andrew G. Schopler United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28