1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 KRISTIN DELLA, et al., 7 Case No. 23-cv-04086-JCS Plaintiffs, 8 v. ORDER DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE 9 MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL COLGATE-PALMOLIVE COMPANY, UPON RECONSIDERATION 10 Defendant. Re: Dkt. No. 78 11

12 13 The Court previously granted Defendant’s Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, dkt. 14 no 78 (“Motion to Seal”) in an order dated December 1, 2025. See dkt. no. 84. Upon 15 reconsideration, the Motion to Seal is DENIED without prejudice. See United States v. Vittaly, 16 No. C 04 3186 MHP,

, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 28, 2006) (“A district court . . . 17 has the power to reconsider sua sponte its orders prior to the entry of judgment.”). With respect to 18 the documents Defendant seeks to file in redacted form (the Declaration of Ronald T. Wilcox, 19 Ph.D., the Declaration of Ran Kivetz, Ph.D., and its Opposition brief), Defendant did not supply 20 “a proposed order that is narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable material, and which lists in 21 table format each document or portion thereof that is sought to be sealed.” Civ.L.R. 79- 22 5(c)(3) (emphasis added). Instead, the table in the proposed order (dkt. no. 78-2) lists only the two 23 documents Defendant asks the Court to seal in their entirety (Exhibit F to the Declaration of Greg 24 Corra in support of Colgate’s Opposition to Class Certification and Exhibit P to the Omnibus 25 Declaration of Kate T. Spelman). 26 Furthermore, Defendant did not provide in unredacted form either of the two exhibits 27 sought to be sealed, instead filing in support of the Motion to Seal placeholder face pages for the 1 (“Where the document to be sealed is a declaration or an exhibit to a document filed 2 || electronically, an otherwise blank page reading “EXHIBIT FILED UNDER SEAL” shall replace 3 the exhibit in the document filed on the public docket, and the exhibit to be filed under seal 4 || shall be filed separately as an attachment to the Administrative Motion to File Under Seal.”) 5 (emphasis added). 6 Therefore, the Motion to Seal is DENIED without prejudice to filing a renewed sealing 7 motion that corrects these errors. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 10 Dated: December 9, 2025 11 J PH C. SPERO 12 nited States Magistrate Judge

© 15 16 & = 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28