LeGrand et al v. Abbott Laboratories

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
Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CONDALISA LEGRAND,
Plaintiff,
v.
ABBOTT LABORATORIES,
Defendant.
Case No. 22-cv-05815-TSH
ORDER RE: ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL
Re: Dkt. Nos. 210, 218
I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Condalisa LeGrand brings this putative class action against Defendant Abbott
Laboratories (“Abbott”), alleging certain statements on the labels of Abbott’s Ensure® nutrition
drinks are false and misleading. ECF No. 116 (Second Amended Complaint). Pending before the
Court are two administrative motions to file under seal, one brought by LeGrand (ECF No. 218),
and one brought by Abbott (ECF No. 210). For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS
LeGrand’s Administrative Motion, and GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Abbott’s
Administrative Motion.1
II. 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 and Cty. 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)). Courts generally apply a “compelling reasons” standard when
considering motions to seal, recognizing that “a strong presumption in favor of access is the
1 The parties consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). ECF Nos. 9,
27.
Case 3:22-cv-05815-TSH Document 224 Filed 03/05/26 Page 1 of 8

2
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
Northern District of California
starting point.” Id. (cleaned up). Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to motions that
are “more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action,” Ctr. for Auto Safety v.
Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016), bear the burden of overcoming the
presumption with “compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the
general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure,” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at
1178–79 (cleaned up). By contrast, a “good cause showing” under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 26(c) “will suffice to keep sealed records attached to non-dispositive motions.”
Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180.
Here, the documents at issue in Abbott’s Administrative Motion (ECF No. 210) were filed
in connection with its Opposition to LeGrand’s Renewed Motion for Class Certification (ECF No.
210-4). The documents at issue in LeGrand’s Administrative Motion (ECF No. 218) were filed in
connection with her Reply for the Renewed Motion (ECF No. 217). Motions for class
certification, along with their attached documents, are more than tangentially related to the merits
of a case. See, e.g., Guynn-Neupane v. Mahna Legal Serv., LLC, No. 19-cv-02652-VKD, 2021
WL 4481661, at *1 n.3 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2021) (applying compelling reasons standard to
motions to seal documents relating to class certification); Adtrader, Inc. v. Google LLC, No. 17-
cv-07082-BLF, 2020 WL 6395513, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 4, 2020) (same); Yan Mei Zheng v.
Toyota Motor Corp., No. 17-cv-06591-BLF, 2019 WL 6841324, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2019)
(same). Accordingly, the compelling reasons standard applies to both administrative motions.
Civil Local Rule 79-5 supplements the “compelling reasons” standard. Exeltis USA Inc. v.
First Databank, Inc., No. 17-cv-04810-HSG, 2020 WL 2838812, at *1 (N.D. Cal. June 1, 2020).
Where, as here, a filing party (the “Filing Party”) seeks to seal a filed document because that
document has been designated as confidential by another party (the “Designating Party”), the
Filing Party must file an Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party’s Material
Should Be Sealed. Civ. L.R. 79-5(f). This motion must identify each document or portions
thereof for which sealing is sought. Id. “Within 7 days of the motion's filing, the Designating
Party must file a statement and/or declaration” including “a specific statement of the applicable
legal standard and the reasons for keeping a document under seal.” Id. at 79-5(c)(1), (f). That
Case 3:22-cv-05815-TSH Document 224 Filed 03/05/26 Page 2 of 8

3
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
Northern District of California
statement must include (i) the legitimate private or public interests that warrant sealing; (ii) the
injury that will result if sealing is denied; and (iii) why a less restrictive alternative to sealing is
not sufficient. Id. at 79-5(c)(1). A failure to file a statement or declaration may result in the
unsealing of the provisionally sealed document without notice to the Designating Party. Id.
Under Civil Local Rule 79-5, a motion to seal a party’s own document must include “a
specific statement of the applicable legal standard and the reasons for keeping a document under
seal, including an explanation of . . . why a less restrictive alternative to sealing is not sufficient.”
Id. (emphasis in original). The motion must also include “a proposed order that is narrowly
tailored to seal only the sealable material.” Id. at 79-5(c)(3). “A party must . . . avoid wherever
possible sealing entire documents (as opposed to merely redacting the truly sensitive information
in a document).” Id. at 79-5(a). “Supporting declarations may not rely on vague boilerplate
language or nebulous assertions of potential harm but must explain with particularity why any
document or portion thereof remains sealable under the applicable legal standard.” Bronson v.
Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc., No. C-18-02300-WHA, 2019 WL 7810811, at *1 (N.D. Cal. May 28,
2019) (citing Civ. L.R. 79-5). “Reference to a stipulation or protective order that allows a party to
designate certain documents as confidential is not sufficient to establish that a document, or
portions thereof, are sealable.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(c).
III. DISCUSSION
A. ECF No. 210
On November 7, 2025, Abbott filed an Administrative Motion to File Certain Materials
Under Seal, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5, in connection with its Opposition to LeGrand’s
Renewed Motion for Class Certification. ECF Nos. 210, 210-4. Abbott moves to file ten
documents under seal:
• Abbott’s Opposition to LeGrand’s Renewed Motion for Class Certification (ECF
No. 210-4) (5:17–20, 25–27; 6:2, 4; 21:16, 18–19, 21; 22:7–8; 23:15)
• Declaration of Michael Glick (“Glick Decl.”), Ex. 1 (ECF No. 210-5) (Slides 6–8,
16, 18)
• Glick Decl., Ex. 2 (ECF No. 210-6) (In full)
Case 3:22-cv-05815-TSH Document 224 Filed 03/05/26 Page 3 of 8

4
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
Northern District of California
• Glick Decl., Ex. 5 (ECF No. 210-7) (Slides 6–8)
• Glick Decl., Ex. 6 (ECF No. 210-8) (Slides 45–46)
• Glick Decl., Ex. 7 (ECF No. 210-9) (Slides 24–25)
• Glick Decl., Ex. 8 (ECF No. 210-10) (Slides 1, 4–5)
• Glick Decl., Ex. 9 (ECF No. 210-11) (Slides 44–45, 95–97)
• Glick Decl., Ex. 13 (ECF No. 210-12) (Page 32, ¶ 77; Page 33, ¶ 79)
• Glick Decl., Ex. 21 (ECF No. 210-13) (Slides 34–37)
ECF No. 210. In support of its request, Abbott submits a declaration from Tracie Bryant setting
forth the bases for sealing the documents. See Declaration of Tracie L. Bryant (“Bryant Decl.”)
(ECF No. 210-1).
On November 12, 2025, LeGrand filed a Partial Opposition to Abbott’s Administrative
Motion. ECF No. 214. LeGrand opposes Abbott’s request to seal the following two documents:
• Glick Decl., Ex. 2 (ECF No. 210-6) (In full)
• Glick Decl., Ex. 6 (ECF No. 210-8) (Slides 45–46)
Id. LeGrand argues that for these documents, Abbott has not met its burden to show that the
documents should be sealed. Id.
All of Abbott’s sealing requests relate to documents that “reveal Abbott’s business strategy
related to the marketing and pricing of its Ensure® products, Abbott’s internal marketing research
and analysis, and confidential financial data.” ECF No. 210. Overall, Abbott argues that sealing
is required because public disclosure of Abbott’s confidential information would cause Abbott
competitive harm. Id. Specifically, Exhibit 1 contains “Abbott’s non-public, confidential market
research and analysis concerning consumers and retailers.” Bryant Decl. ¶ 3. Exhibit 2 is an
internal draft Abbott document containing “Abbott’s draft marketing materials which Abbott
considers confidential, proprietary company information.” Id. at ¶ 4. Exhibit 5 contains “Abbott’s
non-public sales and market share data, confidential market research and surveys on consumer
habits and practices, and Abbott’s marketing strategies for Ensure® products.” Id. at ¶ 5. Exhibit
6 contains “Abbott’s non-public sales and market share data, confidential market research and
surveys on consumer habits and practices, and Abbott’s marketing and business strategies for
Case 3:22-cv-05815-TSH Document 224 Filed 03/05/26 Page 4 of 8

5
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
Northern District of California
Ensure® products.” Id. at ¶ 6. Exhibit 7 contains “the results of a survey regarding recent health
issues of consumers’ category purchase along with their likelihood to purchase again.” Id. at ¶ 7.
Exhibit 8 contains “confidential market research and data on usage and consumption of Ensure.”
Id. at ¶ 8. Exhibit 9 contains “the results of a survey regarding consumer habits and considerations
for consumption of Ensure® products.” Id. at ¶ 9. Exhibit 13 contains “confidential data
regarding Ensure sales and consumption from habits and practices surveys.” Id. at ¶ 10. Exhibit
21 contains “the results of a survey regarding key influencers and motivations of consumers’ trial
category purchase along with their recent health issues.” Id. at ¶ 11. And Abbott’s Opposition
cites to or quotes from the above referenced documents. Id. at ¶ 12.
LeGrand responds that Exhibit 2 does not warrant sealing because “the information in
Exhibit 2 is factual in nature, publicly available, and any slight changes between the draft and final
versions, which Abbott notably does not even identify, reveal nothing about Abbott’s marketing
strategy or its effectiveness.” ECF No. 214 at 3. LeGrand further responds that Exhibit 6 does not
warrant sealing because “[t]he majority of information included on [Slides 45–46] is already
publicly available in other case documents and elsewhere,” and any information not publicly
available “would not cause any competitive harm to Abbott if disclosed, as that information is too
outdated to be of any use to competitors.” Id. at 3–4.
The Court has reviewed the documents to be sealed. The Court agrees that there are
compelling reasons to redact the portions requested by Abbott in Glick Decl., Ex. 1, at Slides 6–8
(ECF No. 210-5); Glick Decl., Ex. 7, at Slides 24-25 (ECF No. 210-9); Glick Decl., Ex. 13, at
Page 32 ¶ 77, Page 33 ¶ 79 (ECF No. 210-12); Glick Decl., Ex. 21, at Slides 34–37 (ECF No. 210-
13); and Abbott’s Opposition that references the foregoing documents (ECF No. 210-4), as they
relate to confidential business documents. See Regis Metro Associates, Inc. v. NBR Co., LLC, No.
20-cv-02309-DMR, 2022 WL 267443, at *14 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2022) (granting motion to seal
because “[a]ll of the documents contain sensitive business information or may be subject to
confidentiality agreements”); In re Apple Inc. Device Performance Litigation, No. 5:18-md-
02827-EJD, 2019 WL 1767158, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 22, 2019) (noting that under the compelling
reasons standard, courts have upheld the sealing of “trade secrets, marketing strategies, product
Case 3:22-cv-05815-TSH Document 224 Filed 03/05/26 Page 5 of 8

6
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
Northern District of California
development plans, detailed product specific financial information, customer information, internal
reports, and other such materials that would harm a party’s competitive standing”). However, the
Court agrees with LeGrand that compelling reasons do not exist to seal Glick Decl., Ex. 2 (ECF
No. 210-6) because it contains factual information, much of which is publicly available. See
Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 11-cv-01846-LHK, 2016 WL 11971682, at *2 (N.D. Cal.
Feb. 22, 2016) (“The Court will not seal publicly available information, including information the
parties have filed publicly in the instant case.”); Antonick v. Elec. Arts Inc., No. C-11-01543-CRB-
EDL, 2013 WL 2551794, at *2 (N.D. Cal. June 10, 2013) (“the redacted information about this
case and the [pending] litigation is so general that it does not implicate any confidential legal
strategy”). The Court also agrees that compelling reasons do not exist to redact Glick Decl., Ex. 6,
at Slides 45–46 (ECF No. 210-8), because the redacted information is several years old. Cf. In re
MyFord Touch Consumer Litig., No. 13-cv-03072-EMC, 2018 WL 1027391, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb.
2, 2018) (“Though Ford claims that it internally treats such information as confidential, it has not
demonstrated that disclosure of such information, often five years old or more, would cause it
competitive harm today.”). The Court further finds that compelling reasons do not exist to redact
Glick Decl., Ex. 1, at Slides 16, 18 (ECF No. 210-5); Glick Decl., Ex. 5, at Slides 6–8 (ECF No.
210-7); Glick Decl., Ex. 8, at Slides 1, 4–5 (ECF No. 210-10); and Glick Decl., Ex. 9, at Slides
44–45, 95–97 (ECF No. 210-11), because the redacted information is several years old.
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Abbott’s Administrative Motion to seal Glick Decl., Ex.
1, at Slides 6–8 (ECF No. 210-5); Glick Decl., Ex. 7, at Slides 24-25 (ECF No. 210-9); Glick
Decl., Ex. 13, at Page 32 ¶ 77, Page 33 ¶ 79 (ECF No. 210-12); Glick Decl., Ex. 21, at Slides 34–
37 (ECF No. 210-13); and Abbott’s Opposition that references the foregoing documents (ECF No.
210-4). As Abbott has already filed the redacted versions of the exhibits to the Glick Declaration
in the public record, no further action is required as to them.
The Court DENIES Abbott’s Administrative Motion to seal Glick Decl., Ex. 1, at Slides
16, 18 (ECF No. 210-5); Glick Decl., Ex. 2 (ECF No. 210-6); Glick Decl., Ex. 5, at Slides 6–8
(ECF No. 210-7); Glick Decl., Ex. 6, at Slides 45–46 (ECF No. 210-8); Glick Decl., Ex. 8, at
Slides 1, 4–5 (ECF No. 210-10); and Glick Decl., Ex. 9, at Slides 44–45, 95–97 (ECF No. 210-
Case 3:22-cv-05815-TSH Document 224 Filed 03/05/26 Page 6 of 8

7
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
Northern District of California
11). Abbott is hereby DIRECTED to file unredacted versions of those documents in the public
record within three days. The Court DENIES Abbott’s Administrative Motion to seal Abbott’s
Opposition (ECF No. 210-4) as it relates to Glick Decl., Ex. 1, at Slides 16, 18 (ECF No. 210-5);
Glick Decl., Ex. 2 (ECF No. 210-6); Glick Decl., Ex. 5 (ECF No. 210-7); Glick Decl., Ex. 6 (ECF
No. 210-8); Glick Decl., Ex. 8 (ECF No. 210-10); and Glick Decl., Ex. 9 (ECF No. 210-11).
Abbott is hereby DIRECTED to file that document in the public record within three days with
redactions as specified above.
B. ECF No. 218
On November 21, 2025, LeGrand filed an Administrative Motion to Consider Whether
Another Party’s Material Should Be Sealed, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5, in connection with
her Reply in Support of her Renewed Motion for Class Certification. ECF Nos. 217, 218.
LeGrand moves to file one document under seal: Declaration of Melanie R. Monroe (“Monroe
Decl.”), Ex. 1 (ECF No. 218-3). ECF No. 218.
On November 28, 2025, Abbott responded to LeGrand’s Administrative Motion requesting
sealing of Exhibit 1 to the Monroe Declaration. ECF No. 219. In support of its request, Abbott
submits declarations from Tracie Bryant and Meaghan Bird setting forth the bases for sealing the
document. See Declaration of Tracie L. Bryant (“Bryant Decl. #2”) (ECF No. 219-1); Declaration
of Meaghan Bird (ECF No. 219-3). Abbott proposes redactions to Exhibit 1 to the Monroe
Declaration. See ECF No. 219-2.
Abbott’s sealing request relates to portions of a document that reveals “Abbott’s business
strategy related to the marketing of its Ensure® products.” ECF No. 219. Abbott argues that
sealing is required because public disclosure of Abbott’s highly confidential internal business and
marketing strategies would cause Abbott competitive harm. Id. Specifically, Exhibit 1 is a three-
page excerpt of a presentation—Abbott requests that portions be redacted that “contain Abbott’s
internal business and marketing strategies, including consumer feedback and marketing analysis.”
Bryant Decl. #2 ¶ 3.
The Court has reviewed the document to be sealed and agrees that there are compelling
reasons to redact the portions requested by Abbott as they relate to confidential business
Case 3:22-cv-05815-TSH Document 224 Filed 03/05/26 Page 7 of 8

8
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
Northern District of California
documents. See In re Apple Inc. Device Performance Litigation, 2019 WL 1767158, at *2.
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS LeGrand’s Administrative Motion to seal Exhibit 1 to
the Monroe Declaration (ECF No. 218-3). As Abbott filed a redacted version of the document on
the public docket (ECF No. 219-2), no further action is needed.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS LeGrand’s Administrative Motion and
GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Abbott’s Administrative Motion.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 5, 2026
THOMAS S. HIXSON
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 3:22-cv-05815-TSH Document 224 Filed 03/05/26 Page 8 of 8