Algarin v. Maybelline, LLC
Filing
62
ORDER Granting 60 Joint Motion to File Documents Under Seal. The Parties are directed to prepare a redacted version of their Motion for Class Certification, pursuant to this Order, to be filed and made available publicly no later than February 26, 2014. Signed by Judge Anthony J. Battaglia on 2/21/2014. (rlu)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
YANIRA ALGARIN and PATSY
)
MURDOCK, on Behalf of Themselves )
13 and All Others Similarly Situated,
)
)
14
Plaintiffs,
)
v.
)
15
)
MAYBELLINE, LLC, A New York
)
16 Limited Liability Company, dba
)
MAYBELLINE NEW YORK,
)
17
)
Defendants.
)
12
Civil No.12cv3000 AJB (DHB)
ORDER GRANTING THE JOINT
MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENTS
UNDER SEAL
[Doc. No. 60]
18
19
20
21
22
23
The matter before the Court is the Parties’ Joint Motion to Seal select documents filed
in support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification. (Doc. No. 61.) On February 20,
2014, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Class Certification. (Doc. No. 61.) The Motion’s
Memorandum of Points and Authorities, as well as certain Exhibits attached, contain certain
information designated by Defendant as “CONFIDENTIAL” and under a Protective Order
24
25
26
27
entered on July 19, 2013. The Parties now requests the Court to seal those portions pursuant
to Local Rule 79.2 and the July 19, 2013 Protective Order. For the following reasons, the
Motion to Seal is GRANTED.
28
1
12cv3000
1
I.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
This is a putative class action regarding Defendant Maybelline LLC’s (“Defendant”)
SuperStay 24HR Lipcolor and SuperStay 24HR Makeup products (the “Class Products”).
Plaintiffs seek to certify a class alleging violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law
(“UCL”), Business and Professions Code § 17200, et seq. and Consumers Legal Remedies
Act (“CRLA”), Civil Code § 1750, et seq., based on Defendant’s alleged false advertising
of the Class Products. (Doc. No. 47.)
On July 19, 2013, the Parties entered into a Protective Order regarding certain
9
10
11
12
13
14
BACKGROUND
discovery material to be made available by Defendants. The Protective Order permitted the
parties and other non parties to designate as “CONFIDENTIAL” documents they, in good
faith, believe contains or constitutes: “sensitive personal information; commercial research
or development; proprietary business or sales information; or other information required by
applicable law or agreement to be kept confidential.” (Doc. No. 40.)
15
The Parties now seek to seal the information those portions Defendant designated as
16
“CONFIDENTIAL” filed with their Motion for Class Certification. Specifically, Defen-
17
dant’s confidential, proprietary, and business information. (Doc. No. 60.)
18
II.
LEGAL STANDARD
19
Courts have historically recognized a “general right to inspect and copy public records
20
and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns,
21
Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n. 7 (1978). “Unless a particular court record is one ‘traditionally
22
kept secret,’ a ‘strong presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point. Kamakana v.
23
City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Foltz v. State
24
Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). In order to overcome this
25
strong presumption, a party seeking to seal a judicial record must articulate justifications for
26
sealing that outweigh the public policies favoring disclosure. See id. at 1178–79. In turn,
27
the court must “conscientiously balance the competing interests” of the public and the party
28
who seeks to keep certain judicial records secret. Id. After considering these interests, if the
2
12cv3000
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
court decides to seal certain judicial records, it must “base its decision on a compelling
reason and articulate the factual basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or
conjecture.” Id. (citing Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430, 1434 (9th Cir. 1995)).
On non-dispositive motions, a party seeking to file under seal a document produced
under seal in discovery only needs to establish that there is “good cause” for sealing the
record. In re Midland Nat. Life Ins. Co. Annuity Sales Practices Litig., 686 F.3d 1115, 1119
(9th Cir. 2012) (“[A] particularized showing of ‘good cause’ under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 26(c) is sufficient to preserve the secrecy of sealed discovery documents attached
to non-dispositive motion”); see also Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d
1172, 1180 (9th Cir.2006). Unless the denial of a motion for class certification would
constitute the death knell of a case, “the vast majority of []courts within this circuit” treat
motions for class certification as non-dispositive motions to which the “good cause” sealing
standard applies. Dugan v. Lloyds TSB Bank, PLC, 2013 WL 1435223, *1 (citing In re
15
NCAA Student–Athlete Name and Likeness Licensing Litig., 2012 WL 6561088 (N.D. Cal.
16
Sept. 14, 2012)). 1
17
A strong presumption of access to judicial records applies fully to dispositve
18
pleadings and their attachments. In the case of motions for class certification, if the motion
19
will affect whether or not the litigation proceeds, then the motion constitutes a dispositive
20
motion for which a party must show “compelling reasons” for sealing the record. See
21
Rosales v. El Rancho Farms, 2014 WL 321159, *3 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2014). In the instant
22
case, it is likely that denial of class certification will sound the “death knell” of the
23
24
“[T]he Ninth Circuit has not yet addressed whether or not, or under what
circumstances, a motion for class certification is a dispositive motion” for purposes of
25 deciding what standard applies on sealing motions and that courts in this district have
reached different conclusions.” Dugan, 2013 WL 1435223, at *1.
1
26
27
28
The Eleventh Circuit observes that a motion for class certification might be dispositive if “denial
of class status means that the stakes are too low for the named plaintiffs to continue the matter.” Prado
v. Bush, 221 F.3d 1266, 1274 (11th Cir. 2000). Under this articulation, Plaintiffs’ class certification
presents such a situation.
3
12cv3000
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
litigation, as Plaintiffs have only alleged de minimis individual damages.2 Thus, to warrant
the Court’s grant of the request to seal, the Court must be satisfied that “compelling reasons”
exist. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179.
Relevant factors include the “public interest in
understanding the judicial process and whether disclosure of the material could result in
improper use . . .” Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 659 (9th Cir.
2010)(citations omitted). In general, “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.
III.
ANALYSIS
The Parties seek permission to seal the following documents as they allegedly contain
Defendant’s confidential, proprietary and sensitive business information:
15
1. Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Patricia N. Syverson in Support of Plaintiffs’
16
Motion for Class Certification (“Early Trier Study”);
17
2. Exhibit 8 to the Declaration of Patricia N. Syverson in Support of Plaintiffs’
18
Motion for Class Certification (“The Sales Data”); and
19
3. Select portions of pages 1, 2, 6, 7, 10, and 17 of Plaintiffs’ Memorandum of
20
Points and Authorities in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification.
21
Although the documents are subject to a Protective Order, the Court does not take that
22
into consideration on this Motion to Seal and will only grant the Motion if compelling
23
reasons are shown. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (“The ‘compelling reasons’ standard
24
25
26
27
28
2
Plaintiff Yanira Algarin alleges she paid approximately $10.00 for the SupreStay 24HR
Lipcolor product, and but for any of Defendant’s alleged misrepresentations and omissions, she would
not have purchased the “premium priced” product. (Doc. No. 47 at 5.)
Plaintiff Patsy Murdock, in reliance on the alleged misrepresentation, paid approximately $10.00
for the SuperStay 24HR Lipcolor and $12.00 for the SuperStay 24HR Makeup. (Id.)
4
12cv3000
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
is invoked even if the dispotive motion, or its attachments, were previously filed under seal
or protective order.”).
A.
Early Trier Study
According to the Parties, the Early Trier Study is a compilation of sales data, market
research, consumer research, advertising data and marketing strategy prepared by L’Oréal
USA, Inc. (L’Oréal) and its outside marketing consultant. (Doc. No. 60 at 3; see also Decl.
Of Mark Brooks in Support of Joint Motion (“Brooks Decl.”) at 2.) L’Oréal is Defendant
Maybelline’s parent company. L’Oréal uses the subject data to develop and market its
products and to build market share. (Id.) The Early Trier Study also contains copies of
proprietary consumer results not publicly available and are considered by L’Oréal to be a
valuable asset to its product research and development.
Where a party shows that its documents contain sources of business information
that might harm its competitive standing, the need for public access to the records is
15
lessened. See Nixon v. Warner Comm'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598, 98 S.Ct. 1306 (1978).
16
The Parties first contend that this Court should apply the “good cause” standard to their
17
motion to seal. However, as stated above, this is incorrect. Instead, the Court applies the
18
“compelling reasons” standard as a ruling on the Motion for Class Certification will
19
affect whether or not the litigation proceeds.
20
Even applying the more exacting standard, the Court is satisfied that the Parties
21
have demonstrated compelling reasons to warrant sealing. The Parties assert that
22
L’Oréal will suffer serious competitive harm if the Early Trier Study is revealed to the
23
public. Public disclosure of L’Oréal’s confidential business material, marketing
24
strategies, product development plans could result in improper use by business competi-
25
tors seeking to replicate L’Oréal’s business practices and circumvent the time and
26
resources necessary in developing their own practices and strategies. Moreover, the
27
Court finds that the Parties only seek to seal a limited amount of information. Accord-
28
5
12cv3000
1
2
3
ingly, the Courts finds the Parties to have shown compelling reasons to seal the Early
Trier Study, Exhibit 1 to the Motion for Class Certification.
B.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
The Sales Data comprises nationwide, regional, and segmented sales data regarding the Class Products at issue not publicly available. (Doc. No. 60 at 3.) This information was primarily from IRI - a market research group that compiles sales and market data
for major consumer manufacture or retail companies. Any company that wishes to
utilize the IRI data repository must purchase the data. L’Oréal states that the data
purchased is used in furtherance of its own market research and sales strategy. (Id.)
As with the Early Trier Study, public disclosure may result in improper use by
11
12
13
14
The Sales Data
competitors who may circumvent expending their own resources in obtaining the
information at L’Oréal’s expense. Moreover, the Court is satisfied that the information
sought to be sealed is limited in scope. The Court finds the Parties to have shown
15
compelling reasons to seal the information contained in Exhibit 8 to the Motion for Class
16
Certification as well.
17
C.
Memorandum of Points and Authority
Plaintiffs’ Memorandum filed with their Motion for Class Certification reference
18
19
or explicitly incorporate the information the Court has determined should be sealed. The
20
Parties only seek to file those portions of pages in the Memorandum that reference or
21
incorporate information contained in the Early Trier Studies or the Sales Data. The
22
Court notes the Parties’ attempt to seal only a narrow portion of the Memorandum and is
23
satisfied that the compelling reason standard has been met. Accordingly, the Parties may
24
file the select portions of pages 1, 2, 6, 7, 10, and 17 of the Memorandum under seal.
25
//
26
//
27
//
28
//
6
12cv3000
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
III.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS the Motion to Seal. The Clerk of
Court is instructed to file the currently sealed lodged proposed Motion for Class
Certification under seal. (Doc. No. 61.) The Parties are directed to prepare a redacted
version of their Motion for Class Certification, pursuant to this Order, to be filed and
made available publicly no later than February 26, 2014.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
9
10
DATED: February 21, 2014
11
12
13
14
Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia
U.S. District Judge
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7
12cv3000
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?