Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-03000/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-03000-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

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

YANIRA ALGARIN and PATSY

MURDOCK, on Behalf of Themselves

and All Others Similarly Situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

MAYBELLINE, LLC, A New York

Limited Liability Company, dba

MAYBELLINE NEW YORK,

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No.12cv3000 AJB (DHB)

ORDER GRANTING THE JOINT

MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENTS

UNDER SEAL

[Doc. No. 60]

The matter before the Court isthe Parties’ Joint Motion to Sealselect documentsfiled

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

Memorandumof Points and Authorities, as well as certain Exhibits attached, contain certain

information designated by Defendant as “CONFIDENTIAL” and under a Protective Order

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.

1 12cv3000

Case 3:12-cv-03000-AJB-DHB Document 62 Filed 02/21/14 Page 1 of 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

I. BACKGROUND

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

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 orsales information; or other information required by

applicable law or agreement to be kept confidential.” (Doc. No. 40.) 

The Parties now seek to seal the information those portions Defendant designated as

“CONFIDENTIAL” filed with their Motion for Class Certification. Specifically, Defendant’s confidential, proprietary, and business information. (Doc. No. 60.) 

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Courts have historically recognized a “generalright to inspect and copypublic records

and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns,

Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n. 7 (1978). “Unless a particular court record is one ‘traditionally

kept secret,’ a ‘strong presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point. Kamakana v.

City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Foltz v. State

Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). In order to overcome this

strong presumption, a party seeking to seal a judicial record must articulate justificationsfor

sealing that outweigh the public policies favoring disclosure. See id. at 1178–79. In turn,

the court must “conscientiously balance the competing interests” of the public and the party

who seeks to keep certain judicial records secret. Id. After considering these interests, if the

2 12cv3000

Case 3:12-cv-03000-AJB-DHB Document 62 Filed 02/21/14 Page 2 of 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

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) issufficient to preserve the secrecy ofsealed 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

motionsfor class certification as non-dispositive motionsto which the “good cause” sealing

standard applies. Dugan v. Lloyds TSB Bank, PLC, 2013 WL 1435223, *1 (citing In re

NCAA Student–Athlete Name and Likeness Licensing Litig., 2012 WL 6561088 (N.D. Cal.

Sept. 14, 2012)). 1

A strong presumption of access to judicial records applies fully to dispositve

pleadings and their attachments. In the case of motions for class certification, if the motion

will affect whether or not the litigation proceeds, then the motion constitutes a dispositive

motion for which a party must show “compelling reasons” for sealing the record. See

Rosales v. El Rancho Farms, 2014 WL 321159, *3 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2014). In the instant

case, it is likely that denial of class certification will sound the “death knell” of the

“[T]he Ninth Circuit has not yet addressed whether or not, or under what

1

circumstances, a motion for class certification is a dispositive motion” for purposes of

deciding what standard applies on sealing motions and that courts in this district have

reached different conclusions.” Dugan, 2013 WL 1435223, at *1. 

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

Case 3:12-cv-03000-AJB-DHB Document 62 Filed 02/21/14 Page 3 of 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

litigation, as Plaintiffs have only alleged de minimis individual damages. Thus, to warrant 2

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 asthey allegedly contain

Defendant’s confidential, proprietary and sensitive business information:

1. Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Patricia N. Syverson in Support of Plaintiffs’

Motion for Class Certification (“Early Trier Study”); 

2. Exhibit 8 to the Declaration of Patricia N. Syverson in Support of Plaintiffs’

Motion for Class Certification (“The Sales Data”); and

3. Select portions of pages 1, 2, 6, 7, 10, and 17 of Plaintiffs’ Memorandum of

Points and Authorities in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification. 

Although the documents are subject to a Protective Order, the Court does not take that

into consideration on this Motion to Seal and will only grant the Motion if compelling

reasons are shown. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (“The ‘compelling reasons’ standard

 Plaintiff Yanira Algarin alleges she paid approximately $10.00 for the SupreStay 24HR 2

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

Case 3:12-cv-03000-AJB-DHB Document 62 Filed 02/21/14 Page 4 of 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

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

lessened. See Nixon v. Warner Comm'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598, 98 S.Ct. 1306 (1978). 

The Parties first contend that this Court should apply the “good cause” standard to their

motion to seal. However, as stated above, this is incorrect. Instead, the Court applies the

“compelling reasons” standard as a ruling on the Motion for Class Certification will

affect whether or not the litigation proceeds.

Even applying the more exacting standard, the Court is satisfied that the Parties

have demonstrated compelling reasons to warrant sealing. The Parties assert that

L’Oréal will suffer serious competitive harm if the Early Trier Study is revealed to the

public. Public disclosure of L’Oréal’s confidential business material, marketing

strategies, product development plans could result in improper use by business competitors seeking to replicate L’Oréal’s business practices and circumvent the time and

resources necessary in developing their own practices and strategies. Moreover, the

Court finds that the Parties only seek to seal a limited amount of information. Accord5 12cv3000

Case 3:12-cv-03000-AJB-DHB Document 62 Filed 02/21/14 Page 5 of 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

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. The Sales Data

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

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

compelling reasons to seal the information contained in Exhibit 8 to the Motion for Class

Certification as well. 

C. Memorandum of Points and Authority

Plaintiffs’ Memorandum filed with their Motion for Class Certification reference

or explicitly incorporate the information the Court has determined should be sealed. The

Parties only seek to file those portions of pages in the Memorandum that reference or

incorporate information contained in the Early Trier Studies or the Sales Data. The

Court notes the Parties’ attempt to seal only a narrow portion of the Memorandum and is

satisfied that the compelling reason standard has been met. Accordingly, the Parties may

file the select portions of pages 1, 2, 6, 7, 10, and 17 of the Memorandum under seal.

//

//

//

//

6 12cv3000

Case 3:12-cv-03000-AJB-DHB Document 62 Filed 02/21/14 Page 6 of 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

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.

DATED: February 21, 2014

Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia

U.S. District Judge

7 12cv3000

Case 3:12-cv-03000-AJB-DHB Document 62 Filed 02/21/14 Page 7 of 7