Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_17-cv-03824/USCOURTS-cand-4_17-cv-03824-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

ORDER – No. 17-cv-03824-PJH (LB)

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 Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

San Francisco Division 

JOSEPH GREGORIO, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

THE CLOROX COMPANY, 

Defendant. 

Case No. 17-cv-03824-PJH (LB) 

DISCOVERY ORDER 

Re: ECF No. 108 

INTRODUCTION 

In this putative class action, the plaintiffs challenge the defendant Clorox Company’s allegedly 

mislabeling certain Clorox “Green Works” products as “natural” or “naturally derived” when they 

actually contain ingredients that are synthetic and non-natural.1

 The plaintiffs bring claims for 

violations of California and New York false-advertising, consumer-protection, and unfaircompetition laws, and claims for breach of express and implied warranties, unjust enrichment, 

negligent misrepresentation, and fraud.2 

 

1

 First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) – ECF No. 35 at 2 (¶ 1). Citations refer to material in the 

Electronic Case File (“ECF”); pinpoint citations are to the ECF-generated page numbers at the top of 

documents. 

2 Id. at 14–24 (¶¶ 34–114). The district judge dismissed the plaintiffs’ claim for a violation of the 

Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 2301 et seq., for failure to plead an amount in 

Case 4:17-cv-03824-PJH Document 119 Filed 06/28/19 Page 1 of 12
ORDER – No. 17-cv-03824-PJH (LB) 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 Californi

a

The court’s earlier orders describe the parties’ dispute.3 Boiled down, the parties dispute 

whether Clorox can assert attorney-client privilege over certain spreadsheets (something that 

Clorox calls “claims matrixes”) that detail the claims that Clorox’s in-house counsel approves for 

use with that particular product.4 The court reviewed five spreadsheets that Clorox submitted for

in camera review and finds that Clorox has established that the redacted content of the 

spreadsheets has privileged material. But it has not established other elements of privilege (such as 

author and maintaining confidentiality). This order specifies the areas where Clorox must support 

its contentions and gives Clorox 14 days to submit a supplemental declaration. 

STATEMENT 

1. The Spreadsheets 

The spreadsheets at issue are “claims matrix” spreadsheets.5 For each Green Works product, 

there is a “claims matrix” spreadsheet that details what claims are approved (or not approved) by 

Clorox’s in-house legal department for use with that particular product.6 Clorox’s in-house 

advertising counsel submitted a declaration that she has written comments on the spreadsheets 

and/or approved or rejected claims.7 The “claims matrix” spreadsheets are “living and evolving 

documents that resided in a shared drive that a select group of Clorox employees would review to 

obtain legal advice provided by Clorox’s in-house lawyers.”8 Clorox’s in-house advertising 

counsel “viewed the claims matrix spreadsheet as a vehicle to communicate to certain personnel 

within Clorox what claims have been legally approved and what have not been approved.”9

 Clorox 

 

controversy for an individual claim of at least $25 and failure to plead a product cost of more than $5. 

Order – ECF No. 52 at 9. The plaintiffs did not amend the complaint. 

3

 Order – ECF No. 83; Order – ECF No. 93; Order – ECF No. 102. 

4

 Nasseri-Asghar Decl. – ECF No. 107-3 at 2 (¶ 3). 

5

 Nasseri-Asghar Decl. – ECF No. 96-5 at 3 (¶ 3). 

6 Id. 

7 Id. 

8 Id. (¶ 4). 

9 Id. 

Case 4:17-cv-03824-PJH Document 119 Filed 06/28/19 Page 2 of 12
ORDER – No. 17-cv-03824-PJH (LB) 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 Californi

a

personnel typically reviewed the spreadsheets on the shared drive but sometimes saved them on 

their computers or emailed the claims matrices to other Clorox colleagues.10 

In house counsel also provided the following information about the redactions. 

“5. The claims matrix spreadsheets incorporate or refer to analysis set forth in 

‘claims support documents,’ which Clorox Research & Development employees 

write at the direction of in-house attorneys for the purpose of communicating 

substantiation data and other support information to enable Clorox in-house counsel 

to perform a legal analysis, provide legal advice, and assess litigation risk. 

Accordingly, Clorox considers these memoranda to be attorney-client privileged. 

“6. I understand that Clorox has withheld two such claims documents pertaining 

to the challenged Green Works products as privileged and constituting attorney work 

product. I have reviewed both documents. These memoranda were prepared at the 

request of Clorox’s in-house counsel, and they reflect proposed claims substantiation 

data and other support information from Clorox Research & Development employees 

who worked on the Green Works products to in-house Clorox legal counsel so that 

such counsel could assess whether such claims were adequately substantiated in 

accordance with laws and assess litigation risk associated with such claims. 

“7. I also understand that the Plaintiffs have raised questions about the ‘Claim 

Support Tab’ referenced in some of the claims matrix spreadsheets. ‘Claim Support 

Tab’ is the location in which such privileged claims support documents are housed 

for ongoing reference by Clorox in-house counsel as the need to arises to revisit and 

re-analyze legal conclusions previously surmised. In this case, the claims support 

documents would be the two claims memoranda referenced in paragraph 6. 

Clorox’s former Director of Marketing was deposed and provided the following testimony: 

Q. Who creates a claims matrix? 

A. I am unsure who is the originator of those documents. 

Q. Do you know what position would normally be in charge of creating a claims 

matrix? 

A. I know that R & D has a large responsibility for it, but I am unsure if they are 

the ones that always originate the document. 

. . . . 

Q. So you don’t know who worked on the claims matrixes? 

A. I don’t know who — who created the original claims matrix for Green Works. 

 

10 Id. 

Case 4:17-cv-03824-PJH Document 119 Filed 06/28/19 Page 3 of 12
ORDER – No. 17-cv-03824-PJH (LB) 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 Californi

a

Q. But in general, it would have been people working in – in marketing and R & 

D? 

[objection] 

A. To create a claims matrix, there would have to be some conversations between R 

& D and marketing at some point. 

Q. Okay. And those would be the departments or divisions primarily responsible 

for creating those documents? 

[objection] 

A. They — we do a lot of very collaborative work at Clorox so I do — it wouldn’t 

— usually not just be those two groups, like there could be other groups that would 

be involved in . . . 

Q. Can you think of other groups that would have been involved in creating a 

claims matrix for the Green Works product line? 

A. Our regulatory department. 

Q. Okay. 

A. Our legal department. 

Q. And what role would the legal department or regulatory department have in 

creating the claims matrixes? 

A. They would discuss with — with the team about what they thought were the — 

the characteristics to think about when putting something on marketing materials or 

packaging materials to make sure that it is something that we could substantiate. 

Q. So would that be after the creation of the claims matrix, Legal or Regulatory 

would review it? 

A. I am not sure at what point in the process that they review it. 

. . . . 

Q. And so when you were asked to provide input for a claims matrix, was this 

someone senior to you who would have asked you to provide that input? 

A. I think it’s just nor — a normal part of the — the product development process. 

Q. Okay. 

A. So . . . 

Q. It’s not something that Legal asked you to do specifically? 

A. No.11

 

11 Connor Dep. – ECF No. 96-6 at 3 (pp. 62:7–16), 4–6 (pp. 63:14–65:7), 7–8 (67:24–68:10). 

Case 4:17-cv-03824-PJH Document 119 Filed 06/28/19 Page 4 of 12
ORDER – No. 17-cv-03824-PJH (LB) 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 Californi

a

The court reviewed five spreadsheets. For the spreadsheets that contain individual names (or 

initials) and dates in the “Legal Approved By/Date” column, Clorox does not identify these 

individuals more specifically or state that they are attorneys.12 For the spreadsheets that contain 

individual names (or initials) and dates in the “Legal Approved By/Date column, Clorox does not 

identify these individuals more specifically or state that they are attorneys. [For the spreadsheets 

that contain individual names (or initials) and dates in the “Legal Approved By/Date column, 

Clorox does not identify these individuals more specifically or state that they are attorneys. 

2. Relevant Procedural History 

On April 29, 2019, the court held that it could not evaluate Clorox’s claim of privilege.13 The 

relevant part of the order is as follows.14

The parties do not dispute that information in a spreadsheet — like documents in 

a review platform or repository — can be privileged. The parties agree that Clorox 

has the burden of establishing whether the redacted information is privileged. 

On this record, the court cannot evaluate Clorox’s claim of privilege in part based 

on the following issues. 

First, Clorox has not identified who created the matrices, who accessed them, 

whether those accessing them knew that the matrices had privileged content, or 

whether they kept the privileged content confidential or instead shared the 

spreadsheet. This implicates whether Clorox has established privilege, and if it did, 

whether it waived it. 

A case that Clorox cites about redaction — RBS Citizens, N.A. v. Husain, 291 

F.R.D. 209 (N.D. Ill. 2013) — undermines its position on privilege.15 In RBS, as here, 

the plaintiffs (there, the counter-plaintiffs) sought to compel the defendant (there, the 

counter-defendant) to produce certain spreadsheets. Id. at 216. There, as here, the 

defendant (there, the counter-defendant) claimed that the spreadsheets contained 

ACP material. Id. There, as is possibly true here, the spreadsheets were not actually 

 

12 See Nasseri-Asghar Decl. – ECF No. 107-3. 

13 Order – ECF No. 102 at 5. 

14 Id. at 5–8. The footnotes in the quoted portion of the April 29 order are the footnotes from that 

order. The numbering is different because the footnotes are sequential to the earlier footnotes in this 

order. 

15 Clorox cites the case in support of its argument regarding redaction, discussed below. 

Case 4:17-cv-03824-PJH Document 119 Filed 06/28/19 Page 5 of 12
ORDER – No. 17-cv-03824-PJH (LB) 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 Californi

a

communicated to or from attorneys. Id. at 220. The court ordered an in camera

review. Id. at 216. 

The court noted that “RBS [the counter-defendant] fails to identify the author or 

recipient, if any, for a majority of the documents listed on its privilege log. This 

oversight significantly limits the Court’s ability to find that documents are protected 

under the attorney-client privilege.” Id. at 218. “The Court finds that the deficiencies 

in RBS’s privilege log make it nearly impossible for RBS to uphold its claims of 

attorney-client privilege. Without a complete list of who received certain documents, 

for example, there is no way to know if the communications were kept confidential, 

and the Court cannot find that the documents are protected by attorney-client 

privilege.” Id. at 219. Other than a handful of documents, the court held that the 

spreadsheets were not privileged. Id.

The RBS counter-defendant made an argument like Clorox’s, namely, that “it 

‘incorporated counsel’s advice and mental impressions into various documents,’ 

including the risk ratings, charge-off analyses, and other calculations contained in 

the disputed spreadsheets.” Id. at 219–20. The court rejected that argument, holding 

that “[t]hese documents are not protected under the attorney-client privilege, even 

though RBS suggests that they might be, because they are not communications to or 

from an attorney, nor is there any indication that they were intended to be 

confidential.” Id. at 220. 

If ultimately Clorox cannot identify more specifically that a lawyer was the 

author of the disputed content and that the confidentiality of the content was 

maintained, RBS may persuade that Clorox has not shown that the redacted 

information is privileged. But as the court said at the hearing, it may be that the 

unredacted information shows that a lawyer (even if not a specific lawyer) made the 

communication and that the information remained confidential. The court thus does 

not decide the issue definitively now and instead sets forth a process (below) to 

illuminate the facts. 

Second, in addition to Clorox’s failure to identify that attorneys wrote the 

redacted content and kept it confidential, it has not shown that such an attorney was 

offering legal advice, as opposed to business advice. The depo testimony Clorox cites 

— “Q. And what role would the legal department or regulatory department have in 

creating the claims matrixes? A. They would discuss with — with the team about 

what they thought were the — the characteristics to think about when putting 

something on marketing materials or packaging to make sure that it is something that 

we could substantiate”16 — perhaps tips more toward business advice than legal 

advice. (What to put on marketing materials or packaging is squarely business, and 

based on this testimony, the attorneys may not be providing legal advice about the 

legal consequences of claims XYZ and instead may be providing business input 

about whether claim XYZ is true.) Given the process set forth below to illuminate 

 

16 Connor Dep. – ECF No. 96-6 at 5–6 (pp. 64:19–65:2). 

Case 4:17-cv-03824-PJH Document 119 Filed 06/28/19 Page 6 of 12
ORDER – No. 17-cv-03824-PJH (LB) 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 Californi

a

the actual content and confidentiality, the court does not reach the issue now but flags 

it for Clorox’s consideration. 

Given these issues, the court arguably could hold now that Clorox has not met its 

burden to establish privilege (both by author and content) and lack of waiver 

(assuming privilege). But given the sensitivities that surround attorney-client 

communications, the court will review a subset of the matrices after the parties 

engage in the following process. 

First, as the plaintiff pointed out in the letter brief, the column titled “Legal 

Approved By/Date” is fully redacted.17 Presumably that column contains only nonprivileged names and dates for when each claim was approved.18 Providing that 

column, unredacted, presumably will provide insight into the author of the 

comments. At the hearing, Clorox said that it could live with producing the 

author/date information. (It can redact any privileged content.) 

Second, Clorox must provide a privilege log that comports with this court’s 

standing order: 

3. Privilege Logs. If a party withholds material as privileged, see Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 26(b)(5) and 45(d)(2)(A), it must produce a privilege log that is sufficiently 

detailed for the opposing party to assess whether the assertion of privilege is 

justified. The log must be produced as quickly as possible but no later than 

fourteen days after the party’s disclosures or discovery responses are due 

unless the parties stipulate to, or the court sets, another date. Unless the 

parties agree to a different logging method, privilege logs must contain the 

following: (a) the title and description of the document, the number of pages, 

and the Bates-number range; (b) the subject matter or general nature of the 

document (without disclosing its contents); (c) the identity and position of its 

author; (d) the date it was communicated (or prepared, if that is the more 

relevant date); (e) the identity and position of all addressees and recipients of 

the communication; (f) the document’s present location; (g) the specific basis 

for the assertion that the document is privileged or protected (including a brief 

summary of any supporting facts); and (h) the steps taken to ensure the 

confidentiality of the communication, including an affirmation that no 

unauthorized persons received the communication.19

With a good privilege log, a plaintiff can assess whether information is privileged 

and avoid in camera review, and ultimately, it aids any in camera review. See Helm 

v. Alderwoods Grp., Inc., No C 08–01184 SI, 2010 WL 2951871, at *1 (N.D. Cal. 

Jul. 27, 2010) (“The court agrees with plaintiffs that, without the names of the 

author(s) and recipient(s) of each document, plaintiffs cannot determine whether the 

attorney-client privilege applies.”). 

Third, if after a review of the privilege log, the plaintiffs contest the withheld 

information, then they can identify five spreadsheets for Clorox to produce for the 

 

17 Joint Letter Br. – ECF No. 96-4 at 3. 

18 Id. (making this point). 

19 Standing Order – ECF No. 69-1. 

Case 4:17-cv-03824-PJH Document 119 Filed 06/28/19 Page 7 of 12
ORDER – No. 17-cv-03824-PJH (LB) 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 Californi

a

court’s in camera review. Cf. Desert Survivors v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 231 F. Supp. 

3d 368, 370 (N.D. Cal. 2017) (allowing in camera review of a sample of 10 

documents (from a total of 55) selected by the plaintiff after the defendant produced 

a more detailed privilege log). The parties also must submit a joint letter brief that 

complies with the court’s discovery procedures and that contains their respective 

arguments about the withheld documents. Id. (ordering a similar process).20

The court ordered the following: “(1) Clorox must produce the redacted column ‘Legal 

Approved By/Date’ to show author and date; (2) Clorox must produce, and the plaintiffs must 

review, a revised privilege log that comports with the undersigned’s standing order; and (3) if this 

process does not resolve the dispute, then the plaintiffs may select five spreadsheets for the court’s 

in camera review.”21 (The court also held that Clorox could not unilaterally redact information 

from the spreadsheets that it deemed unrelated to the “natural” claims in this lawsuit.22) 

Clorox then emailed the court five spreadsheets in PDF format.23 They appeared identical.24

The court set forth a process so that five different spreadsheets in native and PDF format were 

produced for in camera review.25 

The court held a hearing on June 28, 2019. 

ANALYSIS 

1. Attorney-Client Privilege 

The plaintiffs challenge two categories where Clorox has asserted attorney-client privilege: (1) 

Clorox’s redactions in the matrices, and (2) documents stored under a claims-support tab in the 

matrices. 

 

20 Id. 

21 Order – ECF No. 102 at 10–11. 

22 Id. at 8–9 (“[O]n this record, given the matrices at issue and over-redactions by Clorox that render 

the productions unintelligible [footnote omitted], the court follows the weight of authority in this 

district and disallows the redactions based on Clorox’s unilateral assessment of relevance”) (citing 

Shenwick v. Twitter, Inc., No. 16-cv-05314-JST (SK), 2018 WL 833085, at * 3 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 

2018) (collecting cases)). 

23 Order – ECF No. 111 at 1. 

24 Id.

25 Id. at 2. 

Case 4:17-cv-03824-PJH Document 119 Filed 06/28/19 Page 8 of 12
ORDER – No. 17-cv-03824-PJH (LB) 9

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 Californi

a

1.1 Clorox’s Redactions 

Clorox has redacted content in a column titled “Addn’l Comments.” The issues surrounding 

Clorox’s redactions are (1) who created the matrices, (2) whether the redacted information related 

to legal advice from in-house attorneys, (3) who accessed the matrices, (4) whether those 

accessing the matrices knew that they had privileged content, and (5) whether they kept the 

privileged content confidential or instead shared the spreadsheet.26

For point 1 (who created the matrices), apparently a paralegal created and maintained the 

template.27 Clorox must submit a declaration to back that contention. There is also the issue of 

who input the redacted content, and that issue is addressed in the analysis of point 2. 

For point 2 (whether the redacted information is legal advice from in-house attorneys), the first 

subpoint is, who wrote the comments. According to the plaintiffs, Clorox has said that it does not 

know who wrote the redacted comments but said that “it believes that the comments were written 

by lawyers and, in some cases, business employees who were asking Clorox’s legal department 

for advice.”28 Clorox responds that its in-house counsel established this point. She practically 

does: she said that the matrices memorialize legal advice and are used to ask for or receive 

advice,29 but her comments are general and not specific. As discussed below, the content is 

privileged, and thus the in-house counsel ought to be able to say that the authors of the redacted 

comment are lawyers giving legal advice or business people seeking legal advice. Clorox must 

submit a declaration to back up its contention. See Helm v. Alderwoods Grp., Inc., No. C 08–

01184 SI, 2010 WL 2951871, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Jul. 27, 2010) (“The Court agrees with plaintiffs 

that, without the names of the author(s) and recipient(s) of each document, plaintiffs cannot 

determine whether the attorney-client privilege applies.”). 

 

26 Order – ECF No. 102 at 5. 

27 Joint Letter Br. – ECF No. 108 at 3. 

28 Id. at 1. 

29 Nasseri-Asghar Decl. – ECF No. 107-3 at 2–3 (¶¶ 3–4). 

Case 4:17-cv-03824-PJH Document 119 Filed 06/28/19 Page 9 of 12
ORDER – No. 17-cv-03824-PJH (LB) 10

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 Californi

a

Again on point 2, the second subpoint is whether the redacted content shows that lawyers are 

giving advice or business people are asking for legal advice. The court’s review of the 

spreadsheets shows legal advice that — if the other factors are met — is privileged. 

For point 3 (who accessed the matrices), Clorox’s in-house counsel says that a “select group of 

Clorox employees” reviewed the matrices, and said that Clorox “viewed the claims matrix 

spreadsheet[s] as a vehicle to communicate to certain personnel within Clorox what claims have 

been legally approved and what have not been approved.”30 This is not the same as saying that 

people viewed the redacted content to get or give legal advice. Clorox must submit a declaration to 

back up its contention. 

For points 4 and 5 (whether those accessing the matrices knew that they contained privileged 

content and whether they kept the content confidential or instead shared it), Clorox says only that 

the employees viewed the spreadsheets and sometimes shared them with other Clorox 

employees.31 That is not sufficient. Absent a more specific declaration, Clorox has not shown that 

it kept legal advice confidential. It must submit a declaration to show that it did. 

1.2 “Claims Support” Tabs 

The plaintiffs point out references in the matrices to claims documents, claims-substantiation 

documents, and claim-support tabs and suggest that there are documents that Clorox is not 

producing.32 Clorox’s in-house counsel describes that the memoranda filed under the tabs are 

written “at the direction of in-house attorneys for the purpose of communicating substantiation 

data and other support information to enable Clorox in-house counsel to perform a legal analysis, 

provide legal advice, and assess litigation risk.”33 She also explains that the “‘Claim Support Tab’ 

is the location in which such privileged claims[-]support documents are housed for ongoing 

reference by Clorox in-house counsel as the need arises to revisit and re-analyze legal conclusions 

 

30 Nasseri-Asghar Decl. – ECF No. 96-5 at 3 (¶ 4). 

31 Id.

32 Joint Letter Br. – ECF No. 108 at 2. 

33 Nasseri-Asghar Decl. – ECF No. 107-3 at 3 (¶ 5). 

Case 4:17-cv-03824-PJH Document 119 Filed 06/28/19 Page 10 of 12
ORDER – No. 17-cv-03824-PJH (LB) 11

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 Californi

a

previously surmised. In this case, the claims[-]support documents would be the two claims 

memoranda [that have been identified in the privilege log].”34 

In-house counsel’s declaration adequately establishes that the claims-support documents are 

privileged, at least regarding (1) the creator of the content, and (2) whether the redacted 

information related to legal advice from in-house attorneys. It does not reach points three through 

five: (3) who accessed the matrices, (4) whether those accessing the matrices knew that they had 

privileged content, and (5) whether they kept the privileged content confidential. It may be that 

this analysis is easier than the “redacted content” analysis if the content was accessible only to inhouse attorneys. In any event, Clorox must submit a declaration regarding points three through 

five. 

2. Motion to File Under Seal 

The plaintiffs filed Clorox’s in-house counsel’s declaration and an email chain under seal 

because Clorox designated the information confidential.35

Civil Local Rule 79-5 requires the designating party—in this case, Clorox—to file a 

declaration establishing that the three documents are sealable. Specifically, Civil Local Rule 79-

5(e) provides: 

(e) Documents Designated as Confidential or Subject to a Protective Order. If 

the Submitting Party is seeking to file under seal a document designated as 

confidential by the opposing party or a non-party pursuant to a protective order, or a 

document containing information so designated by an opposing party or a non-party, 

the Submitting Party’s declaration in support of the Administrative Motion to File 

Under Seal must identify the document or portions thereof which contain the 

designated confidential material and identify the party that has designated the 

material as confidential (“the Designating Party”). The declaration must be served 

on the Designating Party on the same day it is filed and a proof of such service must 

also be filed. 

 (1) Within 4 days of the filing of the Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, 

the Designating Party must file a declaration as required by subsection 79-5(d)(1)(A) 

establishing that all of the designated material is sealable. 

 

34 Id. (¶ 7). 

35 Pl. Admin. Mot. to Seal – ECF No. 107. 

Case 4:17-cv-03824-PJH Document 119 Filed 06/28/19 Page 11 of 12
ORDER – No. 17-cv-03824-PJH (LB) 12

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 Californi

a

 (2) If the Designating Party does not file a responsive declaration as required by 

subsection 79-5(e)(1) and the Administrative Motion to File Under Seal is denied, 

the Submitting Party may file the document in the public record no earlier than 4 

days, and no later than 10 days, after the motion is denied. A Judge may delay the 

public docketing of the document upon a showing of good cause. 

Under the local rules, Clorox had four days to respond to the plaintiff’s administrative motion 

to seal. Clorox did not respond within four days.36 At the hearing, the court noted that the material 

was general and not specific (unlike the spreadsheets themselves) and thus was not sealable under 

Civil Local Rule 79-5 and the governing legal standards. Clorox did not advance a contrary 

position, and the court’s discovery orders have excerpted the information in detail. Given that the 

court gave Clorox several opportunities to provide information to support sealing, the court denies 

the motion to seal. 

CONCLUSION 

This disposes of ECF Nos. 107 and 108. Clorox may submit a supplemental declaration in 14 

days. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: June 28, 2019 ______________________________________ 

LAUREL BEELER 

United States Magistrate Judge 

 

36 See Docket. 

Case 4:17-cv-03824-PJH Document 119 Filed 06/28/19 Page 12 of 12