Scott F. Kocher, OSB #015088

scott@forumlawgroup.com

FORUM LAW GROUP LLC

811 SW Naito Parkway, Suite 420

Portland, Oregon 97204

Tel: 503.445.2102

Fax: 503.445.2120

Rafey S. Balabanian* 

rbalabanian@edelson.com

Eve-Lynn Rapp* 

erapp@edelson.com

Stewart R. Pollock*

spollock@edelson.com

EDELSON PC

123 Townsend Street, Suite 100

San Francisco, California 94107

Tel: 415.212.9300

Fax: 415.373.9435

* Admitted pro hac vice

Attorneys for Plaintiff

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF OREGON

PORTLAND DIVISION

LORI WAKEFIELD, individually and on 

behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

VISALUS, INC., a Nevada corporation, 

Defendant.

Case No.: 3:15-cv-01857-BR

UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR AN 

ORDER ALLOWING PLAINTIFF 

TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER 

SEAL
UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR AN ORDER ALLOWING 

PLAINTIFF TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL

1

LR 7.1 CERTIFICATION

The undersigned counsel certifies that they have conferred with counsel for Defendant 

ViSalus, Inc. (“Defendant” or “ViSalus”) about this Unopposed Motion, and is authorized to 

state that Defendant agrees to the requested relief. 

MOTION

Pursuant to Local Rules 3-7(b), 5-5(b), and 26-4(c), as well as the Stipulated Protective 

Order entered on April 14, 2016 (Dkt. 49), Plaintiff Lori Wakefield (“Plaintiff”) hereby requests, 

without opposition from Defendant ViSalus, an order granting Plaintiff permission to file certain 

exhibits attached in support of Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion and Memorandum in Support of 

Motion for Class Certification (the “Motion”) and a non-redacted version of the Motion under 

seal. 

MEMORANUDM OF LAW

In support of this Unopposed Motion, Plaintiff respectfully states as follows:

1. Plaintiff has prepared and intends to file a Renewed Motion and Memorandum in 

Support of Motion for Class Certification. 

2. Plaintiff intends to attach as exhibits to the Motion nine (9) documents and one

(one) portion of a document, for a total of ten (10) exhibits, in addition to the non-redacted 

version of the Motion, that should be partially redacted and/or filed under seal.

3. A party seeking to file under seal “documents produced in discovery” must 

establish that “good cause” exists. A.G. v. Oregon Dep’t of Human Servs. (“DHS”), No. 3:13-

CV-1051-AC, 2014 WL 317016, at *3 (D. Or. Jan. 28, 2014). To determine if “good cause” 

exists, the Court must balance the interests of non-disclosure against the need for confidentiality.

Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 2006). A Court may enter 

an Order sealing documents so long as it finds that good cause exists and “provides a sufficient 

explanation of its reasoning and the factors it considered.” Oregon DHS, 2014 WL 317016, at 

*3.
UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR AN ORDER ALLOWING 

PLAINTIFF TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL

2

4. Here, good cause exists to allow Plaintiff to file these exhibits under seal. In 

particular, Plaintiff’s exhibits are documents that have been designated as “Confidential” by one 

of the Parties under the terms of the Stipulated Protective Order. (Dkt. 49.) In entering that 

Order, the Court has already determined that “there is good cause to protect the confidential 

nature of certain information” designated as “Confidential” by the Parties. (Dkt. 49 at p.8.)

5. The “Confidential” documents Plaintiff seeks to file under seal include (i) 

Plaintiff’s personal telephone records and Do Not Call Registration, (ii) contact lists used by 

Defendant to place calls, (iii) Defendant’s internal policies, procedures, and training manuals that 

are not otherwise available to the public, (iv) Defendant’s internal communications and 

complaints received from other individuals, (v) deposition transcripts relating to the above, and 

(vi) a non-redacted version of the Motion. The Parties’ interests in maintaining the

confidentiality of (1) personally identifying information of individuals not party to this litigation, 

(2) proprietary documents regarding Defendant’s policies and procedures, and (3) Plaintiff’s 

private telephone records outweigh any competing interests in disclosure of the non-redacted 

versions of these documents. 

6. In compliance with Local Rules 3-7(b), 5-5(b), 26-4(c) and pursuant to the 

Stipulated Protective Order ¶ 4, Plaintiff has (1) filed a public-record version of the exhibits to 

the Motion and (2) are now moving the Court for leave to file under seal the non-redacted 

Motion and the non-redacted version of certain accompanying exhibits in support of the Motion 

which were designated as “Confidential” by one of the Parties. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court enter an Order granting 

Plaintiff permission to file the aforementioned exhibits to the Motion and non-redacted version 

of the Motion under seal.

Dated: February 10, 2017 Respectfully Submitted,

LORI WAKEFIELD, individually and on behalf 

of classes of similarly situated individuals, 
UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR AN ORDER ALLOWING 

PLAINTIFF TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL

3

By: Eve-Lynn J. Rapp

One of Plaintiff’s Attorneys

Scott F. Kocher, OSB #015088

scott@forumlawgroup.com

FORUM LAW GROUP LLC

811 SW Naito Parkway, Suite 420

Portland, Oregon 97204

Tel: 503.445.2102

Fax: 503.445.2120

Rafey S. Balabanian* 

rbalabanian@edelson.com

Eve-Lynn Rapp* 

erapp@edelson.com

Stewart R. Pollock*

spollock@edelson.com

EDELSON PC

123 Townsend Street, Suite 100

San Francisco, California 94107

Tel: 415.212.9300

Fax: 415.373.9435

*Admitted pro hac vice

Attorneys for Plaintiff
UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR AN ORDER ALLOWING 

PLAINTIFF TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL

1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Eve-Lynn J. Rapp, an attorney, certify that on February 10, 2017 I caused to be served 

the foregoing by sending copies of such papers by electronic mail to all counsel of record.

Eve-Lynn J. Rapp