Joann Ledoux V Outliers Inc Dba Thesis Thesis Nootropics Find My

Court Listener

Automated Summary

Key Facts

This case involves product liability claims brought by Plaintiff Joann LeDoux, a nurse, against Defendant Outliers, Inc. (d/b/a Thesis Nootropics) after LeDoux alleged the company failed to disclose that their nootropic supplements contained amphetamines, causing her to test positive on military drug screening. The Court GRANTED Defendants' motion to seal a 'Standup' document containing Freed's personal notes regarding company strategy, business practices, and trade secrets. The Court DENIED Plaintiff's motion to seal Freed's deposition transcript as MOOT and ordered Plaintiff to re-file relevant portions by December 8, 2025.

Issues

  • Whether the court should grant Plaintiff's motion to seal portions of Daniel Freed's deposition transcript that Defendants had previously designated as confidential under the Court's protective order. The court must determine compliance with Local Civil Rule 5(g) and 10(e)(10) regarding filing of excerpts and meet-and-confer requirements before sealing, ultimately finding the motion moot because Plaintiff agreed to re-file only relevant portions provisionally under seal after meeting and conferring.
  • Whether the court should grant Defendants' motion to seal the Standup document, which contains approximately 70 pages of Daniel Freed's personal notes that include Thesis's business practices, financials, employee evaluations, customer data, login credentials, business relationships, and strategic plans. The document was accidentally made accessible to Recoop LLC through a Google Drive link, and the court must determine if good cause exists to seal it under Rule 26(c) since it was attached to a non-dispositive joint stipulation.

Holdings

The Court grants Defendants' motion to seal exhibits containing Freed's personal notes (the 'Standup' document) and denies Plaintiff's motion to seal Freed's deposition transcript as moot. The Court orders Plaintiff to re-file relevant portions of the Freed deposition transcript by December 8, 2025, and directs parties to meet and confer on whether those portions must be provisionally filed under seal.

Remedies

  • The Clerk shall strike Exhibit 62 (Dkt. 166) from the record as part of the denial of Plaintiff's motion to seal.
  • The Court grants Defendants' motion to seal the Standup document containing Freed's personal notes, finding good cause exists to protect sensitive business information from public disclosure.
  • The Court orders Plaintiff to re-file any portions of the Freed deposition transcript relevant to her summary judgment response by December 8, 2025, after parties meet and confer to determine if provisional filing under seal is necessary.
  • The parties are ordered to meet and confer to determine whether the re-filed portions must be provisionally filed under seal.
  • The Court denies Plaintiff's motion to seal the Freed deposition transcript as MOOT and orders the Clerk to strike Exhibit 62 from the record.

Legal Principles

Presumption of public access to judicial records requires parties seeking to seal documents to demonstrate 'good cause' or 'compelling interest' with a high threshold showing for dispositive motions. Local Civil Rules mandate specific legal standard statements, reasons for sealing, and meet-and-confer requirements with other parties before filing under seal.

Precedent Name

  • Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc.
  • Cir. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC
  • Vox Mktg. Grp. v. Prodigy Promos
  • Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu
  • Finisar Corp. v. Nistica, Inc.
  • FemtoMetrix Inc. v. Huang
  • Jones v. PGA Tour, Inc.

Cited Statute

  • Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)
  • Western District of Washington Local Civil Rule 10(e)(10)
  • Western District of Washington Local Civil Rule 5(g)(3)(A)
  • Western District of Washington Local Civil Rule 5(g)(3)(B)

Judge Name

Tiffany M. Cartwright

Passage Text

  • The Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion to seal (Dkt. 165) as MOOT. The Clerk shall STRIKE Exhibit 62 (Dkt. 166) from the record.
  • The Court finds good cause to seal the Standup document and GRANTS Defendants' motion. Dkt. 140.
  • The contents, format, and the way in which Recoop incidentally obtained access to the Standup document all point to 'confidential product and business information which is not intended for public disclosure.' Finisar Corp. v. Nistica, Inc., No. 13-CV-03345-BLF(JSC), 2015 WL 3988132, at *4 (N.D. Cal. June 30, 2015). Moreover, it is the very information the Court's protective order is designed to shield.