Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Plaintiff Makayla McCanless filed a putative class action against Eleeo Brands in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Eastern Division. The parties anticipated that discovery would involve the production of confidential, proprietary, and private information, including trade secrets, financial data, and strategic business plans. To facilitate the exchange of information while protecting sensitive materials, the parties jointly stipulated to a protective order and petitioned the court for its entry.
The stipulation acknowledges that the order does not confer blanket protection on all disclosures and extends only to information entitled to confidential treatment under applicable legal principles. The parties further acknowledged that filing confidential information under seal requires compliance with Civil Local Rule 79-5. The good cause statement identifies the categories of information warranting protection, including non-public product formulations, cost and pricing data, sales figures, testing protocols, and medical information.
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge Michael B. Kaufman granted the parties' stipulated protective order on October 19, 2026. The order establishes two designation tiers: "CONFIDENTIAL" and "HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY." Highly confidential material is limited to trade secrets, non-public financial and pricing data, sales and revenue information, testing methodologies, strategic business plans, and medical information. Consumer-facing materials such as product labels, advertising, and testing conclusions are expressly excluded from the highly confidential tier.
The order governs access, use, and disclosure of protected material. Confidential information may be disclosed to outside counsel, party officers and employees, experts, court personnel, court reporters, jury consultants, professional vendors, document authors, deposition witnesses, and mediators—all subject to signed acknowledgments. Highly confidential information is restricted to outside counsel, experts, court personnel, court reporters, jury consultants, document authors, deposition witnesses, and mediators. The order explicitly addresses the use of artificial intelligence tools, permitting their use with reasonable security measures but prohibiting input of protected material into AI tools whose terms allow training on inputs or disclosure to third parties without the designating party's written consent or court order.
The protective order remains in effect after final disposition until a designating party agrees in writing or a court orders otherwise. Final disposition is defined as the later of dismissal of all claims or final judgment after exhaustion of all appeals. Within 60 days of a written request after final disposition, receiving parties must return or destroy all protected material and certify compliance, though counsel may retain an archival copy of pleadings, motion papers, transcripts, exhibits, expert reports, and work product subject to the order's continuing restrictions. Violations are subject to contempt proceedings and monetary sanctions.
Key Takeaways
- The order creates a two-tier confidentiality framework with "HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY" limited to six specific categories of extremely sensitive information.
- Parties may use AI tools to review protected material but must ensure the tools' terms do not permit training on or third-party disclosure of inputs without consent or court order.
- Mass or indiscriminate confidentiality designations are prohibited and may result in sanctions; designating parties bear the burden of justifying designations if challenged.
- Protected material must be returned or destroyed within 60 days of a post-disposition request, though counsel may retain an archival copy of case-related materials.
- The order does not authorize filing under seal; Civil Local Rule 79-5 governs sealing requests and requires a separate showing.
Why It Matters
This stipulated protective order reflects contemporary best practices for managing confidential discovery in federal court, including explicit provisions for artificial intelligence tool usage—a growing concern in modern litigation. The order's detailed AI restrictions address data privacy and model-training risks while permitting technological efficiency. Its narrow definition of "attorneys' eyes only" material and prohibition on over-designation aim to balance protection of legitimate trade secrets with judicial transparency and proportionality in discovery.
The order's durability beyond final disposition and certification requirements ensure ongoing accountability for sensitive information. The explicit exclusion of consumer-facing materials from the highly confidential tier preserves public access to product information relevant to the putative class claims.