ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS' ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL

Docket No. 154

EDWARD M. CHEN, District Judge.

Plaintiffs moved to file under seal certain documents in support of their opposition to Purina's summary judgment motion. After reviewing the motion, the Court instructed the parties to meet and confer and agree upon a more narrowly tailored request to file under seal. See Docket No. 171 (order). The parties did so and, after reviewing the parties' submission, the Court allowed certain documents to be filed under seal but ordered Purina to provide a more specific declaration as to why other documents should be filed under seal, particularly under the compelling reasons standard adopted by the Ninth Circuit. See Docket No. 178 (order).

Purina has now submitted a new declaration in which it withdraws the request to file under seal for the following documents: Exhibits 2-4, 7-8, 11-12, 15-19, and 21-29. Accordingly, the Court orders Plaintiffs to immediately file those exhibits publicly.

In the declaration, Purina has also asked the Court to maintain Exhibit 31 under seal. Purina has provided a sufficient justification for the sealing, and therefore the Court grants that request to file under seal.

Finally, Purina has now publicly filed redacted versions of Exhibits 10, 13, 14, 20, 30, and 38 and, in the declaration, requests that only the unredacted portions remain under seal. Purina has provided a sufficient justification for maintaining the unredacted portions under seal, and therefore the Court grants that request to file under seal as well.

This order, along with the order at Docket No. 178, disposes of Docket No. 154.

IT IS SO ORDERED.