MEMORANDUM & ORDER Before the Court is the motion of Defendant Luxottica Retail North America, doing business as LensCrafters (“LensCrafters”), to seal or redact certain documents and information submitted with the parties’ class certification and Daubert briefing. (Dkt. 257.) Plaintiffs oppose LensCrafters’ motion. (Dkt. 259.) For the reasons explained, the Court grants in part and denies in part LensCrafters’ motion. On May 14, 2018, the Court so ordered a joint Protective Order proposed by the parties. (5/14/2018 Docket Order; Dkt. 45.) Pursuant to the Protective Order, the parties may designate as “Confidential” any information, document, or thing, or portion thereof, that, inter alia, “contains trade secrets, competitively sensitive technical, marketing, financial, sales or other confidential business information.” (Dkt. 45, 1); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1)(G). LensCrafters now seeks to keep confidential two categories of information that they argue were contemplated by this provision of the Protective Order. First, “manufacturing-related information, including Luxottica’s proprietary Quality Manufacturing Standards as well as the results of capability studies that analyzed confidential output data from eyeglasses manufactured in the normal course of business.” (Dkt. 257, at 1.) Second, “internal, confidential business communications discussing LensCrafters’ product development and testing, employee training, customer experience and sales strategies, advertising strategies, and marketing claim support.” (Id.) In support of the request for redactions and sealing, LensCrafters provides the sworn declarations of two Luxottica employees, David Persinger and Jason Jones, who declare, in sum, that the documents and information at issue are confidential and proprietary, and that disclosure “could be capitalized upon by Luxottica’s competitors, causing harm to Luxottica.” (Dkt. 257, at 1; Persinger Decl., Dkt. 257-2; Jones Decl., Dkt. 257-3.) LEGAL STANDARD “Federal courts employ two related but distinct presumptions in favor of public access to court proceedings and records: a strong form rooted in the First Amendment and a slightly weaker form based in federal common law.” Newsday LLC v. County of Nassau, 730 F.3d 156, 163 (2d Cir. 2013). Under the First Amendment analysis, the court must first determine “whether ‘experience and logic’ support making the document available to the public,” which involves considering “whether the documents ‘have historically been open to the press and general public’ (experience)” and “whether ‘public access plays a significant positive role in the functioning of the particular process in question’ (logic).”1 United States v. Erie County, N.Y., 763 F.3d 235, 239 (2d Cir. 2014) (quoting Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 120 (2d Cir. 2006)). If the court finds that the First Amendment right to access judicial documents attaches, then “the documents ‘may be sealed only if specific, on the record findings are made demonstrating that closure is essential to preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest.’” Id. (brackets omitted) (quoting Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 120). Under the Second Circuit’s common law right of public access, the court first determines whether the document is a “judicial document” by considering whether it is “relevant to the performance of the judicial function and useful in the judicial process.” Id. (quoting Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 119). Should the court conclude that the document is a “judicial document,” then it must “determine the weight” of the presumption of public access, id. (quoting Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 119), which is “governed by the role of the material at issue in the exercise of Article III judicial power and the resultant value of such information to those monitoring the federal courts,” id. (quoting United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1049 (2d Cir. 1995)). Finally, the court will balance the “weight of the presumption of access” with “competing considerations against disclosure.” Id. (brackets omitted) (quoting Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 120). Access should be denied only if competing interests outweigh the presumption of access. Id. DISCUSSION Before determining whether disclosure of the documents and information identified in LensCrafters’ motion is required, the Court must determine whether these documents are, in fact, “judicial documents.” Erie County, N.Y., 763 F.3d at 239-40. The Court concludes that they are because they are offered in support of the parties’ class certification and Daubert briefs. As such, these documents are highly “relevant to the judicial function and useful to the judicial process in probing behind the pleadings to determine whether the plaintiff’s suit meets the special criteria set forth in Rule 23 for class certification.” Tropical Sails Corp. v. Yext, Inc., No. 14-CV-7582 (JFK), 2016 WL 1451548, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 12, 2016); see Bowling v. Johnson & Johnson, No. 17-CV-3982 (AJN), 2019 WL 1760162, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 22, 2019) (finding that documents submitted in support of class certification motion are “judicial documents”); Mark v. Gawker Media LLC, No. 13-CV-4347 (AJN), 2015 WL 7288641, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 16, 2015) (same). Next, the Court finds that under both common law and the First Amendment these documents are afforded a strong presumption of public access. The weight of this presumption is not based on the extent to which the Court may reference or rely on any of these documents in deciding the class certification and Daubert motions. See Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41, 48 (2d Cir. 2019) (explaining that the Circuit has “expressly rejected the proposition that different types of documents might receive different weights of presumption based on the extent to which they were relied upon in resolving a motion for summary judgment” (brackets, quotation marks, and citation omitted)). Rather, the strength of the presumption “arises from…the public’s interest in monitoring the judiciary’s exercise of its powers under Article III,” and exists “even in private business disputes,” and particularly where the documents relate to matters of public concern. Alcon Vision, LLC v. Lens.com, No. 18-CV-407 (NG) (RLM), 2020 WL 3791865, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. July 7, 2020). “Class actions are by definition of public interest because some members of the public are members of the case, [thus] ‘the standards for denying public access to the record’ should [] be strictly construed.” Grayson v. Gen. Elec. Co., No. 13-CV-1799 (WWE), 2017 WL 923907, at *1 (D. Conn. Mar. 7, 2017) (quoting Shane Grp., Inc. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Mich., 825 F.3d 299, 305 (6th Cir. 2016)). The Court finds that here, in the context of a class action alleging deceptive advertising about a consumer good, there is a strong presumption of public access to the documents filed in support of the parties’ briefs. Finally, the Court weighs the strong presumption of access against competing concerns about the disclosure of the documents and information. I. Confidential and Proprietary Manufacturing Information LensCrafters seeks to seal or redact three categories of purportedly confidential and proprietary manufacturing information. (Dkt. 257, at 2-3.) A. Luxottica’s Internal Quality Manufacturing Standards LensCrafters seek to keep under seal its technical Quality Manufacturing Standards and to redact references to Luxottica’s internal manufacturing tolerances. (Dkt. 257, at 2.) In support of this request, David Persinger, who is Director of Engineering at Luxottica America, Inc., explains that these standards and tolerances, “which govern Luxottica’s fabrication of prescription eyeglasses sold to customers,” are “proprietary to Luxottica and are not industry standards and tolerances.” (Persinger Decl., Dkt, 257-2,
1-2, 4.) Further, Persinger states that these standards and tolerances are “not known outside of Luxottica,” “not intended to be shared outside of Luxottica,” and that the Quality Manufacturing Standards are “unique” to Luxottica and include “instructions specific to Luxottica’s proprietary lens designs and specifications.” (Id.
