Riseandshine Corporation v. Pepsico, Inc.
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:21-cv-06324
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Riseandshine v. Pepsico, Judge Schofield granted Defendant’s motions to seal and Plaintiff’s motion to seal certain bond-related filings.
Riseandshine Corporation and Pepsico, Inc.; the order also affects public access to the specified court filings by allowing the approved redactions.
What happened
In Riseandshine Corporation v. Pepsico, Inc., the parties asked the court to seal documents filed in connection with Pepsico’s motion to recover proceeds from a preliminary-injunction bond.
The court said these filings were judicial documents with a strong presumption of public access. It found that Pepsico’s proposed redactions covered nonpublic financial information, marketing strategies, and costs whose disclosure could harm competition, and that the redactions were narrowly tailored. The court also considered a single phrase that Riseandshine sought to redact because Pepsico had designated it confidential.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield granted Pepsico’s motions to seal and granted Riseandshine’s motion to seal. She directed the Clerk of Court to close the motions at Dkt. Nos. 497, 513, and 517.
The detailed version
- Riseandshine Corporation v. Pepsico, Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-06324
- Lorna Schofield
- July 2, 2024
Background
Riseandshine Corporation, doing business as Rise Brewing, and Pepsico, Inc. moved to seal documents filed in connection with Pepsico’s motion to recover the proceeds of a preliminary-injunction bond. The documents included Pepsico’s motion papers and supporting declarations and exhibits, Riseandshine’s opposition memorandum, and Pepsico’s reply memorandum.
Legal standard
The court applied the three-part test for sealing judicial documents. First, it asked whether the documents were relevant to the court’s work and useful in the judicial process. Second, it assessed the strength of the public-access presumption by considering the documents’ role in the exercise of the court’s authority. Third, it balanced that presumption against competing interests. The party seeking secrecy had to show that a higher value justified sealing and that the proposed restriction was narrowly tailored.
Court’s analysis
The court held that the documents were judicial documents because they were submitted in connection with a motion asking the court to decide the parties’ legal rights. As a result, a strong presumption of public access applied.
Pepsico identified nonpublic financial information concerning the costs of developing a replacement brand name, wasted products and graphics bearing the Mtn Dew Rise Energy mark, and producing an advertisement for that product. The court found that these proposed redactions concerned Pepsico’s nonpublic marketing strategy and internal costs, and that disclosure could provide competitors with valuable information. The court concluded that the redactions were narrowly tailored to protect that interest.
Riseandshine sought to redact one phrase in its opposition memorandum because Pepsico had designated the phrase confidential under a protective order. The court noted that confidentiality agreements alone do not overcome the public-access presumption. Pepsico nevertheless supported the redaction by stating that the phrase quoted a highly confidential internal document concerning its marketing strategy and could cause competitive harm. The court granted the requested sealing relief.
Disposition
The court ordered that Pepsico’s motions to seal were GRANTED and that Riseandshine’s motion to seal was GRANTED. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the motions at Dkt. Nos. 497, 513, and 517.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.