Grubhub Inc. v. City of New York
- Analisa Torres
- 1:21-cv-10602
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 10
In Grubhub Inc. v. City of New York, Judge Torres partly granted and partly denied the companies’ request to seal or redact summary-judgment materials.
DoorDash, Inc., Portier, LLC, and Grubhub Inc., whose proposed sealing and redaction requests were partly granted and partly denied; the City of New York, which opposed some requests; and the public, whose access to judicial records remains protected except for approved confidential material.
What happened
In Grubhub Inc. v. City of New York, Grubhub, DoorDash, and Portier asked the court to seal or redact exhibits filed with the parties’ summary-judgment motions. The City of New York opposed some of the requests.
The court partly granted and partly denied the motion. It denied without prejudice requests involving litigation materials and restaurant agreements, allowing narrower redactions to be proposed by October 24, 2024. It granted requests to seal security assessments and agreements with security vendors, as well as internal communications and strategic documents.
Judge Torres ruled that materials supporting summary-judgment motions generally have a strong presumption of public access, but specific confidential business information, security details, and third-party privacy interests could justify limited sealing or redaction.
The detailed version
- Grubhub Inc. v. City of New York · No. 1:21-cv-10602
- Analisa Torres
- Sept. 24, 2024
Background
The order addresses sealing motions in three actions brought by DoorDash, Inc., Portier, LLC, and Grubhub Inc. against the City of New York. The plaintiffs asked to seal or redact exhibits submitted with the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment. The City opposed some of the proposed sealings and redactions.
Legal standard
The court explained that the public generally has a right to inspect judicial records. A party seeking to seal such records must show that stronger interests outweigh public access and that sealing is narrowly tailored. Materials submitted to support a summary-judgment motion are judicial documents, and the presumption of public access is especially strong because they may bear on a motion that could resolve the case.
The court also considers competing interests, including privacy and the protection of sensitive, confidential, or proprietary business information. General statements that disclosure could cause harm are not enough; the party seeking protection must make a particular and specific factual showing.
Rulings
The court found that the plaintiffs’ proposed redactions were overbroad in several categories. It nevertheless concluded that limited protection could be justified for certain information.
For Rule 56.1 statements, depositions, and other materials prepared during the litigation, the court held that the plaintiffs could seek narrower redactions for nonpublic revenue and pricing information, the names of specific restaurants, and internal data-security protocols. The court denied this portion of the motion without prejudice and required the plaintiffs to propose narrower redactions by October 24, 2024. If they did not do so, the court would direct the Clerk of Court to unseal the exhibits.
For agreements with restaurants, the court denied the motion to seal without prejudice. It allowed the plaintiffs to propose specific redactions for information that could cause particular and specific harm, such as the names of individual restaurants or persons and pricing terms. The plaintiffs also had until October 24, 2024, to submit compliant proposals; otherwise, the exhibits would be unsealed.
The court granted the motion to seal the security assessments and agreements with security vendors. It also granted the motion to seal internal communications and strategic documents, finding that these materials were largely collateral to the central issues and could reveal valuable business strategies or practices to competitors.
Disposition
The plaintiffs’ motion to seal was GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The court directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the specified sealing motions in the three actions.
Read the full 10-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.