Federal Trade Commission v. PepsiCo, Inc.
- Jesse Furman
- 1:25-cv-00664
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Federal Trade Commission v. PepsiCo, Judge Furman temporarily granted PepsiCo’s request to seal materials pending the underlying motion.
PepsiCo, Inc., the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, third parties whose information may appear in the filings, and members of the public seeking access to the court materials.
What happened
Federal Trade Commission v. PepsiCo, Inc. concerns PepsiCo’s request to seal an appendix and declaration filed in opposition to the Institute for Local Self-Reliance’s motion to unseal materials.
PepsiCo said the documents contained commercially sensitive information about its operations, strategies, relationships with third parties, and information redacted from the complaint. It argued that these interests outweighed the public’s presumptive right to access judicial documents.
Judge Jesse M. Furman temporarily granted the motion to seal. Judge Furman said the court would decide whether the materials should remain sealed or be redacted when ruling on the underlying motion, and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate ECF No. 54.
The detailed version
- Federal Trade Commission v. PepsiCo, Inc. · No. 1:25-cv-00664
- Jesse Furman
- Aug. 18, 2025
Background
PepsiCo submitted a letter-motion asking the court to approve filing two materials under seal: an appendix to its opposition to the Institute for Local Self-Reliance’s motion to unseal, and a supporting declaration from Daniel Murray. The letter said both documents were judicial documents, meaning materials relevant to the court’s performance of its judicial function and useful in the judicial process.
PepsiCo’s Position
PepsiCo argued that the presumption of public access was outweighed by competing considerations. It said the appendix revealed information redacted from the complaint and that the declaration contained nonpublic business information concerning PepsiCo’s operations, strategies, and relationships with third parties. PepsiCo requested approval to file both materials under seal, while stating that it could provide a redacted version of the declaration if the court directed it to do so.
Ruling
The court temporarily granted the motion to seal. It did not make a final determination about whether the materials would remain sealed or be publicly filed in redacted form. Instead, the court stated that it would assess that issue when deciding the underlying motion. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate ECF No. 54.
Disposition and Scope
The ruling concerned access to court filings and was ancillary to the underlying motion. The opinion text does not state the final resolution of the motion to unseal or whether the materials ultimately remained sealed.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.