Kouyate v. Bai Brands, LLC
- Subramanian
- 1:24-cv-03993
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Zinger v. Bai Brands, Judge Subramanian granted Bai’s motion to seal proprietary erythritol-production information.
Bai Brands, LLC, the third-party erythritol manufacturer whose information appeared in Exhibit 5, Plaintiff’s filing, and members of the public seeking access to those court records.
What happened
Zinger v. Bai Brands, LLC concerns Bai Brands’ request to keep confidential documents and related redacted information from public view. The materials were part of a filing about Plaintiff’s opposition to Bai’s motion concerning Plaintiff’s expert.
Bai asked the court to seal Exhibit 5 and keep redacted the parts of the opposition that described it. Bai said the exhibit contained a third-party manufacturer’s confidential production method for erythritol, an ingredient used in Bai Water products, and that disclosure could give competitors access to sensitive business information.
Judge Arun Subramanian granted the request. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 87.
The detailed version
- Kouyate v. Bai Brands, LLC · No. 1:24-cv-03993
- Subramanian
- Aug. 29, 2025
Background
Bai Brands, LLC asked the court to seal the entirety of Exhibit 5 to Plaintiff’s opposition to Bai’s motion concerning Plaintiff’s expert, Chris Denove. Bai also asked the court to keep redacted the portions of that opposition that referred to or described Exhibit 5. Bai stated that it had designated the document as confidential under the protective order in the case.
Sealing Request
Bai said Exhibit 5 described in detail the production method for erythritol used by a third-party manufacturer that supplied erythritol for some Bai Water products. According to Bai, the document contained confidential and proprietary information about the formulation of an ingredient and could give competitors access to sensitive, competitive business information and proprietary third-party information.
The letter explained that courts balance the public’s interest in accessing judicial records against privacy and business interests that support restricting access. It argued that protecting sensitive, competitive, or proprietary business information justified sealing Exhibit 5 and maintaining the related redactions.
Ruling
The court marked the request “GRANTED.” The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 87. The text provided does not separately describe the court’s reasoning beyond the granting of Bai’s request.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.