Pizarro v. Sazerac Company, Inc.

Background

Plaintiffs Pizzaro and Zielinski requested permission to redact highlighted portions of their motion for class certification and to file those portions, along with parts of exhibits attached to Charles Moore’s supporting declaration, under seal. The request concerned materials obtained through discovery in a related action involving Sazerac’s Southern Comfort Malt products. The parties had agreed that discovery from that action could be used in Pizarro.

The materials had been designated “Confidential” by Sazerac or Circana, Inc. under a protective order entered in the related action. The protective order covered previously undisclosed financial information, ownership information concerning non-public companies, business plans, product-development or marketing information, personal or intimate information, and other categories given confidential status by the court. It required confidential discovery material filed with the court, and filings that disclosed it, to be filed under seal, while also requiring a publicly filed redacted copy.

Reasons Offered for Sealing

Circana described itself as a market-research firm that collects, analyzes, and licenses specialized retail and consumer-market data. It stated that its methods, formulas, databases, reports, and analyses were confidential and proprietary. Circana also stated that it had provided plaintiffs’ counsel with a custom malt-beverage sales report for $5,000 and was charging $3,800 for additional updated data.

Circana said plaintiffs’ counsel had agreed to keep the data and reports confidential and not publish or disclose them without Circana’s prior written consent. Circana asserted that public disclosure could cause harm by taking its intellectual property without compensation and reducing revenue from licensing the same data to other paying clients. It also stated that a less restrictive alternative to sealing would not be sufficient because the parties might need to place the data in the court record to argue about the conclusions that should be drawn from it.

Court’s Action

The request invoked the court’s obligation to balance the public’s interest in access to judicial documents against the privacy or confidentiality interests opposing disclosure. The court concluded with “So ordered,” and directed the clerk to terminate the pending motion at Docket Number 44. The opinion does not use the separate word “granted” to describe the motion, so the ruling is stated here using the court’s own wording rather than characterizing it as a formal grant.