Newman v. Bayer Corporation
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:22-cv-07087
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Newman v. Bayer Corporation, Judge Karas granted Plaintiff's request to seal confidential business materials and related filings.
The order affects Plaintiff Tanysha Newman, Defendants, and public access to the identified case materials. The materials may be viewed only by selected parties rather than being publicly available.
What happened
Newman v. Bayer Corporation concerned Plaintiff Tanysha Newman's request to file certain case materials under seal. The request involved deposition excerpts, documents produced by Defendants, and portions of Plaintiff's factual statement and opposition to Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment.
Newman said the materials contained confidential business information, including consumer surveys, product-development information, business communications, and evaluations of consumer comments. She argued that public disclosure could competitively harm Defendants and submitted public versions with proposed redactions along with sealed versions.
Judge Kenneth M. Karas granted the request to file the identified materials under seal. The order addressed confidentiality and filing procedures, not the merits of the parties' underlying dispute.
The detailed version
- Newman v. Bayer Corporation · No. 7:22-cv-07087
- Vincent Briccetti
- Oct. 22, 2025
Background
Plaintiff Tanysha Newman moved to file specified materials under seal, meaning the materials would not be publicly available and would be viewable only by selected parties. The materials were submitted in connection with the case and included exhibits to the declaration of Max S. Roberts, portions of Plaintiff's statement of material facts, and portions of Plaintiff's opposition to Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment.
The requested exhibits included excerpts from depositions and documents produced by Defendants. According to the motion, the documents had been designated confidential or attorneys' eyes only under the protective order. The motion described the materials as containing internal consumer surveys, information about developing new products, confidential business communications, and evaluations of consumer comments.
Party's Position
Newman argued that the materials qualified for protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(1)(G), which permits protection for trade secrets and confidential research, development, or commercial information. She also argued that disclosure could competitively harm Defendants. The motion stated that public versions with proposed redactions and sealed versions with the proposed redactions highlighted had been filed.
Ruling
The court granted the motion. The order therefore allowed the identified deposition excerpts, produced documents, and related portions of Plaintiff's filings to be filed under seal. The opinion does not decide the underlying claims or Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment; it addresses only the request for restricted filing and public access.
Judge Kenneth M. Karas issued the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.