American Dairy Queen Corporation v. W.B. Mason Co., Inc.

Background

The court considered the parties’ joint motion to continue sealing a July 1, 2021 order. That earlier order addressed American Dairy Queen Corporation’s motion for partial summary judgment, W.B. Mason Co., Inc.’s motion for summary judgment, and both parties’ motions to exclude expert or survey evidence. The court had directed the parties to explain why the order should remain sealed and, if sealing continued, which portions should remain confidential and for how long.

The parties proposed a redacted version for public filing. They relied on the fact that the earlier order used documents that the court had also ordered sealed under Local Rule 5.6(d). Their stated reason for indefinite continued sealing was that the order contained nonpublic, confidential, and commercially sensitive business information whose disclosure could cause competitive injury.

Legal standard

The court explained that judicial records generally carry a common-law right of public access. That right supports public confidence in the courts by allowing people to evaluate the fairness and reasonableness of judicial proceedings. The right is not absolute, however, so courts must balance public access against legitimate interests in confidentiality. The court also explained that only compelling reasons generally justify withholding judicial records.

The public-access presumption is stronger when records play a central role in the court’s exercise of its constitutional judicial power. Materials connected to summary-judgment motions generally receive substantial public-access protection because they are tied to deciding the merits. The court found the presumption even stronger here because the order not only reflected information submitted for deciding dispositive and evidentiary motions, but also contained Judge Susan Richard Nelson’s reasoning about the merits of those motions.

Analysis and ruling

The court concluded that the parties’ general assertion of competitive injury did not address the public’s interest in understanding the basis for the court’s decision. It therefore denied the motion for continued sealing on that ground.

The court also reviewed the passages the parties sought to redact. Those passages concerned past sales of Blizzard treats, total amounts spent on Blizzard-treat marketing over an eleven-year period, why W.B. Mason decided to sell water, and public recognition of the BLIZZARD mark. The court found that the asserted property and privacy interests were weak, while the sales, marketing, and public-recognition information formed part of the basis for decisions on dispositive and evidentiary matters. The parties therefore did not overcome the presumed public right of access to the entire order.

The court ordered that the Joint Motion Regarding Continued Sealing was DENIED. It further ordered that the July 1, 2021 order be UNSEALED under the local rules unless a timely objection was filed.