Graham v. National Beverage Corporation
- Analisa Torres
- 1:19-cv-00873
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Graham v. National Beverage Corporation, Judge Lehrburger addressed NBC’s request to redact confidential supplier information from a public filing.
National Beverage Corporation, the plaintiffs, the company’s natural-flavor suppliers, and the public’s access to court filings.
What happened
Graham v. National Beverage Corporation concerns National Beverage Corporation’s request to publicly file a redacted response to the plaintiffs’ June 23, 2020 letter.
National Beverage said the response quoted highly confidential deposition testimony and attached documents identifying natural-flavor suppliers used for LaCroix products. It argued that disclosure could harm its competitive position and proposed narrowly redacting supplier names and other confidential material.
The excerpt ends with an “ORDERED” notation dated June 26, 2020, signed by Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger, but it does not show the operative language stating whether the request was granted or denied.
The detailed version
- Graham v. National Beverage Corporation · No. 1:19-cv-00873
- Analisa Torres
- June 26, 2020
Background
National Beverage Corporation asked the court for permission to publicly file a redacted version of its response to the plaintiffs’ June 23, 2020 letter. The response included deposition testimony from representatives of certain natural-flavor suppliers and copies of documents produced in the litigation. Those materials had been designated under the case’s protective order as “highly confidential—attorneys’ eyes only.”
National Beverage sought to redact the suppliers’ names, specified testimony, and specified documents. It argued that revealing the suppliers’ identities would disclose proprietary information about the sources it used to manufacture natural-flavor ingredients for LaCroix products and could cause competitive harm.
Legal standard
The letter cited the common-law right of public access to judicial documents. Under the cited standard, the court must balance that public-access right against competing interests, including the risk of financial harm or significant competitive disadvantage from disclosure. National Beverage argued that its proposed redactions were limited to the confidential material and were narrowly tailored.
Disposition
The excerpt contains an “ORDERED” notation dated June 26, 2020 and a signature by Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger. It does not reproduce the operative words identifying whether the request to publicly file a redacted response was granted, denied, or otherwise resolved. Accordingly, the excerpt establishes that the request was presented to and addressed by the court, but does not provide a clear disposition.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.