Bodum Holding AG v. Starbucks Corporation
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:19-cv-04280
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Bodum Holding AG v. Starbucks Corporation, Judge Ramos granted Starbucks permission to seal two agreements and redact quoted portions of its brief.
Starbucks Corporation was permitted to restrict public access to two exhibits and redact quoted portions of its opposition brief; the opinion does not state any further effect on the other parties.
What happened
Bodum Holding AG v. Starbucks Corporation concerns Starbucks’s request to keep confidential agreements from being publicly filed in connection with pending motions.
Starbucks asked to file portions of a Master Purchase Agreement and a 2008 settlement agreement under seal, and to redact parts of its opposition brief that quoted those agreements. The opinion does not decide the parties’ underlying dispute or the pending motions.
Judge Ramos granted Starbucks’s application, allowing the two exhibits to be filed under seal and a redacted version of the brief to be filed.
The detailed version
- Bodum Holding AG v. Starbucks Corporation · No. 1:19-cv-04280
- Edgardo Ramos
- July 9, 2020
Background
Starbucks asked for permission to file confidential materials under seal while opposing the plaintiffs’ motions for leave to file a third amended complaint and to dismiss Counterclaim I. The requested materials were portions of a Master Purchase Agreement and its related appendices, amendments, and schedules, along with a Confidential Settlement Agreement and Release dated January 14, 2008.
Starbucks also asked to file a redacted version of its opposition brief because the brief quoted from those agreements. Starbucks stated that the court had previously allowed similar sealing and redactions involving the agreements and that the parties’ stipulated confidentiality agreement and protective order permitted the request.
Ruling
The court granted Starbucks’s application. The order permitted Starbucks to file the two exhibits under seal and to file a redacted version of its opposition brief. The opinion addresses only sealing and redaction; it does not rule on the merits of the underlying action or the pending motions.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.