Preferred Freezer Services, LLC v. Americold Realty Trust
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:19-cv-02926
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Preferred Freezer v. Americold, Judge Broderick denied Americold’s request to file motion papers without partial redactions and kept two documents sealed.
Americold must file its motion to dismiss and declaration with partial redactions. Documents 68 and 69 remain sealed and visible only to selected parties; the order also affects public access to those filings.
What happened
Preferred Freezer Services sued Americold Realty Trust over an alleged breach of a nondisclosure agreement and alleged misuse of business information. The court had previously allowed some allegations and documents to be redacted or sealed.
Americold asked to file its motion-to-dismiss papers without partial redactions, arguing that the information was not confidential, was outdated, or would not cause competitive harm. The opinion says Preferred Freezer was given an opportunity to explain why sealing remained necessary.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick denied Americold’s request. He ordered Americold to publicly file its motion to dismiss and declaration with partial redactions, and ordered Documents 68 and 69 to remain sealed and visible only to selected parties.
The detailed version
- Preferred Freezer Services, LLC v. Americold Realty Trust · No. 1:19-cv-02926
- Vernon Broderick
- July 14, 2020
Background
The provided text is a letter from Americold’s counsel requesting permission to file Americold’s papers supporting its motion to dismiss the amended complaint partially under seal. The amended complaint had previously been permitted to be filed in redacted form and partially under seal. Americold’s papers included references to allegations in that complaint and two related exhibits.
The dispute underlying the case concerned Preferred Freezer Services’ claim that Americold breached a nondisclosure agreement and allegedly misappropriated Preferred Freezer’s business information. Americold argued that continued redaction and sealing were unnecessary because the complaint generally described categories of records rather than their contents, and because the more specific information was either not confidential or was outdated. The letter also stated that Preferred Freezer had been given three days to explain the need for continued redactions or sealing.
Ruling
The court denied Americold’s request to file its papers without partial redactions. The court ordered Americold to publicly file its motion to dismiss and declaration with partial redactions consistent with the previous filings. It also ordered that Documents 68 and 69 remain under seal and visible only to the selected parties.
Disposition and scope
This order addresses filing restrictions and access to court documents. It does not state that the court ruled on the merits of Americold’s motion to dismiss.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.