Preferred Freezer Services, LLC v. Americold Realty Trust
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:19-cv-02926
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Preferred Freezer v. Americold, Judge Broderick granted PFS permission to file its opposition to dismissal with redactions protecting confidential business information.
Preferred Freezer Services, LLC may file its opposition with redactions and a sealed version identifying the redacted material. The ruling also affects Americold Realty Trust and public access to the confidential business information discussed in the filing.
What happened
Preferred Freezer Services, LLC v. Americold Realty Trust concerns Preferred Freezer Services’ request to keep some information in its opposition to Americold’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint from public view. Preferred Freezer said the case involves alleged misuse of confidential and trade-secret information obtained during a bidding process.
Preferred Freezer argued that disclosure could harm its competitive business advantage and that of its parent company, Lineage Logistics Holdings, LLC. Americold opposed continued redaction, stating that a recent state-court order made the confidentiality issue moot.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick granted Preferred Freezer’s request to file a redacted opposition and a sealed version identifying the redacted material. This order addressed filing access and confidentiality, not the underlying claims or Americold’s motion to dismiss.
The detailed version
- Preferred Freezer Services, LLC v. Americold Realty Trust · No. 1:19-cv-02926
- Vernon Broderick
- July 27, 2020
Background
Preferred Freezer Services, LLC (PFS) asked for permission to file parts of its opposition to Americold Realty Trust’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint under seal or with redactions. PFS’s underlying claims include alleged violations of the Defend Trade Secrets Act and related state-law claims involving fraud, contract, interference, unfair competition, and misappropriation of confidential information. PFS alleged that Americold obtained confidential information through a bidding process for the sale of PFS and then misused or misappropriated it.
The requested redactions concerned confidential information and commercially sensitive information about negotiations between PFS and Lineage Logistics Holdings, LLC, the company that acquired PFS. PFS argued that public disclosure could threaten its competitive business advantage and Lineage’s competitive business advantage. The opinion states that earlier filings in the action had also been filed under seal or with partial redactions.
Parties’ Positions
PFS argued that it had described its trade secrets and other confidential information sufficiently in the amended complaint to satisfy its pleading obligations without publicly disclosing sensitive details. It cited decisions allowing redaction of specific business information and strategies that competitors could use.
Americold had previously asked to file its motion to dismiss the amended complaint publicly without redactions. The court denied that request and ordered Americold to file the motion with partial redactions. After a New York state court denied a redaction request in a separate case brought by former PFS shareholders, Americold took the position that sealing and redaction in this federal action were moot. The parties did not reach agreement.
Ruling
Judge Vernon S. Broderick granted PFS leave to file a redacted version of its opposition to Americold’s motion to dismiss. PFS had already publicly filed a redacted copy and filed a sealed copy showing the redacted material highlighted. The ruling concerns access to filed materials and protection of confidential information; the provided text does not decide the merits of PFS’s claims or Americold’s motion to dismiss.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.