The Dow Chemical Company v. Olin Corporation
- Sidney Stein
- 1:20-cv-06608
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In The Dow Chemical Company v. Olin Corporation, Judge Stein granted Dow’s motion to seal two exhibits containing sensitive business information.
The Dow Chemical Company, Olin Corporation, Blue Cube Operations LLC, and members of the public seeking access to the sealed exhibits.
What happened
The Dow Chemical Company asked the court to seal two exhibits supporting its request to confirm a final arbitration award. The exhibits contained the award and the Site Services Agreement involved in the arbitration, and Olin Corporation and Blue Cube Operations LLC supported the request.
The court explained that documents filed with a court are generally presumed open to the public when they are relevant to the court’s work. That presumption can be overcome when protecting confidential business information is more important. The court found that the exhibits described the parties’ manufacturing and service arrangements in detail and contained highly sensitive information whose disclosure could cause a significant competitive disadvantage.
Judge Sidney H. Stein ruled that the parties’ interest in confidentiality outweighed the public’s right of access. He granted Dow’s motion to seal Exhibits A and B to the supporting declaration.
The detailed version
- The Dow Chemical Company v. Olin Corporation · No. 1:20-cv-06608
- Sidney Stein
- Aug. 28, 2020
Background
The Dow Chemical Company petitioned the court to confirm a final arbitration award and moved to seal two exhibits attached to its counsel’s declaration. Exhibit A and Exhibit B contained the final arbitration award and the Site Services Agreement from which the arbitration arose. Olin Corporation and Blue Cube Operations LLC supported the motion to seal.
Legal standard
The court stated that judicial documents—materials filed with the court that are relevant to its work and useful in the judicial process—are generally presumed to be available to the public. That presumption is qualified, meaning it may be overcome when a party’s interest in protecting confidential business information outweighs the public’s right of access.
Court’s analysis
After reviewing the final award and the Site Services Agreement, the court found that the documents contained detailed information about the parties’ manufacturing and service-provision arrangements. The court described the information as confidential and highly sensitive and agreed that public disclosure could put the parties at a significant competitive disadvantage. The court therefore concluded that the parties’ interest in confidentiality outweighed the presumption of public access.
Disposition
Judge Sidney H. Stein granted the petitioner’s motion to seal Exhibits A and B to the Declaration of Nathan P. Eimer.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.