Graham v. National Beverage Corporation
- Analisa Torres
- 1:19-cv-00873
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Graham v. National Beverage Corporation, Judge Torres granted permission to publicly file redacted pre-motion documents protecting product-formulation information.
The plaintiffs may publicly file redacted versions of the specified pre-motion documents, while the defendant’s proprietary product-formulation information remains protected from public disclosure under the approved redactions.
What happened
In Graham v. National Beverage Corporation, the plaintiffs asked to publicly file redacted versions of a pre-motion letter about an anticipated summary-judgment motion, their accompanying statement of facts, and the defendant’s response.
The defendant and several third parties had marked the information as highly confidential and limited it to attorneys’ review, asserting that it included trade secrets and sensitive business information. The plaintiffs took no position on those confidentiality designations.
Judge Analisa Torres granted the request. She ruled that the proprietary information about the defendant’s product formulation justified redaction because the interest in protecting it outweighed the public’s right to access the documents while the court considered the parties’ pre-motion letters.
The detailed version
- Graham v. National Beverage Corporation · No. 1:19-cv-00873
- Analisa Torres
- Aug. 28, 2020
Background
The plaintiffs requested permission to publicly file redacted versions of three sets of documents: their pre-motion letter concerning an anticipated motion for summary judgment, their statement under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56.1, and the defendant’s response. They also submitted unredacted versions with the proposed redactions highlighted under seal and provided unredacted copies to the court and counsel by email.
Parties’ Positions
The proposed redactions covered information that the defendant and various third parties had designated “highly confidential—attorneys’ eyes only.” The designations were based on the assertion that the information consisted of trade secrets and sensitive, proprietary business information whose disclosure could significantly affect the designating parties’ businesses. The plaintiffs stated that they took no position on those designations.
Legal Standard
The court discussed the common-law right of public access to judicial documents. That right applies to documents relevant to the court’s work and useful in the judicial process. The court also recognized that protecting confidential information from financial harm or significant competitive disadvantage can outweigh public access.
Ruling
Judge Torres granted the plaintiffs’ request to publicly file redacted copies. She found that the redactions concerned proprietary information about the defendant’s product formulation and that the defendant’s interest in protecting that sensitive information outweighed the presumption of public access, at least while the court was considering the parties’ pre-motion letters.
The opinion does not decide the anticipated summary-judgment motion or the underlying claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.