Tradeshift, Inc. v. Smucker Services Company

Background

Tradeshift asked the court to continue sealing portions of Exhibit A to the declaration of Amy K. Van Zant. The exhibit was the June 30 Services Agreement between Tradeshift and Smucker Services Company. The sealed filing was docketed as Dkt. No. 32-1, and Tradeshift also filed a public version with redactions.

Legal standard and request

The request discussed the presumption that judicial documents should be accessible to the public. A judicial document is material relevant to the court’s work or useful in the judicial process. The request explained that sealing may be permitted when necessary to protect higher interests and when the restriction is narrowly tailored.

Tradeshift sought to seal portions containing sensitive pricing information, technical details, product information, information covered by contractual confidentiality obligations, and information that Tradeshift said was not material to the court’s adjudication of its motion to dismiss. Tradeshift argued that disclosure could give customers leverage in future negotiations, allow competitors to undercut its bids or adjust competing products, and undermine data-security measures. It also stated that the agreement itself required the parties to keep sensitive portions confidential.

Tradeshift said it did not redact provisions material to the motion to dismiss, including relevant portions of the termination provision, warranty, and integration clause discussed in the parties’ pre-motion letters.

Ruling

Judge Edgardo Ramos granted the application to continue sealing the indicated portions of Exhibit A. The opinion text does not separately state a detailed explanation of the judge’s reasoning beyond the endorsement granting the application. The public docket was to contain the redacted version rather than the unredacted portions covered by the request.