Capri Sun GmbH v. American Beverage Corporation
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:19-cv-01422
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Capri Sun GmbH v. American Beverage Corporation, Judge Engelmayer granted the parties’ request to seal or redact commercially sensitive litigation materials.
Capri Sun GmbH and American Beverage Corporation, whose identified litigation materials were approved for sealing or redaction, as well as public access to those materials.
What happened
In Capri Sun GmbH v. American Beverage Corporation, the parties jointly asked the court to seal or redact exhibits connected to their joint statement of facts. They said the materials contained confidential business information.
The requested protections covered business and marketing strategies, sensitive agreements and negotiations, private financial information, and portions of deposition transcripts, expert reports, and discovery responses. The parties also asked to keep fact-witness deposition transcripts under seal because they said redaction would be impracticable.
Judge Paul A. Engelmayer granted the request. The court’s order does not separately identify which exhibits were sealed or which passages were redacted.
The detailed version
- Capri Sun GmbH v. American Beverage Corporation · No. 1:19-cv-01422
- Paul Engelmayer
- June 4, 2021
Background
Capri Sun GmbH and American Beverage Corporation jointly submitted a letter concerning the filing of exhibits to their joint statement of facts under Rule 56.1, a procedure used in summary-judgment proceedings. The parties identified documents they wanted filed under seal and documents they wanted filed with redactions. They relied on a protective order entered in the case and asserted that the materials also contained information that could cause commercial or competitive harm if publicly disclosed.
Requested Protections
The parties identified four categories of information for sealing or redaction:
- Confidential business and marketing strategy materials, including communications about existing and new products, customers, and competitive analysis.
- Sensitive agreements with business counterparties and information about negotiations with those counterparties.
- Highly confidential, nonpublic financial information and analysis.
- Portions of deposition transcripts, expert reports, and discovery responses that contained or discussed information in the first three categories.
The parties stated that they had redacted expert reports and expert deposition transcripts where appropriate. They requested that fact-witness deposition transcripts remain under seal because, according to the letter, the confidential information was so pervasive that redaction would be impracticable. They also stated that a redacted version of the joint statement of facts would be filed publicly.
Ruling
The court granted the request. The order states only, “Granted. SO ORDERED.” It does not provide a separate document-by-document description of the materials sealed or the specific redactions approved.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.