CT Espresso LLC v. Lavazza Premium Coffees Corp.
- Denise Cote
- 1:22-cv-00377
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
CT Espresso v. Lavazza Premium Coffees — Judge Broderick granted Lavazza’s request to seal limited settlement and complaint provisions about gray-market sales.
Lavazza Premium Coffees Corp. and Luigi Lavazza S.p.A. obtained sealing of the specified settlement-agreement and complaint provisions; CT Espresso LLC did not oppose the request, and public access to those portions is restricted.
What happened
In CT Espresso LLC v. Lavazza Premium Coffees Corp., Lavazza renewed its request to keep certain information from public view after an earlier sealing request was denied. It asked to seal one settlement-agreement provision and four complaint paragraphs concerning gray-market goods.
Lavazza argued that revealing those terms could hurt its negotiations with resellers and its efforts to control sales of products imported and sold outside its authorized distribution network. CT Espresso did not oppose the request.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick granted the application and directed the clerk to keep the documents filed at docket entry 23 under seal. The ruling was limited to the identified settlement-agreement provision and complaint paragraphs.
The detailed version
- CT Espresso LLC v. Lavazza Premium Coffees Corp. · No. 1:22-cv-00377
- Denise Cote
- Feb. 14, 2022
Background
Lavazza Premium Coffees Corp. and Luigi Lavazza S.p.A. renewed their request to seal portions of the court record. The request followed an earlier order denying Lavazza’s request to seal. Lavazza narrowed the renewed request to Section 2(d) of a settlement agreement and paragraphs 28–29 and 93–94 of CT Espresso’s complaint. The requested redactions concerned the importation and sale of “gray market” goods.
Lavazza relied on a declaration from Alfredo D’Innocenzo, identified in the filing as Lavazza Premium Coffees Corp.’s Senior Vice President, Away from Home Sales. The declaration described Lavazza’s concerns about resellers buying products outside the United States and selling them on Amazon at sharply discounted prices. Lavazza argued that public disclosure of its agreement with CT Espresso could let other resellers use those terms in negotiations and could therefore harm Lavazza’s competitive position and its authorized resellers. Counsel for CT Espresso advised that CT Espresso did not oppose the request.
Legal standard
The court explained that court records generally carry a common-law presumption of public access. That presumption is not absolute. Under the Second Circuit’s three-step approach, the court must determine whether the materials are judicial documents, assess the weight of the public-access presumption, and balance that presumption against competing interests such as privacy and the risk of competitive harm. Specific, narrowly tailored portions of contracts containing proprietary commercial information may be sealed when disclosure could cause financial harm or impair a party’s ability to negotiate with third parties.
Ruling
The filing stated that the complaint and the settlement agreement attached to it were judicial documents subject to the right of access. It nevertheless concluded that the request was narrowly tailored and that the risk of competitive harm from disclosing the gray-market provisions outweighed the presumption of public access. The court granted the application and directed the clerk to maintain the documents filed at docket entry 23 under seal. The requested sealing covered Section 2(d) of the settlement agreement and paragraphs 28–29 and 93–94 of the complaint.
Effect of the ruling
The ruling addressed access to specified court records. It did not decide the underlying dispute between CT Espresso and Lavazza in the text provided.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.