Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 1, 2022

Riseandshine Corporation v. Pepsico, Inc.

Judge
Lorna Schofield
Docket
1:21-cv-06324
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
Civil ProcedureIntellectual Property
In one sentence

In RiseandShine v. PepsiCo, Judge Schofield granted PepsiCo’s request to seal confidential business materials and limited access to listed parties.

Who this affects

PepsiCo’s confidential internal business materials will remain sealed. Access is limited to the counsel of record for RiseandShine Corporation, doing business as Rise Brewing, and PepsiCo, Inc., identified in Appendix 1.

What happened

In RiseandShine Corporation v. PepsiCo, Inc., PepsiCo asked to seal a declaration and exhibits containing confidential internal business information, including research, design work, branding ideas, marketing strategies, and revenue targets.

PepsiCo argued that disclosure could give competitors access to sensitive information and harm its ability to compete. The materials concerned PepsiCo’s development of the energy drink that became MTN DEW RISE ENERGY, as well as related naming and trademark-review strategies.

Judge Lorna G. Schofield granted PepsiCo’s sealing application for substantially the reasons stated in its letter. The materials at Docket No. 189 will remain sealed, with access limited to the parties listed in Appendix 1, and the Clerk was directed to close the motion at Docket No. 188.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Riseandshine Corporation v. Pepsico, Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-06324
Judge
Lorna Schofield
Date
Mar. 1, 2022

Background

PepsiCo filed a letter motion seeking permission to file under seal the Declaration of Diana Torres and attached exhibits. PepsiCo said the declaration described confidential, commercially sensitive internal documents covered by the protective order in the case.

The materials included internal market research, potential product names, energy-portfolio strategies, design work, product-development discussions, flavor ideas, marketing strategies, revenue targets, internal text messages, and a trademark search report reflecting confidential trademark-review strategies. PepsiCo argued that public disclosure could give competitors access to its internal ideas and strategies and could harm its ability to compete in the future.

Legal standard

The court recognized that the public generally has a common-law right to access court records, but that the right is not absolute. The court may restrict access after balancing the public interest in disclosure against privacy interests, including the interest in protecting sensitive business information.

Ruling

The court granted PepsiCo’s sealing application for substantially the reasons stated in PepsiCo’s letter. The materials at Docket No. 189, including PepsiCo’s exhibits, must remain under seal, and access is limited to the parties listed in Appendix 1. The listed individuals include counsel of record for RiseandShine Corporation, doing business as Rise Brewing, and counsel of record for PepsiCo, Inc. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the motion at Docket No. 188.

This order addressed access to court materials and did not decide the underlying dispute between RiseandShine Corporation and PepsiCo, Inc.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.