Riseandshine Corporation v. Pepsico, Inc.
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:21-cv-06324
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Riseandshine Corporation v. Pepsico Inc., Judge Schofield set briefing limits, denied concurrent Daubert briefing, and denied sealing without prejudice.
Riseandshine Corporation and Pepsico Inc., whose briefing schedule, exhibit limits, expert-motion schedule, and sealing procedures were set by the order.
What happened
In Riseandshine Corporation v. Pepsico Inc., Pepsico Inc. anticipated filing a motion for summary judgment and asked to brief a motion challenging two of Riseandshine Corporation’s experts at the same time. Pepsico Inc. also asked to file its related letter under seal, and both parties indicated that they wanted parts of the letter kept confidential.
The court set deadlines and page limits for the summary-judgment motion: November 4, 2022, for Pepsico Inc.’s motion; December 1, 2022, for Riseandshine Corporation’s opposition; and December 14, 2022, for Pepsico Inc.’s reply. Each party may submit up to 225 pages of exhibits. The court denied Pepsico Inc.’s request to brief the expert challenge with the summary-judgment motion and directed that any such challenges be briefed with motions about evidence before trial. The court also denied the request to file the letter under seal, without prejudice to refiling, while keeping documents already under seal temporarily protected.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield issued the October 14, 2022, order. The parties could file a renewed sealing motion by October 21, 2022, and the court reminded them that sealing requires specific findings and narrowly tailored redactions.
The detailed version
- Riseandshine Corporation v. Pepsico, Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-06324
- Lorna Schofield
- Oct. 14, 2022
Background
On October 10, 2022, the parties filed a joint letter about Pepsico Inc.’s anticipated motion for summary judgment. That same day, Pepsico Inc. sought permission to file a motion under the standard for evaluating expert testimony, known as a Daubert motion, concerning two of Riseandshine Corporation’s experts. Pepsico Inc. asked that the Daubert motion be briefed at the same time as its summary-judgment motion.
Pepsico Inc. also moved to seal the letter concerning the anticipated Daubert motion. The motion stated that both parties wanted portions of the letter filed under seal. The court noted that its Individual Rules require a party seeking confidential treatment in a public filing to submit a letter within two business days explaining why documents should be redacted or filed under seal. Neither party had filed that required letter.
Orders on briefing
The court ordered the following schedule:
- Pepsico Inc. must file its motion and required papers by November 4, 2022. Any supporting memorandum of law may not exceed 25 pages. - Riseandshine Corporation must file its opposition by December 1, 2022, and its opposition may not exceed 25 pages. - Pepsico Inc. must file its reply by December 14, 2022, and the reply may not exceed 10 pages. - Each party may file no more than 225 pages of exhibits in support of or opposition to the motion, regardless of the number of exhibits.
Expert reports, or portions of expert reports, count toward the exhibit-page limit. A party filing only portions of an expert report must also provide the court with an electronic, text-searchable courtesy copy of the entire report. The court directed the parties to obtain an upload link from chambers for those courtesy copies and stated that the courtesy copies could not be used to avoid the exhibit-page limits.
Daubert request
The court denied Pepsico Inc.’s request to brief one of its anticipated Daubert motions together with the summary-judgment motion. The court ordered that any Daubert motions be briefed together with the parties’ motions in limine, which are motions addressing evidence before trial.
Sealing request
The court denied Pepsico Inc.’s request to file the pre-Daubert motion letter under seal, without prejudice to refiling. Documents already filed under seal were to remain under seal temporarily. A renewed motion to file under seal had to be made by October 21, 2022.
The court referred the parties to Section I.D of its Individual Rules and reminded them that judicial materials are presumptively open to the public. It stated that overcoming that presumption requires specific and rigorous findings, and that redactions must be narrowly tailored. The court recognized preventing competitive harm as a potentially sufficient interest but stated that redactions should be limited to specific business information and strategies that could provide useful information to a competitor.
Disposition and classification
This was a procedural order, not a decision on the merits of the anticipated summary-judgment motion or the expert testimony. The court set briefing procedures, denied the request for concurrent Daubert briefing, and denied the sealing request without prejudice to refiling.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.