Riseandshine Corporation v. Pepsico, Inc.
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:21-cv-06324
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Riseandshine v. Pepsico, Judge Schofield granted the parties’ motion to file the expert letter under seal but denied, without prejudice, Riseandshine’s motion to seal its response.
Riseandshine Corporation and Pepsico Inc.; the order also concerns the public’s access to court filings containing confidential commercial information.
What happened
In Riseandshine Corporation v. Pepsico, Inc., Pepsico sought permission to file a letter about planned challenges to two Riseandshine experts while filing its summary-judgment motion. Both parties also asked to keep portions of their filings confidential. An earlier order had denied Pepsico’s request to file and brief the expert challenges at the same time as summary judgment, and had not ruled on Riseandshine’s request concerning its response.
The court applied the public’s presumed right to inspect court records. It found that the expert letter was a court record because it related to the judge’s role in evaluating expert evidence, but that the presumption of public access was relatively weak because the expert challenges were not decisive and could receive fuller briefing later. The court found that the proposed redactions concerning revenues, costs, capital raised, and the financial performance of the product involved were narrow and protected confidential business information.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield granted the parties’ motion to file the expert letter under seal. She denied, without prejudice to refiling, Riseandshine’s motion to file its response under seal, while directing that the response remain under seal at that time and setting October 28, 2022, as the deadline for a renewed motion. The order cautioned that this ruling did not decide whether the information could remain sealed in connection with summary judgment or trial.
The detailed version
- Riseandshine Corporation v. Pepsico, Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-06324
- Lorna Schofield
- Oct. 24, 2022
Background
Pepsico filed a letter seeking permission to file and brief challenges under Daubert to the testimony of two Riseandshine experts at the same time as its motion for summary judgment. The letter previewed Pepsico’s arguments about whether the experts’ testimony should be admitted. Pepsico separately asked to file portions of that letter under seal. Riseandshine filed a response and also asked to file portions of its response under seal.
An October 14, 2022, order denied Pepsico’s request to file the Daubert challenges together with its summary-judgment motion. That order also denied, without prejudice to renewal, Pepsico’s request to file the letter in redacted form, but it did not address Riseandshine’s request to seal its response. On October 21, 2022, both parties renewed their requests concerning the letter. Pepsico submitted a version with narrower proposed redactions.
Legal Standard
The court applied a three-step test for sealing court documents. First, it asked whether the document was a judicial document subject to the presumed right of public access. Second, if that presumption applied, it assessed how strong the presumption was by considering the document’s role in the court’s work and its value to people monitoring the federal courts. Third, it balanced public access against competing interests, including protection of confidential information.
The court explained that Federal Rule of Evidence 702 gives trial judges a gatekeeping responsibility: they must ensure that scientific testimony is relevant and reliable. Because documents submitted in connection with a Daubert motion help the court perform that function, the court found that the Daubert Letter was a judicial document subject to the presumed right of public access.
The court nevertheless found the presumption relatively weak. Daubert motions may be important in some cases, but they do not themselves decide the parties’ substantive rights. The information in the letter also could be presented later with more complete briefing.
Rulings
The court found that protecting confidential business information justified the proposed redactions. The parties sought to redact information about Riseandshine’s revenues, costs, and capital raised, as well as information about the financial performance of Pepsico’s product involved in the litigation. The court found those redactions narrowly tailored to protect confidential commercial information.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield ordered that the parties’ motion to file the Daubert Letter under seal was GRANTED. The court ordered that Riseandshine’s motion to file its response under seal was DENIED, without prejudice to refile. The response was to remain under seal at that time, and any renewed motion had to be filed by October 28, 2022.
The court emphasized that the order covered only redactions to information submitted in the Daubert Letter. It did not establish that the same information could be filed under seal in connection with Pepsico’s motion for summary judgment or at trial, where the presumption of public access would be stronger. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the motions listed at Dkt. 360, 361, 363, 367, 368, 369, and 370.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.