Riseandshine Corporation v. Pepsico, Inc.
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:21-cv-06324
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Riseandshine v. Pepsico, Judge Schofield denied without prejudice the parties’ requests to seal summary-judgment materials.
Riseandshine Corporation d/b/a Rise Brewing, Pepsico Inc., and non-parties whose discovery-produced information appeared in the summary-judgment record, including Daily Rise Coffee and RYZE.
What happened
In Riseandshine Corporation d/b/a Rise Brewing v. Pepsico Inc., the parties asked to keep parts of the record supporting Pepsico’s summary-judgment motion confidential. Daily Rise Coffee, a non-party, also supported confidential treatment for information it had produced during the case.
The court held that records filed with a summary-judgment motion generally have a strong presumption of public access. It denied the parties’ motions to file materials under seal, without prejudice to renewal, but allowed narrowly tailored redactions for truly confidential commercial information and permitted sealing of information produced by third parties. No documents were unsealed immediately.
Judge Schofield gave document-specific instructions for any renewed sealing motion, which was due August 11, 2023. The order also directed the Clerk of Court to close the listed sealing motions.
The detailed version
- Riseandshine Corporation v. Pepsico, Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-06324
- Lorna Schofield
- Aug. 1, 2023
Background
Pepsico had moved for summary judgment. During briefing on that motion, both parties filed letter motions seeking to file portions of the summary-judgment record under seal. Daily Rise Coffee, a non-party that had produced information in discovery, separately supported confidential treatment for financial information, community-partner lists, distribution areas, marketing information, and branding details.
Legal standard
The court applied the three-part test for sealing judicial documents. First, it considered whether the materials were relevant to the court’s work and therefore subject to the public’s presumptive right of access. Second, it assessed the strength of that presumption. Third, it balanced the presumption against competing interests, including privacy and the protection of confidential commercial information.
The court stated that materials filed in connection with a summary-judgment motion are judicial documents subject to a strong presumption of public access. Confidential commercial information can justify sealing, but vague claims of possible harm and the parties’ own agreement to treat information as confidential are not enough. Any sealing must be supported by specific findings and narrowly tailored to protect the higher-value interest.
Ruling
The court denied, without prejudice to renewal, the parties’ motions to file portions of the summary-judgment record under seal. It found that the requested redactions were generally too broad. The court allowed narrowly tailored sealing of information that directly revealed truly confidential commercial information, including specified financial and revenue figures, investment information, and certain product-performance information identified in the order.
The court also provided document-specific instructions. Some specified portions of Pepsico’s memorandum, the declaration of Thomas W. Britven, Pepsico’s response under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56.1, and an exhibit containing Rise Brewing’s Simple Agreement for Future Equity could be filed under seal. Other requested materials, including the deposition excerpts of Carl Gerhards, could not be filed under seal. The order further stated that information produced in discovery by third parties, including RYZE and Daily Rise Coffee, could be filed under seal.
No documents were unsealed at that time. The parties could submit a renewed motion by August 11, 2023, identifying documents to remain entirely sealed, proposed redactions, and documents they no longer sought to keep sealed. If no renewed motion was submitted, documents then under seal would be unsealed. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the listed motions.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.