Capri Sun GmbH v. American Beverage Corporation
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:19-cv-01422
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
Capri Sun v. American Beverage, Judge Engelmayer granted the parties’ request to seal 21 trial exhibits containing confidential business information.
Capri Sun GmbH and American Beverage Corporation, whose identified trial exhibits were ordered sealed.
What happened
In Capri Sun GmbH v. American Beverage Corporation, the parties asked the Southern District of New York to seal 21 documents they planned to use as trial exhibits. The request concerned documents designated as confidential or attorneys’-eyes-only under a protective order.
The parties said the documents contained confidential business and marketing strategies, sensitive agreements and negotiations, nonpublic financial information, and related deposition, expert, and discovery materials. They argued that public disclosure could cause commercial or competitive harm.
Judge Paul A. Engelmayer granted the parties’ request to seal. The provided order addresses sealing these documents and does not decide the underlying dispute.
The detailed version
- Capri Sun GmbH v. American Beverage Corporation · No. 1:19-cv-01422
- Paul Engelmayer
- Sept. 28, 2023
Background
Capri Sun GmbH and American Beverage Corporation jointly requested an order sealing 21 documents intended for use as trial exhibits. The request was made under the court’s individual rules and a protective order entered in the case.
Requested protection
The parties identified four categories of information they sought to seal or redact:
- Confidential business and marketing strategy materials, including communications about marketing, products, customers, and competitive analysis.
- Sensitive agreements with business counterparties and information about negotiations with counterparties.
- Highly confidential, nonpublic financial information and analysis.
- Portions of deposition transcripts, expert reports, and other discovery materials containing or discussing information in the first three categories.
The parties stated that disclosure could commercially or competitively disadvantage them or their business partners. They also represented that the documents had been designated confidential or attorneys’-eyes-only under the protective order.
Ruling
The court granted the request. The order states, “Granted. SO ORDERED,” and is dated September 28, 2023. The provided text does not explain any separate ruling on the underlying claims in the case.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.