Capri Sun GmbH v. American Beverage Corporation
1:19-cv-01422
| S.D.N.Y. | Sep 28, 2023Background
- Capri Sun GmbH (plaintiff) and American Beverage Corp. (defendant) jointly moved the Court to file 21 trial exhibits under seal pursuant to the Protective Order and the Court’s Individual Rules.
- The parties represented that each document is designated "Confidential" or "Attorneys' Eyes Only" under the July 28, 2019 Protective Order and that public disclosure would cause competitive or commercial harm.
- Parties grouped the materials into four categories: confidential business/marketing strategy, sensitive agreements/negotiations, non-public financial information/analysis, and discovery excerpts (depositions/expert reports) containing such information.
- They argued sealing is supported by common-law standards protecting trade secrets, marketing plans, pricing, revenue, and other commercially sensitive information, citing district decisions recognizing these interests.
- The joint submission asked that the listed exhibits be sealed or redacted to prevent competitive harm to the parties and their business partners.
- The Court granted the motion on September 28, 2023.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether confidential business/marketing strategy documents should be sealed | Documents contain trade secrets, marketing plans, and competitive analyses; public disclosure would harm commercial interests | Seeks same protection; joint request that such materials be sealed under Protective Order | Granted — Court allowed sealing as falling into commonly sealed categories |
| Whether sensitive agreements or negotiation materials should be sealed | Contract terms and negotiation details could disadvantage parties and partners in future negotiations | Agreed and joined in motion to seal to protect counterparties and bargaining positions | Granted — Court found contractual/confidential negotiation information justifies sealing |
| Whether non-public financial information and analyses should be sealed | Financials, budgets, pricing and sales data are highly sensitive and commercially damaging if public | Agreed; joint assertion that disclosure would competitively harm the parties | Granted — Court recognized these as appropriate for sealing |
| Whether excerpts of depositions, expert reports, or other discovery containing the above should be sealed | Excerpts reveal the above categories; redactions prevent competitive harm while permitting use at trial | Agreed; parties requested redaction/sealing of specific excerpts consistent with Protective Order | Granted — Court approved sealing/redaction of discovery materials containing sensitive information |
Key Cases Cited
- Hypnotic Hats, Ltd. v. Wintermantel Enters., 335 F. Supp. 3d 566 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) (documents containing trade secrets, R&D, marketing plans, and pricing commonly sealed)
- Cumberland Packing Corp. v. Monsanto Co., 184 F.R.D. 504 (E.D.N.Y. 1999) (lists categories of commercially sensitive materials warranting protection)
- Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. Sunny Merch. Corp., 97 F. Supp. 3d 485 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (redactions proper for advertising expenditures, merchandising strategies, and sales data)
- GoSMiLE, Inc. v. Dr. Jonathan Levine, D.M.D. P.C., 769 F. Supp. 2d 630 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (sealing warranted for proprietary marketing strategies, product development, costs, and budgets)
- Skyline Steel, LLC v. PilePro, LLC, 101 F. Supp. 3d 394 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (protecting confidential negotiation materials and pricing information)