In Re: McCormick & Company, Inc., Pepper Products Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, Misc. No. 2015-1825

Background

Class plaintiffs sued McCormick alleging antitrust, consumer-protection, and unjust-enrichment claims arising from alleged reductions in pepper container fill levels.
The court dismissed the antitrust claim, then granted reconsideration and allowed filing of a Second Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint addressing theories including an alleged agreement to deceive consumers about fill reductions.
The court’s sealed memorandum opinion on reconsideration cited portions of plaintiffs’ complaint that quoted or described McCormick internal documents and communications produced in discovery under a protective order.
McCormick moved to redact three categories of information from the opinion: (1) excerpts from internal documents about the fill reductions, (2) descriptions of communications with retailers and retailer responses, and (3) plaintiffs’ theory that competition on fill levels would lower prices.
Plaintiffs opposed redaction, asserting a public interest in unredacted judicial opinions; the court weighed the D.C. Circuit’s six-factor test for sealing/redaction and evaluated McCormick’s asserted reputational and competitive harm.
The court denied McCormick’s motion to redact the opinion (but allowed McCormick to file its proposed redactions exhibit under seal), concluding the public’s strong right of access outweighed McCormick’s asserted interests.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether court should redact opinion passages quoting or describing confidential discovery materials	Plaintiffs argued public has strong interest in access to court opinions and the contested material was central to the court’s analysis	McCormick argued disclosure of select excerpts would mislead the public and harm its reputation and competitive standing	Denied — public access outweighs reputational/competitive concerns; material was central to opinion
Whether descriptions of communications between McCormick and retailers should be sealed	Plaintiffs: such communications are relevant to court’s reasoning and must remain public	McCormick: retailer communications are confidential and context-free disclosure would be prejudicial	Denied — no sufficient privacy/property interest shown to overcome presumption of openness
Whether plaintiffs’ economic theory (competition on fill reduces prices) should be redacted	Plaintiffs: theory appears in unredacted complaint and is necessary for public understanding of pleading sufficiency	McCormick: theory could create misleading impressions harming reputation	Denied — theory already publicly available in complaint; central to analysis
Whether an exhibit marking proposed redactions should be sealed	Plaintiffs did not contest sealing of the exhibit	McCormick requested leave to file exhibit under seal to avoid additional embarrassment	Granted — exhibit may remain under seal because highlighting redactions adds no public value

Key Cases Cited

EEOC v. Nat’l Children’s Ctr., 98 F.3d 1406 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (articulates strong presumption of public access and factors for sealing)
Johnson v. Greater Se. Cmty. Hosp. Corp., 951 F.2d 1268 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (discusses presumptive public access to judicial records)
United States v. Hubbard, 650 F.2d 293 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (sets out six-factor test for sealing/redaction)
Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (1978) (permits sealing of business information that would harm competitive standing)
Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. FTC, 710 F.2d 1165 (6th Cir. 1983) (reputational harms alone insufficient to overcome public access presumption)
Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006) (clarifies standard for overcoming the right of public access)