Miami Products & Chemical Co. v. Olin Corporation et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
MIAMI PRODUCTS & CHEMICAL CO.,
et al.,
DECISION AND ORDER
Plaintiffs,
1:19-CV-00385 EAW
v.
OLIN CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants.
_____________________________________
AMREX CHEMICAL CO., INC.,
Plaintiff,
1:19-CV-00386 EAW
v.
OLIN CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants.
_____________________________________
MIDWEST RENEWABLE ENERGY, LLC,
Plaintiff,
1:19-CV-00392 EAW
v.
OLIN CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants.
_____________________________________
Case 1:19-cv-00385-EAW-MJR Document 856 Filed 12/05/25 Page 1 of 10

- 2 -
_____________________________________
MAIN POOL AND CHEMICAL CO., INC.,
Plaintiff,
1:19-CV-00393 EAW
v.
OLIN CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants.
_____________________________________
PERRY’S ICE CREAM COMPANY, INC.,
Plaintiff,
1:19-CV-00403 EAW
v.
OLIN CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants.
_____________________________________
INTRODUCTION
In these consolidated actions,1 Plaintiffs Miami Products & Chemical Co., Amrex
Chemical Co., Inc., Main Pool and Chemical Co., Inc., Midwest Renewable Energy, LLC,
Perry’s Ice Cream Company, Inc., and VanDeMark Chemical, Inc. (collectively “Direct
Purchaser Plaintiffs” or “DPPs”) allege that defendants Olin Corporation, K.A. Steel
Chemicals, 	Inc., 	Occidental 	Chemical 	Corporation, 	Westlake 	Chemical 	Corporation,
Shintech 	Incorporated, 	and 	Formosa 	Plastics 	Corporation, 	U.S.A. 	(collectively,
1 	Unless otherwise noted, all docket references herein refer to Civil Action No. 19-cv-
00385, which is the lead action.
Case 1:19-cv-00385-EAW-MJR Document 856 Filed 12/05/25 Page 2 of 10

- 3 -
“Defendants”) have violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1, by entering into
a combination or conspiracy to artificially reduce or eliminate competition for the pricing of
caustic soda sold to purchasers in the United States. (Dkt. 51).
Currently pending before the Court are five motions to seal portions of briefs and
exhibits exchanged2 in connection with motions for summary judgment and Daubert
motions, and related materials filed in connection with the instant requests to seal portions
of those documents. (Dkt. 812; Dkt. 819; Dkt. 823; Dkt. 826; Dkt. 850). For the reasons set
forth below, the motions are granted in part and denied as moot in part as set forth herein.
BACKGROUND
The factual and procedural background of this matter is set forth in detail in prior
Decision and Orders (e.g., Dkt. 119; Dkt. 308; Dkt. 309; Dkt. 501; Dkt. 724; Dkt. 752; Dkt.
785), familiarity with which is assumed for purposes of the instant Decision and Order.
Currently pending before the Court are the following motions to seal:
2 	Pursuant to a Text Order entered on July 25, 2024, the Court required the parties to
bundle for filing any motions for summary judgment, as well as the responses and replies to
such motions, in accordance with an agreed-upon schedule. 	(Dkt. 765). 	Motions to seal
were to be filed on the electronic docket as soon as practicable but no later than three weeks
after the papers as to which sealing was sought were served, to be resolved by the Court as
expeditiously as possible. The procedures were also applicable to any Daubert motions filed
in connection with the anticipated motions for summary judgment. (Id.). The Text Order
provided that within five days of the motions for summary judgment becoming fully briefed
or of the Court’s resolution of all motions to seal, whichever is later, the parties shall send
their motion papers via email to the Court. As set forth herein, the Court is modifying the
manner in which the materials will be filed on the docket.
Case 1:19-cv-00385-EAW-MJR Document 856 Filed 12/05/25 Page 3 of 10

- 4 -
(1) Defendants’ joint motion to seal portions of summary judgment and Daubert
motion briefs exchanged on December 20, 2024 (and re-served on February 21,
2025), and February 7, 2025 (Dkt. 812);
(2) DPPs’ motion to seal exhibits filed in support of DPPs’ opposition to Defendants’
joint motion to seal filed at Docket 812 (Dkt. 819);
(3) Defendants’ motion to seal portions of Defendants’ reply papers to DPPs’
opposition to Defendants’ joint motion to seal filed at Docket 812 (Dkt. 823);
(4) DPPs’ 	motion 	to 	seal 	certain 	exhibits 	to 	the 	supplemental 	declaration 	of
Nicholas A. Vona filed in support of DPPs’ motion for leave to file a sur-reply in
further opposition to Defendants’ joint motion to seal filed at Docket 812 (Dkt.
826); and
(5) Defendants’ unopposed motion to seal portions of the transcript of the oral
argument on the pending motions (Dkt. 850).
On August 1, 2025, oral argument was held on the first four above-referenced
motions (i.e., Docket 812, Docket 819, Docket 823, and Docket 826). (Dkt. 843). At that
time, the parties confirmed that many of their disputes had been resolved since the time the
motions were filed. 	The Court heard argument on the remaining disputed matters and
advised the parties that it was considering the appointment of a special master to resolve
their disputes in light of the breadth of the materials sought to be sealed and amount of time
that would be required to review and address the disputes, particularly where the parties
were not even in agreement at that time as to which matters remained outstanding. But after
Case 1:19-cv-00385-EAW-MJR Document 856 Filed 12/05/25 Page 4 of 10

- 5 -
argument, by letters dated September 16, 2025 (Dkt. 848) and October 22, 2025 (Dkt. 851),
the parties informed the Court that some or all of the disputes among them had been resolved.
On October 27, 2025, the Court entered a Text Order requiring the parties to file a
joint submission that outlined their proposed resolution of each of the pending sealing
motions and specified whether any unresolved sealing disputes remained. (Dkt. 852). On
November 7, 2025, the parties filed a submission that confirmed that they had resolved all
outstanding sealing disputes. (Dkt. 855). The parties prepared and filed an appendix which
identifies the documents and materials as to which there is no dispute about whether sealing
or redaction is appropriate and cites the basis for each proposed sealing or redaction. (Id.,
Dkt. 855-1 at 2-37). 	In addition, the parties prepared an appendix to identify those
documents that were originally sought to be sealed by the motion filed at Docket 812 but for
which the parties no longer object to being publicly filed (Dkt. 855-1 at 39-40), as well an
identification and submission of documents previously sealed in this matter but to which
Defendants waive any objection to publicizing subject to agreed-upon redactions (id at 41-
43). The parties also prepared and filed a proposed order as directed. (Dkt. 855-4).
DISCUSSION
“In deciding whether to seal or unseal filed materials, a court properly conducts a
three-step inquiry: ‘First, the court determines whether the record at issue is a judicial
document—a document to which the presumption of public access attaches. Second, if the
record sought is determined to be a judicial document, the court proceeds to determine the
weight of the presumption of access to that document. Third, the court must identify all of
Case 1:19-cv-00385-EAW-MJR Document 856 Filed 12/05/25 Page 5 of 10

- 6 -
the factors that legitimately counsel against disclosure of the judicial document and balance
those factors against the weight properly accorded the presumption of access.’” 	Giuffre v.
Maxwell, 146 F.4th 165, 175 (2d Cir. 2025) (quoting Stafford v. Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp., 78
F.4th 62, 69-70 (2d Cir. 2023)). To overcome the presumption of public access to judicial
documents, the Court must make “specific, on-the-record findings that sealing is necessary
to preserve higher values” and any sealing order must be “narrowly tailored to achieve that
aim.” Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 124 (2d Cir. 2006). That said,
“district courts need not provide granular justifications for each redaction or even each
sealing, as such a requirement would place an unworkable burden on district courts,” nor are
“line-by-line justifications for each redaction” required to demonstrate that the Court has
conducted an individualized review of the proposed sealed and redacted materials. United
States v. Greenwood, 145 F.4th 248, 257 (2d Cir. 2025). The fact that parties agree to seal
certain information does not obviate the need for Court review. 	See Cantinieri v. Verisk
Analytics, Inc., No. 21CV6911(NJC)(JMW), 2024 WL 759317, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 23,
2024) (“Although the parties are moving jointly to seal these documents (ECF No. 76), and
despite the existence of a court-approved protective order allowing the parties to designate
materials as confidential and to request permission to file such documents under seal (ECF
No. 38), this Court must—given the common law right of public access to judicial
documents firmly rooted in our nation’s history—ensure that the requested sealing is
narrowly tailored and ‘is necessary to preserve higher values’ above the public’s right to
transparency.” (quoting Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 119, 124)). The burden is on the proponent of
Case 1:19-cv-00385-EAW-MJR Document 856 Filed 12/05/25 Page 6 of 10

- 7 -
sealing to overcome the presumption of public access to judicial documents. United States
v. Buff, No. 23-1070-CV, 2024 WL 4262956, at *3 (2d Cir. Sept. 23, 2024).
Documents submitted in connection with a motion for summary judgment are judicial
records to which a strong presumption of access applies. 	Bernstein v. Bernstein Litowitz
Berger & Grossmann LLP, 814 F.3d 132, 142 (2d Cir. 2016) (“Conversely, where
documents directly affect an adjudication, . . . or are used to determine litigants’ substantive
legal rights, the presumption of access is at its zenith, . . . and thus can be overcome only by
extraordinary circumstances.” (quotations and citations omitted)); McDay v. Eckert, No.
1:20-CV-233-JLS-JJM, 2025 WL 2115475, at *1 (W.D.N.Y. July 29, 2025) (“[D]ocuments
used by parties moving for, or opposing, summary judgment should not remain under seal
absent the most compelling reasons.” (quoting Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 121)); Knight v. MTA -
New York City Transit, No. 19-CV-1428 (PKC) (LB), 2024 WL 4350417, at *27 (E.D.N.Y.
Sept. 30, 2024) (“Documents submitted for consideration with summary judgment motions
are considered, as a matter of law, ‘judicial documents to which a strong presumption of
access attaches.’” (quoting Mark v. Gawker Media LLC, No. 13-CV-4347 (AJN), 2015 WL
7288641, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 16, 2015))). Documents filed in connection with motions to
exclude experts are also judicial documents to which a slightly lesser but still substantial
presumption of public access applies. Ndugga v. Bloomberg L.P., No. 20 CIV. 7464 (GHW)
(GWG), 2025 WL 2302089, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 11, 2025) (“Filings related to Daubert
motions . . . are subject to a strong presumption of access under the common law and the
First Amendment.”); In re Keurig Green Mountain Single-Serve Coffee Antitrust Litig., No.
Case 1:19-cv-00385-EAW-MJR Document 856 Filed 12/05/25 Page 7 of 10

- 8 -
14-MC-2542 (VSB), 2023 WL 196134, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 17, 2023) (“A significant
presumption of access also exists for filings related to Daubert motions. . . . As with motions
for summary judgment, this presumption extends to all materials associated with Daubert
motions.” (citation omitted)).
Here, the parties agree that the information that is sought to be sealed either (1) has
already been determined to be subject to sealing in prior Court decisions in this case for
reasons that apply equally to the current requests (identified in Table 1 at Dkt. 855-1 at 2-5)
or (2) is subject to sealing because the information is non-stale, confidential, commercially
sensitive information that would damage the business interests of the parties or third parties
if publicly filed (identified in Table 2 at id. at 6-38). It is appropriate to permit redaction of
“specific business information and strategies, which, if revealed, may provide valuable
insights into a company’s current business practices that a competitor would seek to exploit.”
Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. Sunny Merch. Corp., 97 F. Supp. 3d 485, 511 (S.D.N.Y.
2015) (quotation and citation omitted); see also Graczyk v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc., No. 18
CIV. 6465 (PGG), 2020 WL 1435031, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 24, 2020) (permitting redaction
of “sensitive financial information”); In re Digital Music Antitrust Litig., 321 F.R.D. 64, 82
n.1 (S.D.N.Y. 2017) (holding that “internal pricing strategies and competitive pricing data
[are] sufficiently sensitive to warrant redaction”). 	The Court has reviewed the parties’
proposed sealing and redaction requests and agrees that they are narrowly tailored to serve
the identified confidentiality interests and for the reasons identified in the appendices to the
Case 1:19-cv-00385-EAW-MJR Document 856 Filed 12/05/25 Page 8 of 10

- 9 -
November 7, 2025 filing, adopts the parties’ proposed sealing and redaction requests. (Dkt.
855).
Accordingly, Defendants’ joint motion to seal (Dkt. 812) is granted as set forth in the
appendices of the parties’ November 7, 2025 joint submission and denied in part as moot as
to those matters to which the requests to seal have been withdrawn, and the remaining
motions to seal (Dkt. 819; Dkt. 823; Dkt. 826; and Dkt. 850) are granted. 	The Court will
arrange to file the redacted transcript from the August 1, 2025 oral argument (Dkt. 850-3)
on the docket and for the filing of the full unredacted transcript under seal.
The parties are directed to prepare their summary judgment and Daubert motions for
filing in accordance with these rulings. 	In light of the sheer volume of documents being
filed in connection with the motions for summary judgment and related Daubert motions,
the Court is modifying its prior text order (Dkt. 765) as follows:
First, redacted versions of Defendants’ motions for summary judgment and Daubert
motions shall be filed on the docket on or before December 19, 2025. 	Within 14 days of
that filing, Defendants shall send to the Court a single flash drive containing unredacted
PDFs of all of their moving papers as to which sealing has been granted. Each PDF shall be
named using the following convention: Unredacted Version of Dkt #__, 19-CV-385.pdf.
Second, once docket entries have been entered by the Court reflecting that the
unredacted versions of Defendants’ motion papers have been filed under seal, then DPPs
shall proceed to file their redacted responses to the motions within 10 days thereafter. Within
7 days from that filing, DPPs shall send to the Court a single flash drive containing
Case 1:19-cv-00385-EAW-MJR Document 856 Filed 12/05/25 Page 9 of 10

- 10 -
unredacted PDFs of all responsive documents as to which sealing has been granted. Each
PDF shall be named using the following convention: Unredacted Version of Dkt #__, 19-
CV-385.pdf.
Third, once docket entries have been entered by the Court reflecting that the
unredacted versions of DPPs’ response papers have been filed under seal, then Defendants
shall proceed to file their redacted reply papers within 10 days thereafter. 	Within 7 days
from that filing, Defendants shall send to the Court a single flash drive containing unredacted
PDFs of all documents contained in reply papers as to which sealing has been granted. Each
PDF shall be named using the following convention: Unredacted Version of Dkt #__, 19-
CV-385.pdf.
A failure to comply to any degree with the processes set forth herein will result in the
striking of all affected filings and the parties having to re-initiate the process.
SO ORDERED.
_________________________________
ELIZABETH A. WOLFORD
Chief Judge
United States District Court
Dated: December 5, 2025
Rochester, New York
Case 1:19-cv-00385-EAW-MJR Document 856 Filed 12/05/25 Page 10 of 10