Disney Tries to Keep Food Recipes Secret in Wrongful Death Case

Disney is claiming that details surrounding its resort restaurants’ food must be kept secret as a dead patron’s family seeks to unveil ingredients they claim caused her allergic reaction.

The litigation received national attention after Disney attempted, then backed away, from compelling private arbitration in this case using a clause in a Disney+ subscription agreement. Now the entertainment giant is trying to stamp evidence, from the restaurant’s public-facing menu to entire depositions of staff, as confidential.

“When a case involves the safety of food served to the public, transparency should be the rule, not the exception,” said Brian Denney, a shareholder at Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley representing the plaintiff.

The case brought by Jeffrey J. Piccolo claims that Disney is responsible for the death of his wife, Kanokporn Tangsuan, who suffered from extreme allergies to dairy and nuts. Piccolo alleged she died after warning the staff at Raglan Road Irish Pub, a Walt Disney World restaurant, that she was allergic to these items. He preserved leftovers from their meal, which have become a centerpiece in the lawsuit.

Piccolo’s motions filed this week argue the company shouldn’t be allowed to claim any confidentiality over the results of third-party testing of its food, or a parade of other documents normally not given secrecy designations in litigation, such as company handbooks, employee files, food prep instructions, and guest accident reports.

Under a confidentiality order the parties agreed to last year either side may designate evidence they “in good faith believes involves or contains any non-public, medical, proprietary, trade secret or other commercially sensitive information.”

Piccolo says Disney wasn’t operating in good faith from the start—the company initially didn’t produce a single document without a “confidential” designation on it.

“Disney provides the basis for its designation by noting NP for non-public or CS for commercially sensitive but does not provide any other details concerning why the documents are confidential or how it would be harmed by their disclosure,” Piccolo said in a motion. “Disney and Raglan Road should not be permitted to try this case in secret and subject Plaintiff to endless conferrals and time consuming document review responding to baseless claims of confidentiality.”

Disney didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

The case is Piccolo v. Great Irish Pubs Florida, Inc., Fla. Cir. Ct., No. 2024-ca-001616-O, motion to remove confidential designations 10/20/25.