Wenger S.A. v. Galaxy Brands LLC et al

Filing 374

ORDER granting 369 Letter Motion to Seal. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Arun Subramanian on 5/31/2024) (vfr)

Case 1:20-cv-01107-AS Document 369 Filed 05/31/24 Page 1 of 2
405 Lexington Avenue
New York NY 10174
Main 212 336 8000
Fax
212 336 8001
Web www.arelaw.com

Anthony F. LoCicero
Direct 212 336 8110
E-mail [e-mail]

May 31, 2024
via ECF
The Honorable Arun Subramanian
United States District Court
Southern District of New York
500 Pearl Street, Courtroom 15A
New York, New York 10007
Re:

Wenger S.A. v. Olivet International, Inc., Case No. 20-cv-01107
Letter Motion to Redact Olivet’s Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of
its Motion for Summary Judgment

Dear Honorable Judge Subramanian:
We represent Defendant Olivet International, Inc. (“Olivet”) in the above-referenced
action by Plaintiff Wenger S.A. (“Wenger”). Pursuant to Your Honor’s Individual Practices in
Civil Cases Rule 11, the Court’s Standing Order 19-mc-00583, and Section 6 of the S.D.N.Y.
ECF Rules & Instructions, Olivet files this Letter Motion to Redact Olivet’s Reply Memorandum
of Law in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion for Leave to Amend
Answer and Olivet’s Reply in Further Support of Rule 56.1 Statement and Response To
Plaintiff’s Statement of Additional Material Facts (collectively, “Olivet’s Reply”).
Olivet’s Reply includes confidential business information and references to documents
for which Your Honor has previously granted motions to file in redacted form or under seal in
this case. (See Dkt. 274; 318.) Accordingly, Olivet requests that Olivet’s Reply be redacted to
the extent that it contains any confidential business information or any previously sealed and/or
redacted confidential information.
Although there is a presumption in favor of public access to judicial documents, a court
may seal judicial documents if “closure is essential to preserve higher values and closure is
narrowly tailored to serve that interest.” Lugosch v. Pyramid Co, of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110,
119 (2d Cir. 2006). Such “higher values” include the “interest in protecting confidential business
information.” Standard Inv. Chartered, Inc. v. Fin. Indus. Regulatory Auth., Ind., 347 F. App’x
615, 617 (2d Cir. 2009) (affirming district court’s sealing of confidential business information
where disclosure would result in “financial harm); cf. United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044,
1051 (2d. Cir. 1995) (finding that “[f]inancial records of a wholly owned business” are
“traditionally considered private rather than public,” which “weigh[s] more heavily against
access”).

1

Case 1:20-cv-01107-AS Document 369 Filed 05/31/24 Page 2 of 2

Olivet’s Reply contains sensitive business information. This information would not
otherwise be publicly available, and it would be prejudicial to the parties if competitors were
made privy to this type of confidential information. Courts routinely find that confidential
business information is the type of sensitive information that may warrant sealing. See, e.g.,
Encyclopedia Brown Prods., Ltd. v. Home Box Office, Inc., 26 F. Supp. 2d 606, 614 (S.D.N.Y.
1998) (sealing confidential business information that would provide valuable insights into a
company’s current business practices that a competitor would seek to exploit, including their
volume of business.)
For the above reasons, Olivet respectfully requests that the Court approve that Olivet’s
Reply be filed with redactions.
Thank you in advance for your consideration.

Respectfully submitted,
SO ORDERED.

AMSTER, ROTHSTEIN & EBENSTEIN LLP
/s/ Anthony F. Lo Cicero
Anthony F. Lo Cicero

Arun Subramanian, U.S.D.J.
Date: May 31, 2024

2