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

Filing 383

ORDER granting 376 Letter Motion to Seal. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Arun Subramanian on 6/5/2024) (jca)

Case 1:20-cv-01107-AS Document 376 Filed 06/04/24 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]

June 4, 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 Memorandum of Law In Opposition to
Plaintiff’s Motions In Limine

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 Memorandum of
Law In Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motions In Limine (“Olivet’s Opposition”).
Olivet’s Opposition 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, e.g., Dkts. 274; 318; 357; 358.) Accordingly, Olivet requests that
Olivet’s Opposition 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”).
Olivet’s Opposition 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

1