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)

Download PDF
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 alocicero@arelaw.com 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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?