Eumori v. Roadget Business Pte. Ltd. et al

Filing 64

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 55 Letter Motion to Seal. Application GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Court appreciates the need to redact identifying information about customers. It is unclear, however, why i t would be appropriate to redact the other sales data contained in the spreadsheet. Accordingly, not later than Wednesday, March 12, 2025, Defendants must either file a publicly accessible version of Exhibit B that redacts only the names and addresses of customers, or file a letter explaining in greater detail why the other information Defendants wish to redact is sufficiently sensitive to warrant redaction. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Valerie E. Caproni on 3/10/2025) (tg)

MEMO ENDORSED
March 7, 2025

The Honorable Valerie E. Caproni
United States District Court
500 Pearl Street, Chambers 1930
New York, NY 10007
Re:

Atelier Eumori v. Roadget Bus. Pte. Ltd. et al.
Case No. 1:24-cv-3531 (VEC)

Scott P. Shaw
949-330-0202
[e-mail]

VIA ECF
USDC SDNY
DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
DOC #:
DATE FILED: 3/10/2025

Dear Judge Caproni:
We represent Defendants Roadget Business Pte. Ltd., Shein Distribution
Corporation, Shein US Services LLC, Shein Technology LLC, and Fashion Choice Pte. Ltd.
(collectively “Defendants”) in connection with the above-referenced lawsuit. Defendants
submit this letter with Plaintiff’s consent in compliance with Your Honor’s Individual
Practices and specifically as to the directive governing Requests to Redact or File under
Seal (Individual Practices 5(A) et seq.).
Defendants are filing their Motion for Partial Summary Judgment with supporting
documents, including a Declaration from myself that will include financial records that are
designated Highly Confidential subject to the Protective Order. (Dkt. 17.) These records
include highly sensitive financial information as well as private customer identifying
information. The records to be filed under seal will be attached as Exhibit B to the
Declaration of Scott Shaw, which will be filed in support of the Defendants’ Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment. A redacted version of Exhibit B will be filed
contemporaneously.
Courts in this Circuit recognize the confidentiality of a litigant’s business
information as a “competing consideration” that can merit sealing. Mark v. Gawker Media
LLC, No. 13-cv-4347 (AJN), 2015 WL 7288641, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 16, 2015); see also
Standard Inv. Chartered, Inc. v. Fin. Indus. Reg. Auth., Ind., 347 F. App'x 615, 617 (2d Cir.
2009) (summary order) (affirming district court sealing order premised on a conclusion
“that NASD's interest in protecting confidential business information outweighs the
qualified First Amendment presumption of access”). Valassis Commc'ns, Inc. v. News Corp.,
No. 17-cv-7378 (PKC), 2020 WL 2190708, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. May 5, 2020) (“The demonstration
8383 Wilshire Blvd. | Suite 935 | Beverly Hills, CA 90211

March 7, 2025
Page 2
of a valid need to protect the confidentiality of sensitive business information ... may be a
legitimate basis to rebut the public's presumption of access to judicial documents.”).
Furthermore, Courts will seal records that contain customer information that is
immaterial to the lawsuit and due to privacy interests of third parties. See, e.g., Valassis
Commc'ns, Inc. v. News Corp., No. 17-CV-7378, 2019 WL 10984156, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 11,
2019) (concluding that third-party names should be redacted because this information
was “immaterial” to motion for summary judgment); In re Google Dig. Advert. Antitrust
Litig., No. 21-MD-3010, 2021 WL 4848758, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 15, 2021) (approving
redaction of Google employee names because their privacy interest “outweighs the strong
presumption of public access”).
The parties are available for a conference call if the Court has any questions or
suggestions with regard to the foregoing request to seal.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
Respectfully submitted,

Scott P. Shaw
Attorney for Defendants

Application GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The
Court appreciates the need to redact identifying information about customers. It is unclear,
however, why it would be appropriate to redact the other sales data contained in the
spreadsheet. Accordingly, not later than Wednesday, March 12, 2025, Defendants must
either file a publicly accessible version of Exhibit B that redacts only the names and addresses
of customers, or file a letter explaining in greater detail why the other information Defendants
wish to redact is sufficiently sensitive to warrant redaction.
SO ORDERED.
3/10/2025
HON. VALERIE CAPRONI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE