Wenger S.A. v. OLIVET INTERNATIONAL INC.
- Subramanian
- 1:20-cv-01107
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Wenger S.A. v. Olivet International, Judge Subramanian approved redactions of confidential financial and case materials in the joint pretrial order.
Wenger S.A., Olivet International, Inc., and the parties preparing the joint pretrial order were affected; the order concerns redaction of confidential business and case-related information.
What happened
In Wenger S.A. v. Olivet International, Wenger asked to redact parts of the parties’ joint pretrial order. The requested redactions covered Wenger’s damages statement and several stipulations.
Wenger said the materials contained sensitive financial information about revenues and profits, as well as confidential licensing information and discussion of claims against a former co-defendant. Wenger also noted that similar information in a damages expert’s supplemental report had already been sealed.
The court approved the requested redactions and directed the Clerk of Court to close Docket 346. Judge Arun Subramanian signed the order on May 29, 2024.
The detailed version
- Wenger S.A. v. OLIVET INTERNATIONAL INC. · No. 1:20-cv-01107
- Subramanian
- May 29, 2024
Background
Wenger, the plaintiff, filed a letter motion seeking permission to redact portions of the joint pretrial order. The proposed redactions concerned Wenger’s statement of damages and Stipulations 9, 11, and 14.
Requested Redactions
The damages materials included information about Olivet’s revenues and profits. Wenger said that disclosure could harm Olivet and cited decisions involving confidential sales, pricing, and other commercially sensitive business information. Wenger also stated that similar information in an updated supplemental report by its damages expert, Basil Imburgia, had already been sealed by the court.
The requested redactions to Stipulations 9, 11, and 14 concerned confidential materials, including a licensing agreement and the discontinuance of claims against a former co-defendant. The opinion states that these redactions were requested by Olivet’s counsel.
Ruling
The court entered the order “SO ORDERED” and directed the Clerk of Court to close Docket 346, thereby approving the letter motion’s requested redactions. The excerpt does not separately use the word “granted,” but it records no denial or limitation of the request.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.