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, Inc., Judge Subramanian ordered redactions to Olivet’s opposition to protect confidential business information.
Wenger S.A. and Olivet International, Inc.; the order also concerns public access to Olivet’s opposition and the confidential business information discussed in it.
What happened
In Wenger S.A. v. Olivet International, Inc., Olivet asked the Southern District of New York to allow redactions in its opposition to Wenger’s motions in limine. Olivet said the filing contained confidential business information and referred to materials previously filed under seal or in redacted form.
Olivet argued that protecting confidential business information justified limiting public access to those portions of the filing. It said the information was not otherwise publicly available and that disclosure could prejudice the parties by giving competitors access to sensitive information.
Judge Arun Subramanian entered the order “SO ORDERED” and dated it June 5, 2024. The opinion text does not separately use the word “granted,” but the order follows Olivet’s request that its opposition be filed with redactions.
The detailed version
- Wenger S.A. v. OLIVET INTERNATIONAL INC. · No. 1:20-cv-01107
- Subramanian
- June 5, 2024
Background
Defendant Olivet International, Inc. submitted a letter motion asking the court to permit redactions in Olivet’s memorandum opposing Plaintiff Wenger S.A.’s motions in limine. Olivet represented that the memorandum contained confidential business information and references to documents for which the court had previously authorized filing in redacted form or under seal.
Olivet’s Position
Olivet argued that judicial documents are generally presumed to be available to the public, but that a court may restrict access when doing so is essential to protect an important interest and is narrowly tailored. Citing decisions concerning confidential business information, Olivet asserted that the information in its opposition was sensitive, was not otherwise publicly available, and could prejudice the parties if competitors obtained it.
Ruling
The document ends with “SO ORDERED,” followed by Judge Arun Subramanian’s signature and the date June 5, 2024. In context, the order approves Olivet’s request to file its opposition with redactions. The excerpt does not state a separate motion-disposition phrase such as “granted” or identify the specific redactions permitted.
Classification
This is a procedural order concerning access to court filings and protection of confidential business information. It does not decide the underlying claims between Wenger and Olivet.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.