Mirrorlite Mirror, Inc. v. LiteMirror, GMM Inc.
- Philip Halpern
- 1:23-cv-03437
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Mirrorlite Mirror v. Glassless Mirror Manufacturers: Judge Halpern granted redactions, provisionally sealed some information, and kept related documents sealed pending a plaintiff submission.
The order directly affects Glassless Mirror Manufacturers Inc. and Mirrorlite Mirror, Inc. because it governs public access to information in their statements of material facts and responses. It also affects the public’s access to those filings.
What happened
In Mirrorlite Mirror, Inc. v. Glassless Mirror Manufacturers Inc., the defendant asked the court to approve redactions and sealing of parts of the parties’ statements of material facts. The information had been designated highly confidential under a confidentiality agreement and protective order.
The court approved the defendant’s proposed redactions. It also provisionally sealed information designated by the plaintiff and gave the plaintiff until June 24, 2024, at 5:00 p.m. to explain why that information should remain sealed. The redacted document remained publicly filed, while the unredacted document remained under seal.
Judge Philip Halpern directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the pending letter motion. The order did not decide the underlying claims in the case.
The detailed version
- Mirrorlite Mirror, Inc. v. LiteMirror, GMM Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-03437
- Philip Halpern
- June 20, 2024
Background
Defendant Glassless Mirror Manufacturers Inc. asked the court for permission to redact and seal portions of its statement of material facts under Local Civil Rule 56.1 and Plaintiff’s responses. The requested sealing concerned information that the parties had designated “Highly Confidential — Attorneys’ Eyes Only” under a stipulated confidentiality agreement and protective order.
The defendant represented that it had maintained the plaintiff’s confidentiality designations from discovery, even though the plaintiff had not responded to the defendant’s proposed treatment of the material. The defendant proposed publicly filing a redacted version and filing an unredacted version under seal.
Court’s ruling
The court granted the application as to the defendant’s proposed redactions. It provisionally sealed information designated by the plaintiff, subject to the plaintiff filing, by June 24, 2024, at 5:00 p.m., a letter explaining why the public’s right of access should be outweighed by maintaining that information under seal under the judge’s Individual Rules of Practice.
The court ordered that the redacted document, docket entry 57, remain the publicly filed version and that the unredacted document, docket entry 56, remain under seal as indicated in the order. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the pending letter motion, docket entry 55. The opinion is a sealing and redaction order; it does not resolve the underlying merits of the dispute.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.