Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled June 25, 2024

Presidio, Inc. v. Driven Acquisition, Inc.

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:23-cv-06235
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
Civil ProcedureDiscovery
In one sentence

Presidio v. Driven Acquisition: Judge Lehrburger granted Presidio’s request to seal and redact exhibits containing confidential customer and business information.

Who this affects

Presidio, Inc., Presidio Networked Solutions LLC, and Presidio Networked Solutions Group, LLC, as well as public access to the two exhibits; the unredacted exhibits remain sealed and redacted versions are available on the public docket.

What happened

In Presidio, Inc. v. Driven Acquisition, Inc., Presidio asked the court to keep unredacted versions of two exhibits under seal and to file redacted versions publicly. The exhibits were attached to a planned request for an informal discovery conference.

Presidio said the proposed redactions covered confidential customer and business-relationship information, including customer and partner names and project information. It said the redactions were limited and that similar sealing requests had previously been granted.

Judge Robert W. Lehrburger granted the request. The unredacted exhibits may remain under seal, while redacted versions may be maintained on the public docket.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Presidio, Inc. v. Driven Acquisition, Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-06235
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
June 25, 2024

Background

Presidio, Inc., Presidio Networked Solutions LLC, and Presidio Networked Solutions Group, LLC—identified together as “Presidio”—submitted a letter-motion under the court’s individual rules and a protective order entered in the case. The request concerned Exhibits A and B to a planned letter-motion seeking an informal discovery conference.

Presidio asked to maintain unredacted versions of the exhibits under seal and to maintain redacted versions on the public electronic docket. The letter said the materials contained confidential customer-related and business-relationship information, including customer and partner names and project information. Presidio also stated that the proposed redactions were narrowly tailored and that the court had previously approved similar sealing requests by both Presidio and the defendants.

Ruling

The court’s order states: “Granted.” Judge Robert W. Lehrburger therefore approved the request to keep the unredacted versions of Exhibits A and B under seal and to file redacted versions publicly. The order addressed sealing and public access to documents; it did not decide the underlying dispute between the parties.

Disposition

The letter-motion was granted. The opinion text does not state any additional ruling on the discovery dispute or the merits of the case.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.