Vinci Brands LLC v. Coach Services, Inc.
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:23-cv-05138
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Vinci Brands, LLC v. Coach, Inc., Judge Figueredo temporarily maintained a seal and required Case-Mate to justify keeping it.
Case-Mate, Inc., which sought to seal the filing and exhibits; the clerk, who was directed to maintain the seal on ECF No. 447; and parties or members of the public seeking access to those materials.
What happened
In Vinci Brands, LLC v. Coach, Inc., Case-Mate, Inc. asked the court to seal an unredacted opposition to Vinci’s request to file a third amended complaint and several exhibits.
Case-Mate said the materials contained information and documents marked confidential under the parties’ confidentiality agreement. The court directed the clerk to keep ECF No. 447 sealed until August 28, 2024.
Judge Figueredo required Case-Mate to make the showing required by the governing Second Circuit standard by August 28 to keep the viewing restrictions permanently. The order did not itself make those restrictions permanent.
The detailed version
- Vinci Brands LLC v. Coach Services, Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-05138
- Lorna Schofield
- Aug. 7, 2024
Background
Case-Mate, Inc. filed a letter motion asking the court to allow it to file under seal an unredacted opposition to Vinci’s motion for leave to file a third amended complaint, along with Exhibits 4, 5, 7, 9, and 10. Case-Mate said that portions of the opposition quoted documents produced in discovery and marked confidential under the parties’ confidentiality agreement and order. It also said the attached exhibits had been marked confidential.
Case-Mate submitted a redacted version of the opposition and asked the court to restrict access to the unredacted opposition and the confidential exhibits.
Ruling
Judge Valerie Figueredo directed the clerk to maintain the seal on ECF No. 447 until August 28, 2024. The court directed Case-Mate to make the showing required under Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga by that date to maintain the viewing restrictions permanently. The order therefore continued the seal temporarily and required a further showing for permanent restrictions; it did not state that the materials would remain permanently sealed.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.