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 Services, Inc., Judge Schofield granted a sealing application allowing a memorandum to be filed in redacted form.
Vinci Brands LLC, Coach Services, Inc., Kate Spade LLC, and Tapestry, Inc., as well as the memorandum and Asset Purchase Agreement discussed in the sealing application.
What happened
Vinci Brands LLC v. Coach Services, Inc. concerns an application by Coach Services, Inc., Kate Spade LLC, and Tapestry, Inc. to file portions of a legal memorandum in redacted form.
The memorandum supported those companies’ motion to dismiss Vinci Brands LLC’s Third Amended Complaint and quoted an agreement that the court had previously allowed Vinci to keep sealed. The companies filed the complete memorandum under seal while seeking permission to file a redacted version.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield granted the application. The court allowed the memorandum to be filed in redacted form under the earlier sealing order and directed the clerk to close the motion.
The detailed version
- Vinci Brands LLC v. Coach Services, Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-05138
- Lorna Schofield
- Nov. 25, 2024
Background
Coach Services, Inc., Kate Spade LLC, and Tapestry, Inc., referred to in the letter as “KSNY,” filed a letter application concerning portions of their memorandum supporting a motion to dismiss Vinci Brands LLC’s Third Amended Complaint. The memorandum quoted an Asset Purchase Agreement between Vinci Brands LLC and Onward Brands LLC.
The court had previously entered a protective order allowing discovery materials to be designated confidential or highly confidential. On October 10, 2024, the court granted Vinci’s request to permanently seal the Asset Purchase Agreement. Because the memorandum quoted that agreement, KSNY asked to file portions of the memorandum in redacted form while the complete version remained under seal.
Ruling
The court granted the application. It authorized the referenced memorandum to be filed in redacted form under the earlier order at Docket 567. The court stated that the complete, unredacted memorandum had already been filed under seal and directed the clerk to close the motion at Docket 635. This order addressed the filing’s confidentiality and did not rule on the underlying motion to dismiss.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.