Nielsen Consumer LLC v. Circana Group, L.P.
- James Oetken
- 1:22-cv-03235
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Nielsen Consumer v. Circana Group, Judge Parker granted a motion to seal redacted filings protecting commercially sensitive business information.
Nielsen Consumer LLC and Circana Group, L.P., particularly their commercially sensitive business and sales information contained in the redacted filing.
What happened
Nielsen Consumer LLC v. Circana Group, L.P. concerns Nielsen’s request to file its answer to Circana’s counterclaims with redactions. Nielsen said the redacted material contained commercially sensitive information about the parties’ business and sales activities.
The court found that the redactions were narrowly tailored to protect competitive business information and followed the required standard for sealing court records. It granted the motion to seal and directed the clerk to keep the document at ECF No. 375 under seal.
Judge Katharine H. Parker issued the order on January 3, 2025, and directed the clerk to terminate the motion at ECF No. 374. The opinion refers both to Nielsen’s request and to a “Defendant’s Letter Motion,” so the motion’s attribution is unclear.
The detailed version
- Nielsen Consumer LLC v. Circana Group, L.P. · No. 1:22-cv-03235
- James Oetken
- Jan. 3, 2025
Background
Nielsen Consumer LLC filed a letter motion seeking permission to file its answer to Circana Group, L.P.’s counterclaims in redacted form. Nielsen stated that the answer contained or referred to commercially sensitive information concerning the parties’ relationship, business, and sales information, and that disclosure could cause competitive harm. Nielsen also filed proposed redactions at ECF Nos. 375 and 376.
Court’s analysis
The court reviewed the filings and concluded that the proposed redactions were narrowly tailored to protect competitive business information. It found that they were consistent with the standard described in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, under which sealing may be allowed when necessary to protect higher values and narrowly tailored to that purpose.
Ruling
The court granted the motion to seal. It directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion at ECF No. 374 and to keep the document at ECF No. 375 under seal. The opinion inconsistently describes the request as Nielsen’s filing and the granted motion as “Defendant’s Letter Motion”; the text does not explain that discrepancy.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.