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 both parties’ motions to redact confidential information from a status-conference transcript.
Nielsen Consumer LLC, Circana Group, L.P., and members of the public seeking access to the status-conference transcript.
What happened
Nielsen Consumer LLC and Circana Group, L.P. each asked to redact confidential business information from the transcript of an August 15, 2024 status conference.
The court found that the proposed redactions were narrowly tailored to protect competitive business information and met the legal standard for sealing court records.
Judge Katharine H. Parker granted both motions, directed the reporter to use the proposed redactions, and warned that the information might not remain hidden if used in a motion asking the court to decide the case.
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 asked the court to partially redact the official transcript of the August 15, 2024 status conference. Nielsen sought to remove references to nonpublic technical trade secrets and commercial strategies. Circana Group, L.P. separately requested partial redactions limited to nonpublic, confidential, and commercially sensitive information. The parties jointly submitted proposed redactions.
Court’s analysis
The court reviewed the parties’ filings and concluded that the proposed redactions were narrowly tailored to protect competitive business information. The court found that they satisfied the standard from Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, under which sealing must be supported by specific findings showing that it is necessary to protect an important interest and is limited to what is necessary.
Ruling
Judge Katharine H. Parker granted Nielsen’s and Circana’s letter motions to seal. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motions at ECF Nos. 371 and 377, and the court reporter was directed to adopt the redactions contained in ECF No. 379. The court cautioned that the information would likely not be allowed to remain sealed if it were used in connection with a motion asking the court to decide the case, because such filings involve a greater public interest.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.