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 the parties’ motions to seal narrowly tailored redactions protecting confidential commercial information and trade secrets.
Nielsen Consumer LLC and Circana Group, L.P.; the August 27, 2024 opinion and order and the September 24, 2024 joint status letter were subject to the approved redactions and sealing directions.
What happened
Nielsen Consumer LLC and Circana Group, L.P. jointly asked the court to redact parts of an earlier opinion and order and a joint status letter. They said the redactions protected non-public commercial strategies and trade secrets.
The court reviewed the proposed redactions and found them narrowly tailored to protect confidential commercial information and trade secrets. It applied the standard from Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga for sealing court materials.
Judge Katharine H. Parker granted both motions to seal. The clerk was directed to terminate the motions and keep the proposed-redaction documents under seal.
The detailed version
- Nielsen Consumer LLC v. Circana Group, L.P. · No. 1:22-cv-03235
- James Oetken
- Jan. 3, 2025
Background
On September 24, 2024, Nielsen Consumer LLC and Circana Group, L.P. filed a joint letter motion seeking partial redaction of the court’s August 27, 2024 opinion and order. The parties requested redaction of references to non-public information concerning their commercial strategies.
The parties also filed a separate joint letter motion seeking partial redaction of their September 24, 2024 joint status letter. That request concerned references to non-public information about their commercial strategies and trade secrets. The parties filed proposed redactions for both documents.
Court’s analysis
The court reviewed the parties’ filings and found that the proposed redactions for both documents were narrowly tailored to protect confidential commercial information and trade secrets. The court stated that the redactions were consistent with the standard described in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, under which sealing may be allowed when specific findings show that closure is essential to preserve a higher value and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest.
Ruling
Judge Katharine H. Parker granted the parties’ joint letter motions to seal. The clerk was directed to terminate the motions at ECF Nos. 381 and 383 and to keep the documents at ECF Nos. 382 and 384 under seal.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.