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, Judge Parker granted Nielsen Consumer’s motion to seal narrowly redacted commercially sensitive filings.
Nielsen Consumer LLC and Circana Group, L.P., because the order permits specified filings containing confidential and sensitive commercial information to remain sealed.
What happened
In Nielsen Consumer LLC v. Circana Group, L.P., Nielsen Consumer asked to seal parts of its reply concerning its request to amend the complaint, along with Exhibits A through E.
Nielsen Consumer said the redacted material was designated confidential or attorney’s-eyes-only and contained sensitive commercial information whose disclosure could cause competitive harm to both companies.
The court found the redactions narrowly tailored and consistent with the legal standard for sealing court records. Judge Katharine H. Parker granted the motion, directed the clerk to terminate it, and ordered Exhibit ECF No. 440 kept under seal.
The detailed version
- Nielsen Consumer LLC v. Circana Group, L.P. · No. 1:22-cv-03235
- James Oetken
- Jan. 8, 2025
Background
On January 7, 2025, Nielsen Consumer LLC filed a letter motion asking to seal portions of its reply to Circana Group, L.P.’s opposition to Nielsen Consumer’s request for permission to amend the complaint. Nielsen Consumer also asked to file Exhibits A through E under seal.
Nielsen Consumer represented that the redacted information had been designated “confidential and/or attorney’s eyes only” and contained highly sensitive commercial information that could cause competitive harm to both Nielsen Consumer and Circana if disclosed. Nielsen Consumer filed proposed redactions to the reply and the exhibits.
Court’s analysis
The court reviewed Nielsen Consumer’s filings and found that the redactions were narrowly tailored to protect confidential and sensitive commercial information. The court also found them consistent with the standard from Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, under which sealing requires specific findings that closure is essential to protect an important interest and is narrowly tailored to that purpose.
Ruling
The court granted Nielsen Consumer’s letter motion to seal. It directed the clerk to terminate the motion at ECF No. 438 and to keep the document at ECF No. 440 under seal.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.