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 LLC v. Circana Group, Judge Parker granted Nielsen’s requests to seal narrowly redacted business and trade-secret information.
Nielsen Consumer LLC and Circana Group, L.P., particularly their commercially sensitive, trade-secret, and confidential information submitted in the identified filings.
What happened
Nielsen Consumer LLC asked the court for permission to file its proposed Fourth Amended Complaint and related exhibits under seal. Nielsen said the redactions protected commercially sensitive information, trade secrets, and information Circana had designated confidential under a protective order.
The court reviewed the proposed redactions and found them narrowly tailored to protect confidential business information and consistent with the governing standard. It granted Nielsen’s requests to seal.
Judge Katharine H. Parker also warned that the sealed material could not automatically be sealed again in connection with a motion that could end the case. The clerk was directed to terminate specified motions and keep documents at ECF Nos. 445 and 448 under seal.
The detailed version
- Nielsen Consumer LLC v. Circana Group, L.P. · No. 1:22-cv-03235
- James Oetken
- Jan. 22, 2025
Background
Nielsen Consumer LLC filed two letter motions seeking permission to file under seal its Motion for Leave to File a Fourth Amended Complaint, the proposed Fourth Amended Complaint, and related exhibits. Nielsen proposed redactions covering commercially sensitive information about the parties’ relationship and business and sales information, Nielsen trade secrets and other confidential information, and materials that Circana Group, L.P. had designated “Confidential” or “Attorneys Eyes Only” under a protective order. The opinion states that the court had already granted Nielsen’s motion for leave to file a Fourth Amended Complaint on January 10, 2025.
Court’s Analysis
The court reviewed Nielsen’s filings and concluded that the proposed redactions were narrowly tailored to protect commercially sensitive business information, trade secrets, and other confidential information. The court found the redactions consistent with the standard from Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, which permits sealing when it is necessary to protect important interests and is limited to what is needed for that protection.
Ruling
The court granted Nielsen’s letter motions to seal. It reminded Nielsen that documents and information sealed for this request could not automatically receive the same treatment in connection with a dispositive motion, meaning a motion that could resolve the case or a claim. The clerk was directed to terminate the motions listed at ECF Nos. 444, 445, 446, and 447 and to keep the documents at ECF Nos. 445 and 448 under seal.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.