Vinci Brands LLC v. Coach Services, Inc.
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:23-cv-05138
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Vinci Brands v. Coach, Judge Figueredo directed parties seeking permanent sealing to justify it by February 24, 2025.
Case-Mate, Inc.; ACS Acquisitions Group LLC; and anyone seeking to permanently seal the referenced exhibit or exhibits.
What happened
In Vinci Brands, LLC v. Coach, Inc., et al., Case-Mate asked the court to seal a discovery exhibit that ACS Acquisitions Group LLC had marked confidential.
The court did not issue a final ruling on permanent sealing in this order. Instead, it directed those interested in permanently sealing the exhibit or exhibits to make the required showing by February 24, 2025.
Judge Valerie Figueredo issued the direction on February 4, 2025, citing Second Circuit precedent concerning public access to court records.
The detailed version
- Vinci Brands LLC v. Coach Services, Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-05138
- Lorna Schofield
- Feb. 4, 2025
Background
Case-Mate, Inc. filed a letter asking for permission to submit a discovery document under seal. The letter identified the document as ACSO08434 and said it was being submitted as an exhibit to Case-Mate’s letter about allegedly deficient discovery responses by Candlewood Partners, LLC; ACS Acquisitions Group LLC; Vinci Brands, LLC; and Onward Brands, LLC.
Case-Mate said the document had been marked confidential by ACS under a confidentiality agreement and court order. The letter’s descriptions of the exhibit labels appear inconsistent: it referred to ACSO08434 as Exhibit B but also discussed permanently sealing Exhibit A.
Court’s Action
The court’s endorsement directed those interested in permanently sealing the referenced exhibit or exhibits to make the required showing under In re The City of New York, citing Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006), by February 24, 2025. The endorsement did not grant or deny permanent sealing in the text provided.
Result
Judge Valerie Figueredo set a deadline for a showing supporting permanent sealing. The provided text does not state what happened after that deadline or whether the exhibit was ultimately sealed.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.