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 Schofield required a justification for permanently sealing a filing and did not decide the request.
Case-Mate, Inc., Vinci Brands LLC, the other parties to the case, and Siena as the non-party whose confidential loan agreement was discussed.
What happened
In Vinci Brands LLC v. Coach Services, Inc., Case-Mate, Inc. asked the court to keep its answer, defenses, and four exhibits under seal. Case-Mate said the materials included information marked confidential during discovery, including a loan agreement involving a non-party.
The court directed anyone seeking permanent sealing to explain why sealing was justified under the required legal standard. The endorsement set March 31, 2025, as the deadline for that showing.
Judge Schofield’s order did not grant or deny permanent sealing. It also directed the clerk to terminate the sealing motion listed at ECF No. 767.
The detailed version
- Vinci Brands LLC v. Coach Services, Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-05138
- Lorna Schofield
- Feb. 24, 2025
Background
Case-Mate, Inc. submitted a letter motion asking to file under seal its answer and defenses to Vinci Brands LLC’s third amended complaint, its amended counterclaim, and Exhibits 1 through 4. The submission stated that the answer quoted, relied on, or attached documents marked “Confidential” or “Highly Confidential — Attorney Eyes Only” under the parties’ confidentiality agreement and order.
Case-Mate specifically described Exhibit 4 as a loan sale agreement. Case-Mate said it had originally marked the agreement “Highly Confidential — Attorneys’ Eyes Only” and was reclassifying it as “Confidential.” It also said that Siena, a non-party, had marked the agreement confidential and that the agreement contained nonpublic information about a confidential business transaction. According to the letter, disclosure could harm Siena, which makes and sells loans.
Court’s Action
The court did not grant or deny the request to permanently seal the materials. Instead, the endorsement directed parties interested in permanent sealing to make the showing required by Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006), by March 31, 2025. The endorsement also directed the clerk to terminate the motion at ECF No. 767.
Disposition and Effect
This was a procedural order concerning sealing of court filings. The text does not state that the documents were permanently sealed, nor does it resolve whether any particular document or exhibit should remain sealed. Judge Schofield is identified in the supplied case information, while the endorsement text itself refers to Judge Valerie Figueredo; this summary relies on the supplied judge information.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.