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’s motion to file redacted opposition papers and keep an exhibit sealed.
Nielsen Consumer LLC and Circana Group, L.P., particularly their confidential business information and the filings covered by the sealing order.
What happened
In Nielsen Consumer LLC v. Circana Group, L.P., Nielsen asked to file its opposition to Circana’s motion to dismiss with redactions and to keep one exhibit sealed.
Nielsen said the redactions protected details about the parties’ agreement and commercially sensitive business information. It also said Circana had designated Exhibit A for attorneys’ eyes only under the parties’ protective order. Circana separately filed proposed redactions.
The court found the redactions narrowly tailored to protect confidential business information and granted Nielsen’s motion to seal. Judge Katharine H. Parker directed the clerk to terminate the motion and keep the specified documents under seal.
The detailed version
- Nielsen Consumer LLC v. Circana Group, L.P. · No. 1:22-cv-03235
- James Oetken
- Feb. 28, 2025
Background
Nielsen Consumer LLC filed a letter motion seeking permission to submit its memorandum opposing Circana Group, L.P.’s motion to dismiss in redacted form. Nielsen also asked the court to keep Exhibit A to that memorandum under seal. The requested redactions concerned the terms of the parties’ agreement, commercially sensitive information about their business dealings, and other confidential information. Nielsen stated that Circana had designated Exhibit A as restricted to attorneys’ eyes under the parties’ protective order. Circana also submitted proposed redactions.
Court’s analysis
The court reviewed the filings and applied the standard from Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, under which sealing must be supported by specific findings and must be narrowly tailored to protect a higher-value interest. The court found that the proposed redactions were narrowly tailored to protect commercially sensitive business information and other confidential information.
Ruling
The court granted Nielsen’s letter motion to seal. It directed the clerk to terminate the motion at ECF No. 464 and to keep the documents at ECF Nos. 465 and 466 under seal. The opinion identifies Katharine H. Parker as the United States Magistrate Judge who issued the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.