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 Group, Judge Parker granted Circana’s motion to seal narrowly tailored competitively sensitive information.
Circana Group, L.P., whose request to file specified materials in redacted form was granted; the sealed materials concern information about data licensed to Nielsen Consumer LLC.
What happened
Nielsen Consumer LLC v. Circana Group, L.P. concerned Circana’s request to file its notice of additional defenses and Exhibit A in redacted form. Circana said the redactions covered non-public, competitively sensitive information about data it licenses to Nielsen Consumer under their agreement.
The court reviewed the filings and found that the proposed redactions were narrowly tailored to protect confidential competitive information. The court said the redactions met the standard established in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga for sealing court filings.
The court granted Circana’s motion to seal and directed the clerk to keep Exhibit A under seal. Judge Katharine H. Parker also warned that the materials might not remain sealed if they were used with a dispositive motion, because such filings carry a stronger public interest.
The detailed version
- Nielsen Consumer LLC v. Circana Group, L.P. · No. 1:22-cv-03235
- James Oetken
- Mar. 10, 2025
Background
Circana filed a letter motion asking to submit its Notice of Additional Defenses and accompanying Exhibit A in redacted form. Circana described the redactions as limited to non-public, competitively sensitive information concerning data that Circana licenses to Nielsen Consumer under the parties’ agreement. Circana also filed proposed redactions.
Court’s analysis
The court reviewed Circana’s filings and found that the proposed redactions were narrowly tailored to protect competitively sensitive and confidential information. The court applied the standard from Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, under which sealing may be allowed when specific findings show that closure is essential to protect an important interest and is narrowly tailored to that purpose.
Ruling
The court granted Circana’s Letter Motions to Seal. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 474 and keep the document at ECF No. 476 under seal. The court reminded Circana that the materials were unlikely to remain sealed if used in connection with a dispositive motion, because of the greater public interest in such filings.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.