Nielsen Consumer LLC v. Circana Group, L.P.
- James Oetken
- 1:22-cv-03235
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Nielsen Consumer v. Circana Group: Judge Parker granted the parties’ motion to seal confidential business information and trade secrets.
Nielsen Consumer LLC and Circana Group, L.P.; the order also affects public access to the specified court filings and exhibits.
What happened
In Nielsen Consumer LLC v. Circana Group, L.P., the parties jointly asked to seal parts of a status letter and several exhibits, or to file other exhibits with redactions.
They said the materials included the terms of their agreement, sensitive commercial strategies, and NielsenIQ’s confidential trade secrets. The court found the proposed redactions narrowly tailored to protect that information.
Judge Katharine H. Parker granted the motion to seal and directed the clerk to keep documents at two listed docket entries under seal. The court warned that the materials might not remain sealed if used with a motion that could end the case, because such filings receive greater public scrutiny.
The detailed version
- Nielsen Consumer LLC v. Circana Group, L.P. · No. 1:22-cv-03235
- James Oetken
- Mar. 26, 2025
Background
The parties filed a joint motion asking to seal portions of their March 24, 2025 Joint Status Letter. They also asked to file several exhibits entirely under seal and other exhibits in redacted form. The parties stated that the materials contained or described terms of their agreement, commercially sensitive information about their strategies, and NielsenIQ’s highly confidential trade secrets.
Court’s analysis
The court reviewed the parties’ filings and proposed redactions. Applying the standard from Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, the court found that the redactions were narrowly tailored to protect commercially sensitive and confidential business information and trade secrets.
Ruling
Judge Katharine H. Parker granted the parties’ Letter Motion to Seal. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 489 and keep the documents at ECF Nos. 490 and 493 under seal. The court also cautioned that the materials likely would not be allowed to remain sealed if they were used in connection with a dispositive motion, because the public interest is greater for such filings.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.