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 Nielsen Consumer’s motion to seal narrowly tailored commercially sensitive and confidential materials.
Nielsen Consumer LLC and Circana Group, L.P., particularly the confidential business information and documents involved in Nielsen’s motions to compel.
What happened
Nielsen Consumer LLC asked to seal or redact parts of its filings supporting motions to compel Circana Group, L.P. to answer an interrogatory and produce documents.
The requested protection covered nonpublic business information, trade secrets, and documents Circana had marked highly confidential under the parties’ protective order. The court found the proposed redactions and sealed filings narrowly tailored to protect confidential information.
Judge Katharine H. Parker granted Nielsen Consumer’s motion to seal. She warned that the materials might not remain sealed if they are used in a motion that could end the case, because such filings carry a stronger public interest. The clerk was directed to terminate the motions and keep specified documents under seal.
The detailed version
- Nielsen Consumer LLC v. Circana Group, L.P. · No. 1:22-cv-03235
- James Oetken
- Apr. 8, 2025
Background
Nielsen Consumer LLC filed a letter motion seeking to seal portions of its memorandum supporting motions to compel Circana Group, L.P. to respond to a third interrogatory and produce documents that had been clawed back. Nielsen also asked to file related exhibits entirely under seal or in redacted form.
Nielsen said the redactions were limited to nonpublic and commercially sensitive business information, trade secrets involved in the litigation, and documents Circana had designated highly confidential under the parties’ protective order. Nielsen filed proposed redactions and documents for sealing.
Court’s Analysis
The court applied the standard from Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, under which sealing must be supported by specific findings showing that closure is necessary to protect a higher-value interest and is narrowly tailored. The court found that Nielsen’s proposed redactions and the documents proposed for complete sealing met that standard.
Ruling
The court GRANTED Nielsen Consumer’s letter motion to seal. The court reminded Nielsen that the materials likely would not be allowed to remain sealed if used in connection with a dispositive motion, because the public interest is greater for filings seeking a ruling that could resolve the case. The clerk was directed to terminate the motions at ECF Nos. 506 and 507 and to keep the documents at ECF Nos. 507 and 512 under seal.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.