Nike, Inc. v. Lululemon USA Inc.
- Subramanian
- 1:23-cv-00771
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Nike v. Lululemon, Judge Subramanian granted some sealing requests and denied others as moot.
Nike, Inc., Lululemon USA Inc., third parties whose information was designated confidential, and the public seeking access to the court filings.
What happened
Nike, Inc. v. Lululemon USA Inc. involved three requests to keep parts of court filings confidential in connection with the parties’ trial motions. The filings were submitted in the Southern District of New York.
Lululemon sought to seal parts of its filings, including information about an uncompleted APL deal. Nike sought to seal filings containing information designated confidential by Lululemon or third parties. The parties later agreed that some information could be made public.
Judge Arun Subramanian granted the sealing requests for the documents the parties still sought to keep confidential. He denied Nike’s first request as moot because Nike said the document could be fully unsealed, and denied part of Nike’s other request as moot for information the parties agreed could be unsealed. The clerk was directed to close the listed motions.
The detailed version
- Nike, Inc. v. Lululemon USA Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-00771
- Subramanian
- Apr. 9, 2025
Background
The court considered three motions to seal filed in connection with the parties’ motions in limine, which are requests about what evidence or issues may be presented at trial. The parties filed responses on March 28, 2025.
Lululemon’s motion at Dkt. 278 sought to seal portions of its motions in limine. Lululemon later stated that the only confidential information it still sought to protect concerned an unconsummated APL deal on page 12, which was not presented at trial. Nike clarified which portions of the filing and an attachment contained Nike’s confidential information.
Nike’s motion at Dkt. 281 sought to seal Exhibit B to Nike’s motions in limine because Lululemon had designated it “Attorneys’ Eyes Only.” Nike later stated that the exhibit could be fully unsealed.
Nike’s motion at Dkt. 287 sought to seal portions of its opposition to Lululemon’s motions in limine based on confidentiality designations by Lululemon and third parties. The parties identified documents and information that they still sought to keep under seal, as well as other information that they agreed could be unsealed.
Court’s Analysis
The court applied the three-part test from Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006), to the sealing requests.
Rulings
The court granted Lululemon’s motion at Dkt. 278 as to the documents the parties still sought to maintain under seal.
The court denied as moot Nike’s motion at Dkt. 281 because Nike stated that Dkt. 283-4 could be fully unsealed. “Moot” means that the court no longer needed to decide the request because the requested sealing was no longer being pursued.
The court granted Nike’s motion at Dkt. 287 as to the documents the parties still sought to maintain under seal and denied as moot that motion as to information the parties agreed could be unsealed.
The clerk was directed to terminate the motions at Dkts. 278, 281, 287, 323, and 326. Judge Arun Subramanian signed the order on April 9, 2025.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.