Tribe of Two, LLC v. Tods, S.p.A., Ltd.
- Clarke
- 1:23-cv-03255
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Tribe of Two v. Tod’s, Judge Clarke temporarily granted an application to seal documents containing confidential business information.
Tribe of Two, LLC, Tod’s S.p.A., Deva, Inc., their counsel, court personnel, and members of the public seeking access to the specified filings.
What happened
Tribe of Two, LLC v. Tod’s S.p.A. and Deva, Inc. concerned a request to redact confidential information from documents supporting motions about expert testimony. Tribe of Two said the documents contained nonpublic sales, revenue, and other commercially sensitive information.
The request covered filings submitted by both sides, including expert-related memoranda and declarations. Tribe of Two argued that limited redactions would protect its business information while preserving public access to the court’s records.
Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke granted the application temporarily. She directed the Clerk to seal specified docket entries, restricted access to the parties’ lawyers and court personnel, and ordered public versions with proposed redactions to be filed by April 15, 2025. The court stated that it would later decide whether the redactions should remain.
The detailed version
- Tribe of Two, LLC v. Tods, S.p.A., Ltd. · No. 1:23-cv-03255
- Clarke
- Apr. 9, 2025
Background
Tribe of Two, LLC asked the court to allow redactions in documents filed in connection with the parties’ motions concerning expert testimony. The requested redactions covered information that Tribe of Two described as confidential, commercially sensitive, proprietary, and nonpublic, including detailed sales and revenue information. The request included certain filings supporting Tribe of Two’s motions to exclude expert testimony and documents supporting the defendants’ motion concerning Gabriele Goldaper’s testimony.
The request was made under the parties’ stipulated protective order. Tribe of Two argued that the proposed redactions were narrowly tailored and that disclosure could cause competitive harm. It also argued that the documents were connected to discovery-related, non-dispositive motions, so the presumption of public access was weaker than it would be for documents supporting a motion that could determine the parties’ substantive rights.
Court’s Action
Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke granted the application temporarily. The Clerk was directed to seal ECF Nos. 123, 133, 143-1, 143-2, 143-8, 146-3, 149-2, and 152-2. Access was restricted to counsel for the parties and court personnel. The parties were directed to file versions containing the proposed redactions on the public docket by April 15, 2025. The court stated that, when ruling on the underlying motions, it would decide whether the documents would remain redacted.
Classification
This is a procedural order concerning sealing and redaction of court filings. It does not decide the underlying motions about expert testimony or the parties’ underlying dispute.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.