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 both parties’ motions to seal limited transcript redactions protecting confidential information.
Nielsen Consumer LLC and Circana Group, L.P.; the ruling governs redactions to a status-conference transcript and specified sealed filings in their litigation.
What happened
In Nielsen Consumer LLC v. Circana Group, L.P., both parties asked the Southern District of New York to redact portions of a status-conference transcript. They identified trade secrets, agreement details, litigation information, and other commercially sensitive or confidential material.
The court found that the proposed redactions were narrowly tailored to protect trade secrets and other confidential information. It also found that they met the legal standard for sealing court materials.
Judge Katharine H. Parker granted both parties’ motions to seal. She cautioned that the sealed information might not receive the same treatment during a motion that could resolve the case, and directed the Clerk to keep specified filings under seal.
The detailed version
- Nielsen Consumer LLC v. Circana Group, L.P. · No. 1:22-cv-03235
- James Oetken
- May 19, 2025
Background
Defendant Circana Group, L.P. moved to partially redact the official transcript of a March 27, 2025 status conference. Circana identified references to trade secrets, details about the parties’ License Agreement, aspects of NielsenIQ’s fraudulent-concealment claim that had been redacted in earlier filings, and information about NielsenIQ’s finances.
Plaintiff Nielsen Consumer LLC separately moved for partial redactions. Nielsen identified nonpublic, competitively sensitive information about the parties’ agreement, deposition testimony, and information from confidential documents and communications produced in the litigation. The parties submitted their proposed redactions to the court.
Court’s Analysis
The court concluded that the proposed redactions were narrowly tailored to protect trade secrets and other confidential information. It found that the redactions were consistent with the standard from Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, under which sealing requires specific findings that closure is essential to protect an important interest and is narrowly tailored to that purpose.
Ruling
The court granted Plaintiff’s and Defendant’s letter motions to seal. It reminded the parties that documents and information sealed for this request might not be treated the same way in connection with a dispositive motion, meaning a motion seeking to resolve the case or claims. The court directed the Clerk to terminate the motions listed at ECF Nos. 513 and 525 and to keep ECF Nos. 500, 502, and 526 under seal.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.