Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled May 19, 2025

UGX Brands, LLC v. The City of Norfolk

Judge
Ho
Docket
1:24-cv-05839
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureContract
In one sentence

In UGX Brands v. The City of Norfolk, Judge Ho granted defendants’ request to redact confidential fee information and keep Exhibit D under seal.

Who this affects

The defendants, the non-party businesses connected to the agreement, and the public’s access to the filing are affected. The sealed filing is accessible only to the applicable parties.

What happened

UGX Brands, LLC et al. v. The City of Norfolk, et al. concerns defendants’ request to redact the performance fee paid to DJ Envy under an agreement submitted with their motion to dismiss. The agreement also contained commercially sensitive terms and a confidentiality clause.

The court had already determined that the agreement was a court document with a strong presumption of public access. Defendants argued that revealing the fee could harm the contracting parties’ ability to negotiate future agreements and that the fee was not relevant to their motion to dismiss.

Judge Dale E. Ho granted the application. The Clerk was directed to keep ECF No. 70-4 under seal, with access limited to the applicable parties, and to terminate ECF No. 69.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
UGX Brands, LLC v. The City of Norfolk · No. 1:24-cv-05839
Judge
Ho
Date
May 19, 2025

Background

Defendants The City of Norfolk, Global Music Touring, LLC, Antonio Dowe, and Terrence Thornton asked for permission to file Exhibit D to the Dowe Declaration with one redaction. The proposed redaction covered the amount of the performance fee paid to DJ Envy under an agreement between We Cousinz, LLC and DJ Envy LLC for Raashaun Casey, also known as DJ Envy. The agreement included commercially sensitive terms and a confidentiality clause.

Sealing standard

The court stated that it considers whether the material is a judicial document, the strength of the public-access presumption, and whether competing interests outweigh that presumption. The court had previously ruled that the agreement, which was submitted in support of defendants’ motion to dismiss, was a judicial document subject to a strong presumption of public access.

The court recognized that protecting confidential business information and the privacy interests of non-parties can overcome that presumption. It also noted that courts commonly allow redactions of pricing information. Defendants represented that the fee was treated as confidential, that disclosure could harm the contracting parties’ future negotiations, and that the amount was not relevant to the arguments in the motion to dismiss.

Ruling

Judge Dale E. Ho granted the application because the proposed redaction was sufficiently narrow and concerned only confidential business information of a non-party. The court directed the Clerk to keep ECF No. 70-4 under seal, with access limited to the applicable parties, and to terminate ECF No. 69.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.