Down to Earth Organics, LLC v. Scott
- John Cronan
- 1:24-cv-06615
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Down to Earth Organics v. Scott, Judge Cronan granted a request to seal a licensing agreement and royalty statements containing competitively sensitive business information.
The order affects Down To Earth Organics, LLC, the defendants, third-party Bravado International Group, Inc., and members of the public seeking access to the identified court materials.
What happened
In Down to Earth Organics, LLC v. Scott, the defendants asked to keep a trademark and merchandising licensing agreement private and to file royalty statements with redactions. They also asked to let Down To Earth Organics, LLC file the same agreement privately.
The court granted the request. It allowed the parties to file the agreement and identified royalty statements under seal, finding that protecting competitively sensitive business information outweighed the public interest in disclosure. The court also found that the proposed redactions were narrowly tailored.
Judge John P. Cronan issued the order on July 9, 2025.
The detailed version
- Down to Earth Organics, LLC v. Scott · No. 1:24-cv-06615
- John Cronan
- July 9, 2025
Background
The defendants—Jacques Bermon Webster II, also known as Travis Scott, Cactus Jack Publishing, LLC, and LaFlame Enterprises, Inc.—asked the court for permission to file certain materials under seal or in redacted form. The materials included a licensing agreement between LaFlame and third-party Bravado International Group, Inc., and royalty statements issued by Bravado to LaFlame.
The defendants said the materials contained confidential commercial information, including sales data for merchandise unrelated to the dispute. They also asked for permission for Down To Earth Organics, LLC to file the same licensing agreement under seal in support of its request to amend the complaint.
Ruling
The court granted the request. It allowed the parties to file under seal the licensing agreement and the royalty statements identified in the request. Applying the standard that court filings are generally presumed to be public, the court found that the privacy interest in protecting competitively sensitive business information outweighed the value of public disclosure. The court also found that the proposed redactions were narrowly tailored to protect those interests.
Effect
The order limits public access to the identified agreement and royalty statements. It does not decide the underlying claims or the parties’ motions for summary judgment or to amend the complaint.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.