Vinci Brands LLC v. Coach Services, Inc.
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:23-cv-05138
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Vinci Brands v. Coach Services, Judge Figueredo scheduled a private conference about attorney-client information and denied requests for access.
Vinci Brands LLC, its former and current counsel, and the parties excluded from the filing and conference: Case-Mate, Inc., Coach Services, Inc., Kate Spade, LLC, and Tapestry, Inc.
What happened
In Vinci Brands LLC v. Coach Services, Inc., the court addressed a dispute connected to Vinci’s former lawyers’ withdrawal from the case. The court scheduled a telephone conference for July 25, 2025, and directed Vinci’s former and current lawyers to attend.
The court said the conference would be private because the dispute could require disclosure of information protected by the attorney-client relationship. The court reviewed the filing at ECF No. 861 and found that it did not appear to concern discovery or the claims involving Case-Mate and Kate Spade.
Judge Figueredo denied the requests at ECF Nos. 866 and 868. Case-Mate, Coach Services, Kate Spade, and Tapestry could not access ECF No. 861 or attend the conference at that time, and the clerk was directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 866.
The detailed version
- Vinci Brands LLC v. Coach Services, Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-05138
- Lorna Schofield
- July 22, 2025
Background
The order concerns an ex parte dispute at ECF No. 861 arising from the withdrawal of Vinci Brands LLC’s former counsel. “Ex parte” means that a proceeding or filing is handled without participation by the opposing parties. The court stated that the dispute could require disclosure of information protected by the attorney-client privilege, which generally protects confidential communications between a lawyer and client made for legal advice.
Court’s action
The court scheduled a telephone conference for July 25, 2025, at 11:00 a.m. Vinci’s former counsel at Benesch Friedlander Coplan & Aranoff and its current counsel at Dickinson Wright were directed to attend. The court explained that motions to withdraw and related papers are routinely filed under seal when necessary to preserve the attorney-client relationship, and that private proceedings or review of documents outside the parties’ presence are longstanding practices in disputes involving that privilege.
After reviewing the materials at ECF No. 861, the court found that they did not appear to concern discovery in the case or Case-Mate and Kate Spade. Accordingly, Case-Mate, Inc., Coach Services, Inc., Kate Spade, LLC, and Tapestry, Inc. were not entitled, at that time, to access the filing or attend the July 25 conference. The court denied the requests at ECF Nos. 866 and 868 and directed the clerk to terminate the motion at ECF No. 866.
Possible later action
The court stated that, after the conference, it could consider whether the transcript should be unsealed or whether an additional conference involving all parties should be held if an issue concerning Case-Mate, Kate Spade, or discovery became apparent.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.