Coach IP Holdings, LLC v. ACS Group Acquisition LLC
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:23-cv-10612
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Coach IP Holdings v. ACS Group Acquisitions, Judge Figueredo granted Vinci Brands’ request to provisionally seal specified materials.
Vinci Brands LLC, Onward Brands LLC, Kate Spade LLC, and access to the specified portions of the two court filings.
What happened
In Coach IP Holdings, LLC v. ACS Group Acquisitions LLC, Vinci Brands LLC asked the court to provisionally seal highlighted portions of an exhibit and a reply memorandum. Vinci said the exhibit had been designated confidential under protective orders in related cases and that the memorandum quoted from it.
The court granted the motion for a provisional seal and directed the clerk to maintain viewing restrictions at Electronic Court Filing entries 234 and 235. The order states that, if Kate Spade LLC seeks to keep the information permanently sealed, it must make the required showing by September 30, 2025.
Magistrate Judge Valerie Figueredo issued the order on August 11, 2025. The provided case metadata identifies Judge Lorna Schofield, who the opinion says previously approved protective orders in related actions.
The detailed version
- Coach IP Holdings, LLC v. ACS Group Acquisition LLC · No. 1:23-cv-10612
- Lorna Schofield
- Aug. 11, 2025
Background
Defendants Vinci Brands LLC and Onward Brands LLC were represented in the motion. Vinci asked the court under Rule I(g)(2) of the judge’s individual rules for permission to file under seal highlighted portions of two documents: Exhibit 2 to William H. Mack’s August 8, 2025, reply declaration and Vinci’s reply memorandum supporting its motion for leave to amend its answer with counterclaims to the second amended complaint.
The motion relied on protective orders that Judge Lorna G. Schofield had approved on February 7, 2024, in related actions. Those protective orders allow parties to designate discovery materials as “Confidential” or “Highly Confidential — Attorney’s Eyes Only.” Kate Spade LLC designated Exhibit 2 as “Confidential,” and the opinion states that the designation had not been changed voluntarily or by court order. The reply memorandum quoted from the exhibit.
Ruling
The court granted the motion for a provisional seal. The clerk was directed to maintain the viewing restrictions at Electronic Court Filing entries 234 and 235. The order further states that, if Kate Spade LLC seeks to seal the information permanently, it must make the required showing under Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga by September 30, 2025.
Effect of the ruling
The ruling temporarily restricted access to the specified portions of the two filings. The opinion does not state that the materials were permanently sealed or decide whether they ultimately qualify for permanent sealing.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.