Vinci Brands LLC v. Coach Services, Inc.
Vinci Brands LLC v. Coach Services Inc., Kate Spade, LLC, Tapestry, Inc., and Case-Mate, Inc.; Case-Mate, Inc. v. Vinci Brands LLC, Candlewood Partners, LLC, CWD Armor Management, LLC, Onward Brands, LLC, and ACS Group Acquisitions, LLC
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:23-cv-05138
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Vinci Brands LLC v. Case-Mate, Inc., Magistrate Judge Figueredo granted Case-Mate’s motion to provisionally seal information and continued viewing restrictions.
Case-Mate, Inc., the other parties to the case, and members of the public seeking access to the restricted information.
What happened
In Vinci Brands LLC v. Case-Mate, Inc., Case-Mate asked the court to temporarily seal information in the case. The order does not describe the information or the parties’ arguments.
The court granted the motion for a provisional seal. It directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion at ECF No. 495 and maintain the viewing restrictions at ECF Nos. 501 and 503.
Magistrate Judge Valerie Figueredo said that Case-Mate must make the required showing under the cited precedent by September 29, 2025, if it seeks to keep the information sealed permanently. The order did not decide the underlying dispute.
The detailed version
- Vinci Brands LLC v. Coach Services, Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-05138
- Lorna Schofield
- Aug. 28, 2025
Order
The court granted the motion for a provisional seal filed at ECF No. 495. A provisional seal is a temporary restriction on public access to specified information. The order does not identify the information at issue or explain the parties’ substantive arguments.
The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the gavel associated with ECF No. 495 and maintain the viewing restrictions at ECF Nos. 501 and 503.
Possible Permanent Seal
The court stated that, if Case-Mate seeks to seal the information permanently, Case-Mate must make the required showing under Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006), by September 29, 2025.
Effect of the Order
This order addressed access to information in the case. It did not resolve the underlying claims or counterclaims.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.