Nielsen Consumer LLC v. Circana Group, L.P.
- James Oetken
- 1:22-cv-03235
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Nielsen Consumer v. Circana, Judge Parker granted both parties’ requests to redact confidential information from a status-conference transcript.
Nielsen Consumer LLC and Circana Group, L.P., whose proposed redactions were approved, as well as public access to the specified transcript and documents.
What happened
Nielsen Consumer LLC v. Circana Group, L.P. concerns both parties’ requests to partially redact the official transcript of a July 30, 2025 status conference. Nielsen sought to redact information about non-public data practices and harm to business relationships; Circana sought to redact competitively sensitive agreement details, data practices, and trade secrets.
The court found that the proposed redactions were narrowly designed to protect trade secrets and other confidential business information. It granted Nielsen’s and Circana’s motions to seal and ordered certain documents to remain under seal.
Judge Katharine H. Parker also warned that sealing approved for this request would not automatically be allowed for a later motion that could end the case. The Clerk was directed to terminate the two motions and keep the specified documents sealed.
The detailed version
- Nielsen Consumer LLC v. Circana Group, L.P. · No. 1:22-cv-03235
- James Oetken
- Aug. 29, 2025
Background
Nielsen Consumer LLC asked the court to partially redact the official transcript of the July 30, 2025 status conference. Nielsen identified references to non-public data-use and reporting practices and harm to certain business relationships resulting from Circana’s conduct.
Circana Group, L.P. separately asked to partially redact the transcript. Circana identified non-public, competitively sensitive information about the parties’ agreement, related data-use and reporting practices, and trade secrets involved in the litigation. The parties submitted proposed redactions to the court.
Ruling
The court found that the proposed redactions were narrowly tailored to protect trade secrets and other confidential business information and were consistent with the standard from Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga. The court therefore granted both Nielsen’s and Circana’s letter motions to seal.
The court reminded the parties that documents and information sealed for this request could not automatically receive the same treatment in connection with a motion that could dispose of the case. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motions at ECF Nos. 587 and 592 and keep the documents at ECF Nos. 584 and 593 under seal.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.