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 a discovery-conference request and approved the parties’ proposed redactions.
Nielsen Consumer LLC and Circana Group, L.P.; the order also affects public access to the specified court filings.
What happened
Nielsen Consumer LLC v. Circana Group, L.P. concerns discovery disputes and requests to redact information from court filings. Nielsen Consumer asked for a conference, and Circana agreed that one was warranted.
The court granted Nielsen Consumer’s request and scheduled a discovery conference for November 5, 2025. It also granted both parties’ motions to seal proposed redactions concerning confidential business information and materials covered by the protective order.
Judge Katharine H. Parker directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the listed motions and keep two filings under seal.
The detailed version
- Nielsen Consumer LLC v. Circana Group, L.P. · No. 1:22-cv-03235
- James Oetken
- Sept. 17, 2025
Background
Nielsen Consumer LLC filed a letter motion requesting a pre-motion discovery conference to address discovery disputes. Circana Group, L.P. agreed that a conference was warranted.
The parties also filed motions seeking partial redactions of their discovery-related letters and exhibits. Nielsen Consumer said the materials contained details about the parties’ agreement and business dealings, as well as information designated confidential or highly confidential under the case’s protective order. Circana cited sensitive nonpublic commercial information, competitively sensitive proprietary information, and protected materials.
Court’s Rulings
The court granted Nielsen Consumer’s letter motion for a discovery conference and scheduled the conference for November 5, 2025, at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 17D of the United States Courthouse at 500 Pearl Street in New York.
The court also granted the parties’ letter motions to seal. Applying the standard from Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, the court found that the proposed redactions were narrowly tailored to protect confidential business and other sensitive information. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motions at ECF Nos. 609, 610, 611, and 614 and to keep the documents at ECF Nos. 610 and 615 under seal.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.