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 Group, Judge Parker granted Nielsen’s motion to redact confidential business information from a filing.
Nielsen Consumer LLC, Circana Group, L.P., and public access to the specified court filing.
What happened
Nielsen Consumer LLC asked the court to partially redact its reply and related exhibits in a discovery dispute with Circana Group, L.P.
Nielsen said the redactions protected details about the parties’ agreement and business dealings, its private reporting practices, and claimed injuries and business relationships. The court found the proposed redactions narrowly tailored to protect confidential business information.
Judge Katharine H. Parker granted Nielsen’s motion to seal, directed that one filing remain sealed, and warned that the information might not remain sealed if used with a motion that could end the case.
The detailed version
- Nielsen Consumer LLC v. Circana Group, L.P. · No. 1:22-cv-03235
- James Oetken
- Sept. 18, 2025
Background
Nielsen Consumer LLC filed a motion seeking partial redaction of its September 17, 2025 reply to Circana Group, L.P.’s response to Nielsen’s request for a pre-motion discovery conference. Nielsen also submitted proposed redactions to the related exhibits.
The request
Nielsen stated that the redactions covered details concerning the parties’ agreement and business dealings, Nielsen’s non-public reporting practices, and the injury Nielsen said Circana’s conduct caused to it and certain business relationships.
Court’s ruling
The court found that the proposed redactions were narrowly tailored to protect confidential business information and consistent with the standard governing access to court records. Judge Katharine H. Parker therefore granted Nielsen’s Letter Motion to Seal. The court directed the Clerk to terminate the motion at ECF No. 617 and to keep the documents at ECF No. 618 under seal.
The court reminded Nielsen that the information was unlikely to be allowed to remain sealed if used in connection with a dispositive motion, because the public interest is greater when information is submitted with a filing that could resolve the case.
Effect
The order permits the specified redactions and keeps the documents at ECF No. 618 sealed for now. It does not decide the parties’ underlying discovery or other claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.