Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Oct. 3, 2025

Coach IP Holdings, LLC, et al. v. ACS Group Acquisition LLC, et al.

Judge
Lorna Schofield
Docket
1:23-cv-10612
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureEvidence
In one sentence

In Coach IP Holdings v. ACS Group Acquisition, Judge Figueredo ordered documents unsealed and terminated Case-Mate’s sealing motion.

Who this affects

Case-Mate’s sealing requests and Coach IP Holdings, LLC’s related filing were affected; the Clerk of Court was directed to unseal the specified documents and terminate the motion.

What happened

Coach IP Holdings v. ACS Group Acquisition involved requests to keep certain documents and information sealed. Case-Mate requested sealing of two exhibits, and Coach requested sealing portions of its legal memorandum and related exhibits on Case-Mate’s behalf.

The court directed Case-Mate to provide legal support for sealing the documents and to show why the information should remain sealed. Case-Mate did not file the requested letter or make the required showing.

Judge Valerie Figueredo directed the Clerk to unseal the specified documents and to terminate Case-Mate’s sealing motion.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Coach IP Holdings, LLC, et al. v. ACS Group Acquisition LLC, et al. · No. 1:23-cv-10612
Judge
Lorna Schofield
Date
Oct. 3, 2025

Background

Case-Mate filed a letter motion seeking to seal two exhibits. The court directed Case-Mate to file a letter supported by legal authority by August 25, 2025. Case-Mate did not file that letter.

Coach separately filed a letter motion seeking to seal portions of its memorandum of law and related exhibits on Case-Mate’s behalf. The court directed Case-Mate to make the showing required under Lugosh v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga to permanently seal the information. Case-Mate did not make that showing.

Ruling

Judge Valerie Figueredo directed the Clerk of Court to unseal the documents at ECF Nos. 220, 221-2, 221-3, 226-1, and 226-2. The court also directed the Clerk to terminate the motion at ECF No. 224.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.