Dixon v. Antonio Marquis “L.A.” Reid
- Vargas
- 1:23-cv-09878
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Drew Dixon v. Reid, Judge Vargas granted the plaintiff’s request to file one memorandum redacted and one exhibit under seal.
The plaintiff, the defendant, defense counsel, and people or businesses whose confidential business information appears in the materials covered by the sealing order.
What happened
In Drew Dixon v. Antonio Marquis “L.A.” Reid, the plaintiff asked to file a redacted memorandum opposing defense counsel’s request to withdraw and to file an exhibit under seal.
The court found that the material to be sealed included testimony about confidential business information, including proprietary business information, client data, and artist and executive compensation. The court concluded that protecting this information outweighed the public’s qualified First Amendment-based right to access court records.
Judge Jeannette A. Vargas granted the motion and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate docket entry 153.
The detailed version
- Dixon v. Antonio Marquis “L.A.” Reid · No. 1:23-cv-09878
- Vargas
- Nov. 5, 2025
Background
The plaintiff requested permission to file a redacted version of a memorandum opposing defense counsel’s motion to withdraw. The plaintiff also requested permission to file Exhibit 2 to the supporting declaration of Kenya K. Davis under seal, meaning the exhibit would not be publicly available in the ordinary way.
Court’s Analysis
The court found that the information the plaintiff sought to seal qualified as confidential business information. The opinion describes the information as testimony from Larry Jackson concerning sensitive business information involving Mr. Jackson and third parties, including proprietary information about Mr. Jackson’s businesses, client data, and artist and executive compensation.
The court weighed the interest in protecting confidential business information against the qualified First Amendment presumption that court records should be publicly accessible. It concluded that, in this instance, protecting the confidential information outweighed that presumption.
Disposition
The court granted the motion to file the memorandum in redacted form and Exhibit 2 under seal. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate ECF No. 153. The opinion does not state any broader ruling on the underlying dispute between the parties.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.