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, Magistrate Judge Parker granted motions to seal narrowly tailored redactions protecting confidential business information.
Nielsen Consumer LLC and Circana Group, L.P.; the specified court filings and discovery-conference transcript remain under seal, subject to the court's reminder about future dispositive motions.
What happened
Nielsen Consumer LLC asked the court to redact parts of a discovery-conference transcript and a supplemental letter and exhibits. It said the materials contained confidential agreement terms, trade secrets, business information, and information about alleged injuries.
The court found that the proposed redactions were narrowly tailored to protect trade secrets and other confidential information. It also found that they met the legal standard for sealing court records.
The court granted both motions to seal and ordered the documents kept under seal, while warning that the same information might not automatically remain sealed during a motion that could decide the case. Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker issued the order.
The detailed version
- Nielsen Consumer LLC v. Circana Group, L.P. · No. 1:22-cv-03235
- James Oetken
- Nov. 18, 2025
Background
Nielsen Consumer LLC filed two letter motions seeking partial redactions. One concerned the official transcript of a November 5, 2025 discovery conference at ECF No. 658. The other concerned Nielsen Consumer's supplemental letter and exhibits at ECF No. 650. Nielsen Consumer identified information concerning the parties' confidential Agreement, License Agreement, business dealings, trade secrets, confidential information, and alleged injuries related to Circana's misconduct.
The parties submitted proposed redactions for the court's review.
Court's analysis
The court found that the proposed redactions were narrowly tailored to protect trade secrets and other confidential information. It determined that the requests satisfied the standard from Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, under which sealing requires specific findings that closure is essential to protect important interests and is narrowly tailored to serve those interests.
Ruling
The court granted Plaintiff's letter motions to seal. It directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motions at ECF Nos. 648 and 665 and to keep the documents at ECF Nos. 650 and 658 under seal. The court also reminded the parties that documents and information sealed for this request may not receive the same treatment in connection with a motion that could decide the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.