Vinci Brands LLC v. Coach, Inc., et al.
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:23-cv-05138
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Vinci Brands v. Coach, Judge Schofield directed parties to justify sealing Case-Mate’s exhibits or they would be unsealed.
Case-Mate, Inc., and any party seeking to keep Exhibits A, B, E, and I sealed.
What happened
In Vinci Brands LLC v. Coach, Inc., et al., Case-Mate, Inc. asked the court to file Exhibits A, B, E, and I under seal. The exhibits had been marked confidential or highly confidential during discovery.
Case-Mate said it was seeking sealing to comply with the parties’ confidentiality agreement and court order. It took no position on whether the exhibits actually met the legal requirements for sealing.
The court directed any party that wanted the exhibits to remain sealed to file a supporting letter by November 26, 2025, and stated that the exhibits would be unsealed if no such filing was made. The order does not state that the sealing request was granted or denied. Judge Schofield is identified in the supplied case information.
The detailed version
- Vinci Brands LLC v. Coach, Inc., et al. · No. 1:23-cv-05138
- Lorna Schofield
- Nov. 20, 2025
Background
Case-Mate, Inc. submitted a letter asking to file Exhibits A, B, E, and I under seal in connection with its pre-motion letter requesting a conference. Case-Mate said other parties had designated the documents or discovery testimony as “Confidential” or “Highly Confidential-Attorney Eyes Only” under the parties’ confidentiality stipulation and court order.
Case-Mate stated that it was submitting the exhibits for the court’s consideration and to comply with that confidentiality order. It took no position on whether the documents satisfied the standards for sealing. The letter referred to the sealing standards discussed in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga.
Court’s Action
The endorsement directed any party that maintained the exhibits should remain sealed to file a letter supporting continued sealing under the cited standards by November 26, 2025. It stated that the exhibits would be unsealed if no such motion was made. The opinion text does not state that Case-Mate’s motion was granted or denied. The supplied case information identifies Lorna Schofield as the judge, while the endorsement image appears also to identify a magistrate judge whose surname is not fully legible in the provided text.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.