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 LLC v. Circana Group, L.P., Judge Parker granted redactions protecting trade secrets and confidential business information in a discovery transcript.
Nielsen Consumer LLC and Circana Group, L.P., particularly the parties’ confidential business information and the public’s access to the November 5, 2025 discovery-conference transcript.
What happened
In Nielsen Consumer LLC v. Circana Group, L.P., Circana asked the court to redact parts of the official transcript from a November 5, 2025 discovery conference. Circana said the material included private, competitively sensitive information about the parties’ agreement and information from testimony, documents, and communications produced in the case.
The court found that the proposed redactions were limited enough to protect trade secrets and other confidential information. Because the transcript concerned discovery disputes, the court said the public’s interest in access was modest and was outweighed by the need to protect the specific business information identified by the parties.
Judge Katharine H. Parker granted the proposed redactions at ECF No. 674. The court directed the Clerk to terminate the motion at ECF No. 673 and keep the documents at ECF Nos. 658 and 674 under seal. It also warned that the parties could not automatically treat the information as sealed if it was later submitted with a motion resolving the case.
The detailed version
- Nielsen Consumer LLC v. Circana Group, L.P. · No. 1:22-cv-03235
- James Oetken
- Dec. 1, 2025
Background
On November 25, 2025, Circana Group, L.P., identified as the defendant and counterclaimant, filed a letter motion seeking redactions to the official transcript of the November 5, 2025 discovery conference. Circana described the proposed redactions as covering nonpublic, competitively sensitive information about details of the parties’ agreement, as well as deposition testimony and information from confidential documents and communications produced in the litigation. The court also reviewed proposed redactions submitted by Nielsen Consumer LLC.
Court’s analysis
The court found that the redactions proposed at ECF No. 674 were sufficiently tailored to protect trade secrets and other confidential information. Applying the standard described in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, the court stated that sealing can be allowed when it is necessary to protect an important interest and is narrowly limited to that purpose. The court also explained that the public-access presumption has only modest weight for a transcript concerning discovery disputes. It concluded that the need to protect the specific trade information identified by the parties outweighed public access to the entire transcript.
Ruling
Judge Katharine H. Parker granted the proposed redactions at ECF No. 674. The court reminded the parties that information sealed for this request could not automatically be treated the same way if submitted in connection with a dispositive motion, meaning a motion intended to resolve claims or the case. The court directed the Clerk to terminate the motion at ECF No. 673 and keep ECF Nos. 658 and 674 under seal.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.