Vinci Brands, LLC v. Coach Servs. Inc., et al.
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:23-cv-05138
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Vinci Brands v. Coach Services, Judge Figueredo granted the parties’ request to keep private banking information sealed and directed the Clerk to update filings.
Vinci Brands, LLC, Charles Tebele, and the individuals whose private banking information was discussed—Charles Tebele and Michael Haddad—were directly affected; the Clerk was directed to change the filing restrictions.
What happened
In Vinci Brands, LLC v. Coach Servs. Inc., et al., Vinci Brands and Charles Tebele asked the court to keep an exhibit sealed because it contained personal, confidential, and financially sensitive information.
The exhibit included private banking information belonging to Charles Tebele and Michael Haddad. The request relied on the court’s authority to balance the public’s access to court records against privacy interests.
Judge Valerie Figueredo granted the motion to seal. She directed the Clerk to maintain certain documents under seal, remove restrictions from other listed filings, and close the related motions.
The detailed version
- Vinci Brands, LLC v. Coach Servs. Inc., et al. · No. 1:23-cv-05138
- Lorna Schofield
- Dec. 1, 2025
Background
Vinci Brands, LLC and Charles Tebele asked the court to keep an exhibit sealed. Their letter said the exhibit contained personal, confidential, and financially sensitive information and had been designated confidential under a confidentiality agreement and order.
The filing stated that Exhibit E contained private banking information belonging to Charles Tebele and Michael Haddad. The moving parties argued that this information had no value to the public and should be protected.
Court’s analysis
The court applied the standard for sealing documents connected to a lawsuit. That analysis considers whether the material is a court document, how strong the public’s right to inspect it is, and whether privacy or other interests outweigh that right. The filing cited private financial information as an interest that can justify sealing.
Ruling
The court granted the parties’ motion to seal. It directed the Clerk to maintain the sealing at ECF No. 953-1 and remove restrictions from ECF Nos. 953, 953-2, 953-3, and 953-4. It also directed the Clerk to maintain the sealing at ECF No. 969-1 and remove restrictions from ECF Nos. 969, 969-2, 969-3, and 969-4. The court further directed the Clerk to close the motions at ECF Nos. 968 and 974.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.