Kate Spade LLC v. Vinci Brands LLC
Kate Spade LLC v. Vinci Brands LLC; Vinci Brands LLC, et al. v. Coach Services, Inc., et al.; Coach IP Holdings, LLC, et al. v. ACS Group Acquisition LLC, et al.
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:23-cv-05409
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Kate Spade v. Vinci Brands, Judge Schofield granted ACS’s motion to seal privileged withdrawal materials and directed the Clerk to close ECF No. 608.
ACS Group Acquisitions LLC, its counsel Lazare Potter Glazer & Moyle LLP, and public access to the sealed declaration and exhibit.
What happened
In Kate Spade LLC v. Vinci Brands LLC, ACS Group Acquisitions LLC’s lawyers asked the court to seal a declaration and an attached exhibit filed in support of their request to withdraw as ACS’s counsel. The materials concerned counsel’s withdrawal from this case and two related cases.
The lawyers said the declaration contained confidential and attorney-client privileged information. They argued that disclosure could prejudice ACS and that opposing counsel would not be harmed by the court reviewing the materials privately.
Judge Lorna Schofield granted the motion to seal and directed the Clerk of Court to close the motion at ECF No. 608.
The detailed version
- Kate Spade LLC v. Vinci Brands LLC · No. 1:23-cv-05409
- Lorna Schofield
- Dec. 2, 2025
Background
Lazare Potter Glazer & Moyle LLP represented ACS Group Acquisitions LLC in this case and two related cases: Vinci Brands LLC, et al. v. Coach Services, Inc., et al., No. 23-cv-05138, and Coach IP Holdings, LLC, et al. v. ACS Group Acquisition LLC, et al., No. 23-cv-10612. The firm sought to withdraw as ACS’s counsel in all three matters.
In support of the withdrawal request, the firm filed the Declaration of Anna Pia D. Felix and an attached Exhibit A. The firm stated that the declaration contained confidential and attorney-client privileged information. Attorney-client privilege generally protects confidential communications between a lawyer and client.
Motion and ruling
The firm asked the court to seal the declaration and Exhibit A. It argued that disclosure of the materials could prejudice ACS and that opposing counsel would not be prejudiced by the court’s private review of the submission. The letter cited decisions recognizing that materials supporting a lawyer’s withdrawal motion may be sealed when necessary to protect attorney-client confidentiality.
The court granted the motion to seal. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the motion at ECF No. 608. The opinion text is addressed to Judge Valerie Figueredo, while the supplied case metadata identifies Judge Lorna Schofield; this summary follows the supplied metadata.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.