Vinci Brands LLC v. Spade
Vinci Brands LLC v. Kate Spade, No. 23-cv-05138: ACS Group Acquisitions LLC’s Letter Motion to Seal the Declaration of Anna Pia D. Felix, dated December 1, 2025, and Exhibit A Attached Thereto
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:23-cv-05138
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Vinci Brands LLC v. Kate Spade, Judge Schofield granted ACS Group Acquisitions LLC’s motion to seal privileged withdrawal materials.
ACS Group Acquisitions LLC, its counsel, and public access to the Felix Declaration and Exhibit A.
What happened
In Vinci Brands LLC v. Kate Spade, ACS Group Acquisitions LLC’s law firm asked the court to seal a declaration by Anna Pia D. Felix and an attached exhibit. The materials supported the firm’s request to withdraw as ACS’s counsel.
The firm said the materials contained confidential and attorney-client privileged information, and that disclosure could prejudice ACS. It also said opposing counsel would not be harmed by the court reviewing the materials privately.
Judge Schofield granted the motion to seal and directed the clerk to close the motion at ECF No. 977.
The detailed version
- Vinci Brands LLC v. Spade · No. 1:23-cv-05138
- Lorna Schofield
- Dec. 2, 2025
Background
ACS Group Acquisitions LLC’s counsel, Lazare Potter Glazer & Moyle LLP, sought permission to withdraw as ACS’s counsel in this action and related actions. In support of its withdrawal request, the firm submitted the Declaration of Anna Pia D. Felix, dated December 1, 2025, and Exhibit A.
Sealing request
The firm asked the court to seal the declaration and Exhibit A. It stated that the materials contained confidential and attorney-client privileged information and that revealing them would prejudice ACS. The firm also argued that opposing counsel would not be prejudiced by the court’s private review of the submission.
Ruling
The court granted the motion to seal. The clerk was directed to close the motion at ECF No. 977. The ruling concerned the confidentiality of materials submitted in support of counsel’s motion to withdraw; it did not decide the underlying claims in the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.