Coach IP Holdings, LLC, et. al., v. ACS Group Acquisition LLC, et al.
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:23-cv-10612
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Coach IP Holdings v. ACS Group Acquisition, Judge Figueredo granted ACS’s motion to seal confidential attorney-client materials supporting counsel’s withdrawal.
ACS and its counsel, whose declaration and attached exhibit were sealed; the order also directed the clerk to close the sealing motion.
What happened
In Coach IP Holdings, LLC, et al. v. ACS Group Acquisition LLC, et al., ACS’s lawyers asked the court to seal a declaration and an attached exhibit submitted in support of their request to withdraw from representing ACS. The lawyers said those materials contained confidential and attorney-client-protected information.
The request argued that revealing the materials could prejudice ACS, while reviewing them privately would not prejudice opposing counsel. The court granted the motion to seal.
Judge Valerie Figueredo granted the motion and directed the clerk to close the motion at ECF No. 249. The order did not decide the separate request for the lawyers to withdraw.
The detailed version
- Coach IP Holdings, LLC, et. al., v. ACS Group Acquisition LLC, et al. · No. 1:23-cv-10612
- Lorna Schofield
- Dec. 2, 2025
Background
ACS’s counsel, Lazare Potter Glazer & Moyle LLP, asked the court to seal the Declaration of Anna Pia D. Felix, dated December 1, 2025, and Exhibit A attached to it. The materials supported the firm’s motion to withdraw as counsel for ACS in this case and related cases.
Reason for Sealing
The firm represented that the declaration contained confidential and attorney-client privileged information. Attorney-client privilege generally protects confidential communications between a lawyer and client made for purposes of legal advice. The firm argued that disclosure could prejudice ACS and that opposing counsel would not be prejudiced by the court’s private review of the materials, sometimes called an in-camera review.
Ruling
The motion to seal was granted. The clerk was directed to close the motion at ECF No. 249. The order addressed sealing only; it did not rule on the separate motion to withdraw as counsel.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.