Duluth Screen Printing, LLC v. Kornit Digital North America, Inc. et al.
- Analisa Torres
- 1:25-cv-09441
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Duluth Screen Printing v. Kornit Digital, Magistrate Judge Figueredo temporarily allowed redactions and kept an agreement sealed pending defendants’ challenge.
Duluth Screen Printing, LLC may temporarily file a redacted complaint, and the Price Quotation Agreement may temporarily remain sealed. The defendants must address continued sealing after they appear.
What happened
Duluth Screen Printing, LLC sued Kornit Digital North America, Inc. and other defendants. The plaintiff represented that a Price Quotation Agreement was confidential and asked to keep parts of the complaint and the agreement from public view.
The court temporarily allowed the complaint to be filed with redactions and allowed the Price Quotation Agreement to remain sealed. The opinion does not describe the claims or the dispute’s underlying facts.
After the defendants appear, they must file a letter motion explaining why sealing is appropriate and make the showing required by the cited Second Circuit case. Magistrate Judge Valerie Figueredo issued the order on December 2, 2025.
The detailed version
- Duluth Screen Printing, LLC v. Kornit Digital North America, Inc. et al. · No. 1:25-cv-09441
- Analisa Torres
- Dec. 2, 2025
What the Order Addresses
Duluth Screen Printing represented that the Price Quotation Agreement was confidential. Based on that representation, the court addressed whether the complaint and the agreement could temporarily remain partly or entirely out of the public record.
Ruling
The court temporarily allowed the complaint to be filed with redactions. It also allowed the Price Quotation Agreement, filed as ECF No. 1-2, to remain under seal.
The order is temporary. Once the defendants appear, they must file a letter motion showing why sealing is appropriate. The court stated that the defendants must make the required showing under Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). The opinion does not decide whether the materials will ultimately remain sealed.
Disposition
The order concerns sealing and redacting court filings; it does not decide the underlying claims. It was signed by Valerie Figueredo, United States Magistrate Judge.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.