Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Dec. 5, 2025

Vinci Brands LLC v. Coach, Inc., et al.

Judge
Lorna Schofield
Docket
1:23-cv-05138
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureDiscovery
In one sentence

In Vinci Brands LLC v. Coach, Judge Figuer directed parties seeking continued secrecy for Case-Mate’s exhibit to file a supporting letter or risk unsealing.

Who this affects

Case-Mate, Inc., the parties whose confidential designations are implicated, and anyone seeking access to the exhibit.

What happened

In Vinci Brands LLC v. Coach, Inc., et al., Case-Mate, Inc. asked the court to keep its opposition to a lawyer’s withdrawal request and an attached exhibit under seal. Case-Mate said other parties had marked the materials confidential under the case’s confidentiality order.

Case-Mate did not take a position on whether the materials met the legal standards for sealing. It submitted the materials for the court’s review but did not attach them to its filing.

Judge Figuer directed any party that wants the exhibit to remain sealed to file a letter supporting continued sealing by December 12, 2025. If no such request is filed, the exhibit will be unsealed.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Vinci Brands LLC v. Coach, Inc., et al. · No. 1:23-cv-05138
Judge
Lorna Schofield
Date
Dec. 5, 2025

Background

Case-Mate, Inc. filed a letter motion asking the court to seal two items: its opposition to ACS Counsel’s motion to withdraw, and Exhibit 1 to the declaration supporting that opposition. Case-Mate stated that other parties had designated the document and related testimony as “Confidential” during discovery under the case’s confidentiality stipulation and order.

Case-Mate said it was submitting the materials for the court’s consideration but was not attaching them to its filing. It also stated that it took no position on whether the materials satisfied the standards for sealing.

Court’s Action

The court did not state that it was granting or denying the sealing request. Instead, the endorsement directed any party that maintains the exhibit should remain sealed to file a letter supporting sealing under Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga by December 12, 2025. The endorsement states that, if no such motion is filed, the exhibit will be unsealed.

Judge and Procedural Posture

The endorsement identifies Valerie Figuer as the United States Magistrate Judge. This was a procedural order concerning access to filed materials, not a decision on the underlying dispute.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.