Price v. L'Oreal USA, Inc.
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:17-cv-00614
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Price v. L’OREAL, Judge Schofield granted defendants’ motion to seal filings and allow redactions protecting confidential business information.
The order affects the defendants’ sealed filings and redacted submissions, as well as access to those materials by the parties, their identified attorneys, and the public.
What happened
Price v. L’OREAL USA, INC. concerned the defendants’ request to seal one exhibit and redact parts of materials filed with the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment.
The court ordered the identified documents to remain sealed and accessible only to the parties and attorneys identified by the defendants. It found that redactions were necessary to prevent unauthorized disclosure of confidential business information.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield granted the defendants’ letter motion, while noting that the court could later decide whether confidential treatment should apply to redacted information in its orders and opinions.
The detailed version
- Price v. L'Oreal USA, Inc. · No. 1:17-cv-00614
- Lorna Schofield
- Mar. 30, 2020
Background
The defendants filed a letter motion asking for permission to file one exhibit under seal and to file redacted versions of portions of the parties’ memoranda of law, statements of undisputed fact, and accompanying exhibits submitted with cross-motions for summary judgment. In a supporting letter, the defendants identified themselves as L’Oréal USA, Inc. and Matrix Essentials LLC.
Ruling
The court granted the defendants’ letter motion. It ordered documents filed under seal at Docket Nos. 260, 262, 264, 269, 270, 271, and 273 to remain under seal and to be accessible only to the parties and attorneys identified by the defendants.
The court explained that the public has a common-law right to access judicial documents, but that this right is not absolute. Courts must balance that presumption of access against competing considerations. The court found that filing the identified documents in redacted form was necessary to prevent unauthorized dissemination of confidential business information. It also advised the parties that the court retained discretion over whether to give confidential treatment to redacted information in future orders and opinions.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.