Theallet v. H&M Hennes and Mauritz, L.P.
- Gregory Woods
- 1:20-cv-02212
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Theallet v. H&M, Judge Woods granted H&M’s motion to seal a profit figure in the hearing transcript.
The defendants, whose profit figure was sealed, and members of the public seeking access to that portion of the hearing transcript.
What happened
In Theallet v. H&M Hennes and Mauritz, L.P., the defendants asked to redact from a hearing transcript the amount of their profits from sales of the allegedly infringing garments. The plaintiffs did not oppose the request.
The court said judicial records generally are open to the public, but found that the public-access presumption was extremely weak here. The profit figure arose during settlement discussions, played no role in the summary-judgment decision, and was not related to those proceedings. The court also found that disclosure could cause competitive harm because the figure was based on confidential financial information produced in discovery.
Judge Gregory H. Woods granted the defendants’ motion to seal and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion at docket number 90.
The detailed version
- Theallet v. H&M Hennes and Mauritz, L.P. · No. 1:20-cv-02212
- Gregory Woods
- July 20, 2020
Background
After a July 8, 2020 telephonic hearing concerning the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, the defendants moved to seal one part of the hearing transcript. They sought to redact the dollar amount of their profits from sales of the allegedly infringing garments, which plaintiffs’ counsel disclosed during the hearing. The plaintiffs did not oppose the motion.
Legal standard
The court explained that judicial documents generally carry a presumption of public access because public access promotes accountability and confidence in the federal courts. To decide whether sealing is appropriate, the court must determine whether the material is a judicial document, assess the strength of the public-access presumption, and balance that presumption against legitimate reasons for nondisclosure. Sealing requires specific findings showing that closure is essential to protect a higher value and is narrowly tailored to that purpose.
Analysis
The court found that the presumption of access applied to the transcript. It nevertheless found the presumption to be extremely weak because the profit figure arose in the context of settlement discussions, played no role in the court’s summary-judgment decision, and was not related to the summary-judgment proceedings.
The defendants asserted that the figure was calculated from confidential financial information produced in discovery and that disclosure could reveal confidential business operations and cause competitive harm. The court found that the risk of competitive harm warranted sealing. The opinion also noted that although the figure had been disclosed during an open teleconference, the public disclosure was limited and there was no indication that the figure had been published.
Disposition
Judge Gregory H. Woods granted the defendants’ motion to seal. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion pending at docket number 90. This order concerned sealing the specified portion of the hearing transcript, not the merits of the underlying dispute or the pending summary-judgment motion.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.