Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Oct. 2, 2020

Easy Spirit, LLC v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc.

Judge
Jed Rakoff
Docket
1:19-cv-03299
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Easy Spirit v. Skechers, Judge Pauley granted most sealing requests and denied another as moot.

Who this affects

Easy Spirit, the defendants, and non-parties whose confidential and proprietary business information appeared in the identified filings or exhibits.

What happened

In Easy Spirit, LLC v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc., Easy Spirit asked to seal parts of its response to the defendants’ statement of facts and several exhibits, along with parts of its opposition to summary judgment.

The court found that the proposed redactions to the statement and exhibits were limited and justified to protect confidential business information belonging to Easy Spirit, the defendants, and non-parties. The court also noted that some information had previously been approved for sealing.

Judge William H. Pauley III granted the request to seal the counterstatement and Exhibits 8C.1, 8C.2, 36, and 38. He denied as moot the request concerning the memorandum because the publicly filed version was entirely unredacted.

The detailed version

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

Case
Easy Spirit, LLC v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-03299
Judge
Jed Rakoff
Date
Oct. 2, 2020

Background

Easy Spirit moved to file under seal portions of its Counterstatement of Material Facts responding to the defendants’ Rule 56.1 statement, along with Exhibits 8C.1, 8C.2, 36, and 38. Easy Spirit also sought to seal portions of its memorandum opposing the defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

Court’s analysis

The court reviewed the proposed redactions and found them narrowly tailored, limited in scope, and justified by the need to protect confidential and proprietary business information belonging to Easy Spirit, the defendants, and affected non-parties. The court also noted that some proposed redactions involved information it had previously allowed the defendants to file under seal.

Disposition

Judge William H. Pauley III granted Easy Spirit’s motion to file the Counterstatement and Exhibits 8C.1, 8C.2, 36, and 38 under seal. The court denied as moot the portion of the motion concerning Easy Spirit’s opposition memorandum because the publicly filed version was entirely unredacted.

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.