Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Oct. 13, 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
2
Civil ProcedureDiscovery
In one sentence

In Easy Spirit v. Skechers, Judge Pauley granted Skechers’ motion to partially file a reply under seal to protect confidential business information.

Who this affects

Skechers may file the specified reply partially under seal, and the redactions protect confidential and proprietary business information referenced in the filing.

What happened

Easy Spirit, LLC v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc. and Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II concerned Skechers’ request to partially file under seal its reply to Easy Spirit’s counterstatement of additional material facts.

Skechers said the reply repeated confidential information that had previously been filed under seal under the parties’ protective order. The court found the proposed redactions narrow, limited, and justified to protect confidential and proprietary business information.

Judge William H. Pauley III granted Skechers’ motion to file the document partially under seal.

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. 13, 2020

Background

Skechers asked the court for permission to file partially under seal its reply to Easy Spirit’s counterstatement of additional material facts. Skechers stated that the reply repeated the same confidential information that Easy Spirit’s counterstatement had previously included in a sealed filing. The request relied on the parties’ stipulated protective order.

Court’s ruling

The court determined that the proposed redactions were narrowly tailored, limited in scope, and justified to protect confidential and proprietary business information. The court therefore granted Skechers’ motion to file the reply partially under seal.

Effect of the order

The order addressed only the filing of the specified document under seal. The opinion text does not state that the court decided the underlying claims in the case.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.