Rubik's Brand Limited v. Flambeau, Inc.
- Paul Gardephe
- 1:17-cv-06559
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Rubik’s Brand Limited v. Flambeau, Inc., Judge Parker granted both revised sealing motions to protect narrowly tailored confidential business information.
Rubik’s Brand Limited and Flambeau, Inc., whose revised requests to redact and seal documents were granted; the public, whose access to specified court filings was restored subject to the listed sealed exceptions; and the parties’ business partners and competitors affected by disclosure of the information.
What happened
Rubik’s Brand Limited v. Flambeau, Inc. involved revised requests to redact and seal documents filed with motions for summary judgment and to strike. The court had previously found that the documents were generally open to the public and that the parties had requested overly broad redactions.
Rubik’s Brand Limited sought to seal information about trademark licensing agreements, marketing strategies, and program funding. Flambeau sought to seal information about the Quick Cube’s development, marketing, pricing, financial impact, sales, revenue, and technical details. Both parties argued that disclosure could cause competitive harm.
Judge Katharine H. Parker granted both revised motions in their entirety. The court found that the requested redactions were narrowly tailored to protect legitimate competitive and privacy interests, and directed the Clerk to unseal specified documents while keeping the listed exceptions sealed.
The detailed version
- Rubik's Brand Limited v. Flambeau, Inc. · No. 1:17-cv-06559
- Paul Gardephe
- Mar. 22, 2021
Background
The court previously reviewed the parties’ requests to redact and seal many documents submitted in connection with Flambeau’s motion for summary judgment and the related motion to strike. It determined that documents submitted with a summary-judgment motion are judicial documents, meaning court records subject to a strong presumption of public access under common law and the First Amendment. The court also found that the parties had designated too much material for redaction and sealing. It therefore denied the earlier motions to seal without prejudice and directed the parties to submit narrower requests.
On February 16, 2021, Rubik’s Brand Limited and Flambeau filed revised motions to seal. The party seeking a redaction bears the burden of justifying it.
Rubik’s Brand Limited’s motion
Rubik’s Brand Limited requested redactions and sealing for seven documents. The company said the documents contained confidential or competitively sensitive business information. Some documents contained confidential trademark licensing agreements. The court found that disclosure of the agreements’ terms could disadvantage Rubik’s Brand Limited and its business partners in future licensing negotiations.
Other documents concerned the “You Can Do The Rubik’s Cube” marketing program. They included confidential marketing strategy, agreement terms, and invoices concerning program funding. The court found that disclosure could cause competitive harm and that the requested redactions were narrowly tailored. It granted Rubik’s Brand Limited’s motion in its entirety.
Flambeau’s motion
Flambeau requested redactions and sealing for three documents. The first contained confidential information about the Quick Cube’s development and marketing strategies, pricing information, and a chart showing the financial impact of Flambeau’s planned market launch. The court found that competitors could use this commercially sensitive information to harm Flambeau.
The second document included excerpts from the deposition of Michael Burke, identified as Flambeau’s Vice President of Sales for its Duncan Division. Flambeau sought to redact limited testimony about projected sales, net sales, and revenue figures from 2016 through the time of the deposition. The court approved the request, noting that it covered about 17 lines of a 213-page transcript and was narrowly tailored.
The third document was a preliminary report containing scientific and technical details about the Quick Cube’s composition and safety. The court found that the report was only marginally relevant to the claims and agreed that it could be filed under seal.
Ruling and document-access instructions
The court granted Flambeau’s motion in its entirety. Applying the standard described by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co., the court granted both revised motions to seal, ECF Nos. 193 and 195.
The court requested that the Clerk unseal all documents filed at ECF No. 164 except document 164-9; unseal documents filed at ECF No. 176 except documents 176-3, 176-4, 176-6, 176-7, 176-8, 176-9, 176-14, 176-15, and 176-17; and unseal all documents filed at ECF Nos. 157, 159, 162, 169, 171, 174, 180, 182, and 185. The listed exceptions were to remain sealed.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.