TOWN & COUNTRY LINEN CORP. and TOWN & COUNTRY HOLDINGS v. INGENIOUS DESIGNS LLC
TOWN & COUNTRY LINEN CORP. and TOWN & COUNTRY HOLDINGS, INC. v. INGENIOUS DESIGNS LLC
- Lewis Liman
- 1:18-cv-05075
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Town & Country Linen v. Ingenious Designs, Judge Liman ordered the parties to propose how confidential information should be handled in court.
The parties in Town & Country Linen Corp. and Town & Country Holdings, Inc. v. Ingenious Designs LLC, including the plaintiffs and defendants, were directed to address the handling of confidential information and any request to seal the courtroom.
What happened
In Town & Country Linen Corp. and Town & Country Holdings, Inc. v. Ingenious Designs LLC, the plaintiffs’ lawyer asked the court how it would handle information marked confidential under the case’s protective order.
The court ordered the parties to meet and discuss the issue and submit a letter by May 24, 2021, at noon. Their proposal had to address arguments involving confidential information and whether either side sought to close the courtroom during any part of the proceeding.
Judge Lewis J. Liman also reminded the parties that marking material confidential does not guarantee that it will remain sealed. The court explained that closing the courtroom requires a substantial probability of harm to a compelling interest and that the court must consider less restrictive alternatives.
The detailed version
- TOWN & COUNTRY LINEN CORP. and TOWN & COUNTRY HOLDINGS v. INGENIOUS DESIGNS LLC · No. 1:18-cv-05075
- Lewis Liman
- May 21, 2021
Background
Counsel for the plaintiffs asked the court by email how it intended to handle arguments involving information designated as confidential under the protective order in the case.
Order
The court ordered the parties to meet and confer, meaning to discuss the issue with each other, and to submit a letter through the court’s electronic filing system by May 24, 2021, at 12:00 p.m. The letter had to propose how the parties would address arguments involving confidential information, including whether either party requested that the courtroom be sealed for any portion of the proceeding.
The court reminded the parties that a confidentiality designation under a protective order does not guarantee that the court will keep material sealed. It stated that a party seeking closure must show a substantial probability of prejudice to a compelling interest that closure would prevent. The court also stated that it must consider available alternatives to protect the relevant interests before closing the courtroom.
Disposition
Judge Lewis J. Liman ordered the parties to meet and confer and submit the required proposal. The opinion does not state that the courtroom was sealed or that any material was ordered sealed.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.