JLM Couture, Inc. v. Gutman
- Laura Swain
- 1:20-cv-10575
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In JLM Couture v. Gutman, Judge Swain granted JLM’s request to seal two exhibits and publicly file redacted versions.
JLM Couture, Gutman, the parties’ counsel, and members of the public seeking access to the filings.
What happened
JLM Couture, Inc. asked to seal two spreadsheets and redact parts of its filing in its case against Hayley Paige Gutman. The materials contained compensation information, contract figures, and calculations about alleged overpayments to Gutman.
JLM said public disclosure could harm its competitive position and negotiations with current and potential designers. Gutman did not object to the request.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain granted the application, allowing the exhibits to be filed under seal with access for the parties and allowing redacted versions on the public docket. The order also resolved docket entry 166.
The detailed version
- JLM Couture, Inc. v. Gutman · No. 1:20-cv-10575
- Laura Swain
- May 27, 2021
Background
JLM Couture asked the court to permit redacted versions of its opposition memorandum and supporting declaration to be filed publicly, and to file Exhibits 7 and 8 under seal. The request concerned information covered by earlier redaction orders, including dollar amounts and percentages in the parties’ employment contract.
Exhibit 7 contained payments JLM made to Gutman since 2011. Exhibit 8 contained calculations concerning alleged overpayments to Gutman from 2017 through 2020. The exhibits also included Gutman’s yearly base salary and other compensation. JLM argued that disclosure could give competitors information about its compensation practices and disadvantage JLM in negotiations with current and prospective designers. Gutman did not object.
Ruling
The court granted JLM’s application to file the referenced documents under seal, with access by the parties, and to file redacted versions on the public docket. The order stated that the application was granted for the reasons set forth in the filing. It also resolved docket entry 166.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.