Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 10, 2022

JLM Couture, Inc. v. Gutman

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:20-cv-10575
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
Civil ProcedureContract
In one sentence

In JLM Couture v. Gutman, Judge Cave granted JLM’s request to restrict access to confidential store and financial information and file updated redacted documents.

Who this affects

JLM Couture, Inc., Hayley Paige Gutman, the participants and court users who can access the specified filing, and the nonparty stores whose identities and business information were described in the requested exhibits.

What happened

In JLM Couture, Inc. v. Hayley Paige Gutman, JLM asked to keep two exhibits to its second amended complaint under seal and to file updated redacted versions of that complaint. The exhibits contained the identities of stores that allegedly breached contracts or stopped doing business with JLM, along with related business and financial information.

JLM argued that public disclosure could harm its competitive position, business negotiations, and efforts to rebuild relationships with the stores. JLM also said the stores were not parties to the lawsuit. Gutman did not oppose the request.

Judge Sarah L. Cave granted the request. The clerk was directed to limit access to JLM’s filing at ECF No. 308 to court users and case participants and to close ECF No. 306.

The detailed version

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

Case
JLM Couture, Inc. v. Gutman · No. 1:20-cv-10575
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
Jan. 10, 2022

Background

JLM Couture, Inc. filed a letter motion seeking permission to file two exhibits to its second amended complaint under seal and to file updated redacted and highlighted versions of the complaint. JLM’s filing described the exhibits as spreadsheets listing stores that allegedly breached contracts with JLM or said they would not continue doing business with JLM. The exhibits also included contract payment amounts and store orders from prior seasons.

JLM argued that the information was confidential business information and that disclosure could give competitors an advantage, harm negotiations, and interfere with JLM’s efforts to repair relationships with the listed stores. JLM also stated that the stores were not parties to the litigation. The letter said that Gutman did not oppose the sealing request or the updated complaint versions.

Ruling

The order states “GRANTED.” It directs the clerk to limit access to JLM’s filing at ECF No. 308 to court users and the participants in the case and to close ECF No. 306. The order does not provide a separate explanation of the court’s reasoning beyond granting the request.

Effect

The order restricts access to the specified filing and permits the requested filing treatment described in JLM’s motion. It does not decide the underlying claims involving JLM, Gutman, or any other person or entity.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-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.