Wexler v. Hasbro, Inc.
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:20-cv-01100
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Wexler v. Hasbro, Judge Caproni granted Hasbro’s request to redact two deposition exhibits and ordered a response about nine others.
Hasbro and the parties to the case, regarding access to deposition excerpts filed with the court.
What happened
In Wexler v. Hasbro, Inc., Hasbro asked to file two deposition transcripts with limited redactions. David Wexler did not object to the request.
The court granted Hasbro’s request, finding that the redactions protected confidential business and financial information and were narrowly tailored. The court also required the parties to explain by March 4, 2022, why nine other deposition excerpts should not be publicly filed without redactions.
Judge Valerie Caproni directed the parties to file the nine excerpts publicly by that deadline if they did not object, and directed the Clerk of Court to close the open motion at docket entry 75.
The detailed version
- Wexler v. Hasbro, Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-01100
- Valerie Caproni
- Feb. 28, 2022
Background
Hasbro asked the court for permission to file two deposition transcript exhibits with redactions. The request followed the court’s February 16, 2022 order requiring the parties to refile deposition excerpts with narrowly tailored redactions for certain categories of information, including confidential business and marketing information, information about business counterparties that could cause commercial disadvantage if disclosed, and nonpublic financial information and analysis. David Wexler did not object.
Ruling
The court granted Hasbro’s application to redact the two exhibits. It found that the proposed redactions protected important interests and were narrowly tailored, citing Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga.
The court noted that its earlier order covered 11 deposition excerpts, but only the two excerpts addressed in Hasbro’s request had been refiled. It ordered the parties, by March 4, 2022, to show why the remaining nine excerpts should not be filed publicly without redactions. If the parties did not object to public filing, they were required to file those excerpts publicly by that deadline. The court also directed the Clerk of Court to close the open motion at docket entry 75.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.