Rhode-NYC, LLC v. Rhodedeodato Corp.
- Alvin Hellerstein
- 1:22-cv-05185
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Rhode-NYC v. Rhodedeodato, Judge Schofield granted defendants’ request to seal confidential business information and closed the sealing motion.
The order restricts public access to materials at Docket Nos. 38 and 41 while allowing access to the counsel for Rhode-NYC, LLC, Rhodedeodato Corp., HR Beauty LLC, and Hailey Rhode Bieber listed in the appendix.
What happened
In Rhode-NYC, LLC v. Rhodedeodato Corp., the defendants asked to keep under seal their opposition memorandum and a declaration related to the plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction. They proposed redacting confidential financial information about marketing, inventory, and sales.
The defendants said disclosure could harm their ability to compete. The court granted the sealing application for substantially the reasons stated in the defendants’ July 13, 2022 letter.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield ordered that materials at Docket Nos. 38 and 41 remain sealed, with access limited to the parties’ listed counsel, and directed the clerk to close the sealing motion at Docket No. 36.
The detailed version
- Rhode-NYC, LLC v. Rhodedeodato Corp. · No. 1:22-cv-05185
- Alvin Hellerstein
- Aug. 9, 2022
Background
Defendants Rhodedeodato Corp., HR Beauty LLC, and Hailey Rhode Bieber submitted an application to file under seal their memorandum opposing Rhode-NYC, LLC’s request for a preliminary injunction and the declaration of Claudia Allwood. The application sought to protect confidential and commercially sensitive financial information concerning marketing, inventory, and sales. Defendants stated that disclosure could materially affect their ability to compete in the future.
The defendants filed unredacted versions of the documents under seal with proposed redactions highlighted. The appendix identified counsel for both sides who should have access to the sealed materials.
Ruling
Judge Lorna G. Schofield granted the sealing application for substantially the reasons stated in defendants’ July 13, 2022 letter. The court ordered that the materials at Docket Nos. 38 and 41 remain under seal, with access limited to the parties listed in the order’s appendix. The clerk was directed to close the motion at Docket No. 36. This order addressed sealing only; the opinion text does not state a ruling on the request for a preliminary injunction.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.