Body Glove IP Holdings, LP v. Exist, Inc.
- John Koeltl
- 1:21-cv-01181
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Body Glove IP Holdings v. Exist, Inc., Judge Koeltl granted Body Glove’s unopposed request to keep specified summary-judgment materials sealed.
Body Glove’s confidential business information and the public’s access to the specified summary-judgment materials were affected. Exist, Inc. and Joshua Glickman took no position on the sealing request.
What happened
In Body Glove IP Holdings, LP v. Exist, Inc., Body Glove asked the court to continue sealing exhibits and portions of the defendants’ summary-judgment filings. Body Glove said the materials contained confidential information about its licensing practices, product-approval process, and an agreement with a third party.
Body Glove argued that disclosure could give competitors an advantage and harm its business. Exist, Inc. and Joshua Glickman took no position on the request.
Judge John G. Koeltl granted the application. The provided text indicates that the requested materials would remain sealed, but the judge’s endorsement does not separately list the documents covered.
The detailed version
- Body Glove IP Holdings, LP v. Exist, Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-01181
- John Koeltl
- Aug. 23, 2022
Background
Body Glove asked the court to continue allowing certain materials attached to Exist, Inc. and Joshua Glickman’s motion for summary judgment to remain under seal. Body Glove said the materials contained confidential and proprietary business information developed through its licensing program, including its product-design guidelines, approval process, licensee-management methods, and information from a licensing agreement with a third party.
The request concerned Exhibit 5; Exhibits 10 through 17; the unredacted version of the defendants’ summary-judgment motion; and portions of the statement of facts and motion discussing the exhibits. The documents had been marked confidential or “Attorneys’ Eyes Only” under a protective order dated September 2, 2021.
Arguments and Legal Standard
Body Glove relied on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(1)(G), which permits protection of trade secrets and confidential commercial information. It also acknowledged the public and press’s qualified First Amendment right to access judicial documents. Body Glove argued that protecting sensitive, competitive, and proprietary business information outweighed that access interest and that its request was narrowly limited to the confidential information.
Body Glove stated that disclosure could give competitors an advantage and cause competitive harm. Exist and Glickman did not oppose the request; they told the court they took no position.
Ruling
Judge Koeltl granted the application. The provided text does not include a separate order identifying each sealed document, so the precise scope of the ruling is not stated beyond the granted application and Body Glove’s request.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.