Covet & Mane, LLC v. Invisible Bead Extensions, LLC

Background

Covet & Mane, LLC moved under Rule B of the Southern District of New York’s rules for redactions and filing under seal. The motion concerned a letter to the court about extending the September 2, 2022 deadline for completing fact discovery and the circumstances requiring an extension.

Invisible Bead Extensions, LLC had designated its entire document production—8,358 pages—as “Attorneys’ Eyes Only” under a court-approved confidentiality agreement. It had also designated portions of several depositions, including testimony from third-party witness Cassadi Currier, an organizational deposition of Invisible Bead Extensions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6), and depositions of the company’s principals, Tyler Turley and McKenzie Turley.

Requested filing

Because the proposed letter summarized some of those documents and deposition excerpts, Covet & Mane asked to file a redacted version. Covet & Mane stated that it disagreed with the confidentiality designations but sought redaction as a precaution. It also asked to allow Invisible Bead Extensions to file a letter explaining why the information should remain sealed under the standards discussed in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga and Bernstein v. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP.

An unredacted copy of the letter was sent to chambers by email and served on Invisible Bead Extensions’ counsel. A redacted copy was attached as Exhibit 1.

Ruling

The document states “SO ORDERED” and is signed by United States Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger on September 6, 2022. Thus, the requested redacted filing was authorized. The order did not decide the parties’ underlying claims or determine whether the information ultimately should remain under seal.

Classification and scope

This is a procedural order concerning redactions and filing under seal in connection with discovery. It does not resolve the merits of the litigation.