Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Sept. 9, 2022

Executive Park Partners LLC v. Benicci Inc.

Judge
Philip Halpern
Docket
7:22-cv-02560
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Executive Park Partners v. Benicci, Judge Halpern denied Plaintiff’s request to seal transcript portions and directed termination of the pending motion.

Who this affects

Executive Park Partners, LLC’s request to restrict public access to specified transcript portions was denied; the public record therefore was not sealed under this order.

What happened

Executive Park Partners, LLC asked the court to redact portions of a transcript from a July 19, 2022 public pre-motion conference in its case against Benicci, Inc.

The requested redactions covered specific words and lines on four transcript pages. Executive Park Partners said the material concerned its confidential product-acquisition strategy and sourcing and that disclosure could harm its competitive position.

The court denied the request to seal the transcript portions and directed the Clerk to terminate the pending motion at Doc. 30. Judge Halpern did not provide further reasoning in the order excerpt.

The detailed version

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

Case
Executive Park Partners LLC v. Benicci Inc. · No. 7:22-cv-02560
Judge
Philip Halpern
Date
Sept. 9, 2022

Background

Executive Park Partners, LLC submitted a letter motion asking to redact specified portions of the transcript from a July 19, 2022 public pre-motion conference. The requested redactions covered particular words and lines on pages 4, 5, and 6 of the transcript. The proposed redactions were filed separately under seal as Exhibit A.

Parties’ Position

Executive Park Partners said the information was confidential and concerned its product-acquisition strategy and sourcing. It argued that the information had competitive significance in online product sales by third-party sellers and that public disclosure could help competitors and harm its competitive standing. The company characterized the proposed redactions as minimal and narrowly tailored. It also stated that it had asked Benicci, Inc. for consent and had provided the letter motion to the court reporter.

Ruling

The court denied the request to seal portions of the transcript from the public July 19, 2022 pre-motion conference. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion sequence pending at Doc. 30. Judge Halpern’s order did not provide additional reasoning in the excerpt provided.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.