Signify Holding B.V. v. TP-Link Research America Corporation
- John Koeltl
- 1:21-cv-09472
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Signify Holding B.V. v. TP-Link Research America Corporation: Judge Parker unsealed Exhibit 1 and approved redactions sealing Exhibit 2 to protect commercially sensitive information.
The parties and the public: Exhibit 1 was to become public, while commercially sensitive information in Exhibit 2 remained redacted from public view.
What happened
In Signify Holding B.V. v. TP-Link Research America Corporation, the parties jointly asked to keep two documents filed in the case from public view. The court had previously denied that request without prejudice and allowed a renewed request with narrower redactions.
The parties withdrew their request as to Exhibit 1, identified as ECF No. 68-2. They asked to redact from Exhibit 2, ECF No. 68-3, an amount paid that defendants said could reveal sales volumes to competitors.
The court directed the Clerk to unseal Exhibit 1 and found that the proposed redactions to Exhibit 2 were narrowly tailored to protect commercially sensitive information. Judge Katharine H. Parker ordered that Exhibit 2 remain sealed as redacted.
The detailed version
- Signify Holding B.V. v. TP-Link Research America Corporation · No. 1:21-cv-09472
- John Koeltl
- Sept. 12, 2022
Background
On August 19, 2022, the parties jointly moved to file two documents under seal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2, the court's individual practice rules, and their stipulated protective order. The court previously denied that motion without prejudice and permitted the parties to submit a renewed request proposing narrowly tailored redactions.
The Parties' Renewed Request
The parties withdrew their sealing request for Exhibit 1, ECF No. 68-2. For Exhibit 2, ECF No. 68-3, they requested a limited redaction of an amount paid. The parties stated that defendants believed the amount could indicate sales volumes to competitors. They argued that disclosure could harm the parties and cited decisions permitting protection of commercially sensitive information.
Ruling
The court directed the Clerk to unseal ECF No. 68-2 because the parties withdrew their motion as to that document. As to ECF No. 68-3, the court found that the proposed redactions were narrowly tailored to protect commercially sensitive information and that sealing was warranted. The court thanked the parties for refiling ECF No. 68-3 with redactions. The order was signed by Judge Katharine H. Parker.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.