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, Judge Koeltl granted Body Glove’s request to keep limited confidential excerpts under seal.
Body Glove IP Holdings, LP, Exist, Inc., Joshua Glickman, and members of the public seeking access to the specified court filing.
What happened
Body Glove IP Holdings, LP asked the court to continue sealing portions of Exist, Inc. and Joshua Glickman’s response to Body Glove’s summary-judgment motion. The excerpts concerned another licensee and Body Glove’s product-approval process.
Body Glove said the excerpts contained confidential business information about its licensing guidelines, product designs, approval process, and agreement with a non-party. It argued that disclosure could give competitors an advantage and harm Body Glove.
Judge John G. Koeltl granted the application to seal the specified portions of the defendants’ response. The order addressed access to confidential documents, not the underlying summary-judgment dispute.
The detailed version
- Body Glove IP Holdings, LP v. Exist, Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-01181
- John Koeltl
- Sept. 13, 2022
Background
Body Glove IP Holdings, LP moved for summary judgment against Exist, Inc. and Joshua Glickman. The defendants filed a response. Body Glove then asked the court to continue sealing portions of that response involving another Body Glove licensee and the product-approval process.
The request concerned information that Body Glove described as confidential, proprietary business information. According to the application, the excerpts discussed Body Glove’s feedback to licensees, its process for approving products, and information concerning an agreement with a non-party. Body Glove argued that the information was not publicly available and that disclosure could place it at a competitive disadvantage.
Ruling
The court granted the application. The requested sealing was limited to the portions of the defendants’ response that involved another licensee and/or the product-approval process, as redacted in the public filing. The opinion provided does not state any ruling on the merits of Body Glove’s summary-judgment motion.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.