Cerveceria Modelo de Mexico, S. de R.L. de C.V. v. CB Brand Strategies, LLC
- Lewis Kaplan
- 1:21-cv-01317
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Cerveceria Modelo v. CB Brand Strategies, Judge Kaplan’s text records defendants’ request to seal summary-judgment reply papers but shows no ruling.
The request concerned defendants CB Brand Strategies, LLC, Crown Imports LLC, and Compania Cervecera de Coahuila, S. de R.L. de C.V., and the public’s access to portions of the court filings.
What happened
Cerveceria Modelo de Mexico, S. de R.L. de C.V. v. CB Brand Strategies, LLC concerns defendants’ request to seal or redact parts of their reply papers supporting a motion for summary judgment.
The supplied text is a letter from defendants’ counsel. It asks to keep confidential information from public view, including documents, testimony, expert reports, trademark and regulatory materials, manufacturing information, and business and marketing strategies. The letter says disclosure could cause financial harm to defendants.
The text does not show that the court granted or denied the request. Judge Lewis A. Kaplan is identified as the judge, but no ruling or other court action appears in the supplied text.
The detailed version
- Cerveceria Modelo de Mexico, S. de R.L. de C.V. v. CB Brand Strategies, LLC · No. 1:21-cv-01317
- Lewis Kaplan
- Oct. 3, 2022
Document and request
The supplied text is a September 30, 2022 letter from counsel for defendants CB Brand Strategies, LLC, Crown Imports LLC, and Compania Cervecera de Coahuila, S. de R.L. de C.V. The letter asks Judge Lewis A. Kaplan for permission to seal or redact confidential portions of defendants’ reply papers supporting their motion for summary judgment.
Information defendants sought to protect
The requested sealing or redaction concerned materials designated confidential or highly confidential under the parties’ protective order, deposition testimony, expert reports, and information concerning trademarks, labeling, branding, brewing, regulatory matters, production manuals, ingredients, formulas, testing, manufacturing methods, customers, sales strategies, taxes, research and development, and market performance. Defendants’ counsel argued that public disclosure could cause financial harm that outweighed the presumption that judicial documents should be publicly accessible.
Disposition
The supplied text does not contain a court order or state whether the sealing request was granted, denied, or otherwise resolved. It only states that defendants would file their reply papers under seal and provide public versions of certain documents. Accordingly, the text does not establish a ruling by Judge Kaplan.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.