Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.OtherFiled Oct. 19, 2022

Cerveceria Modelo de Mexico, S. de R.L. de C.V. v. CB Brand Strategies, LLC

Judge
Lewis Kaplan
Docket
1:21-cv-01317
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureDiscovery
In one sentence

In Cerveceria Modelo de México v. CB Brand Strategies, Judge Kaplan received defendants’ request to seal confidential pretrial-order exhibits.

Who this affects

The defendants seeking to seal or redact exhibits, the plaintiffs whose produced materials were described as confidential, and members of the public seeking access to the court filings.

What happened

Cerveceria Modelo de México, S. de R.L. de C.V. v. CB Brand Strategies, LLC concerns defendants’ request to seal or redact parts of exhibits to the pretrial order. The requested redactions involved information marked confidential under a protective order.

Defendants said the exhibits contained sensitive information about trademarks, labeling, brewing, manufacturing, ingredients, testing, customers, sales, taxes, research and development, branding, and market performance. They argued that public disclosure could cause financial harm that outweighed the public’s interest in access to court records.

The provided text is a letter asking Judge Lewis A. Kaplan to authorize sealing or redaction; it does not include a ruling or disposition on that request.

The detailed version

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

Case
Cerveceria Modelo de Mexico, S. de R.L. de C.V. v. CB Brand Strategies, LLC · No. 1:21-cv-01317
Judge
Lewis Kaplan
Date
Oct. 19, 2022

Nature of the document

The provided text is a letter from defendants’ counsel to Judge Lewis A. Kaplan. It asks for authorization to seal or redact portions of exhibits to the pretrial order. The text does not contain a judicial opinion or order deciding the request.

Requested sealing and redactions

Counsel stated that the proposed redactions covered descriptions of documents produced by the plaintiffs and defendants and designated “Confidential” or “Highly Confidential” under the parties’ stipulated protective order and confidentiality agreement. The subjects described included:

- Trademarks, labeling, branding, brewing, and regulatory matters; - Production manuals, ingredients, components, formulas, testing, and manufacturing methods; and - Business and marketing strategies, including information about current or potential customers, sales strategies, taxes, research and development, branding and labeling, and market performance.

The letter said the exhibits would be filed under seal under Section 6.2 of the protective order, along with unredacted versions and public versions of the exhibits.

Defendants’ argument

Defendants argued that public disclosure of the proposed redactions could cause financial harm. The letter acknowledged a presumption that the public may access judicial documents and cited cases discussing the court’s discretion to seal records when confidentiality interests outweigh public access. It also cited Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26.

Disposition

No disposition appears in the provided text. The document requests authorization from Judge Kaplan but does not state whether the request was granted, denied, or otherwise resolved.

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.