Camelot SI, LLC v. ThreeSixty Brands Group, LLC

Background

Camelot SI, LLC asked the court to seal paragraphs 45 and 50 and Exhibits A and B to its second amended and supplemented complaint. The opinion states that Camelot SI and ThreeSixty Brands Group LLC were parties to a Manufacturing Addendum, called a Manufacturing License Agreement, and a Website and Catalog Rights Purchase Agreement. Camelot said those agreements contained nonpublic and confidential business, technical, and financial information.

Camelot also stated that the parties had exchanged documents under a protective order entered on March 1, 2022. It said some of the additional allegations in its amended complaint were based on documents produced by defendants as “Highly Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only.” The motion sought to file those allegations under seal and to redact them from the public version.

Arguments

Camelot acknowledged the general public interest in court proceedings and the presumption that judicial documents should be accessible. It argued that the agreements and the specified allegations contained confidential information about pricing, payment terms, indemnity requirements, assets, contractual promises, business strategy, website branding, and marketing. Camelot also relied on a confidentiality provision in the Purchase Agreement, which required the parties to protect covered information subject to stated exceptions.

Camelot argued that the confidential information had economic value and could be used by competitors. It further argued that the public had no legitimate interest outweighing the parties’ interests in preserving the confidential nature of their contractual relationship and proprietary business information.

Ruling

Judge Edgardo Ramos granted the motion. The order specifically granted Camelot SI’s motion to seal paragraphs 45 and 50 and Exhibits A and B to its second amended complaint, and granted leave to file those materials under seal. The opinion does not describe any ruling on the merits of Camelot SI’s contract claims.

Disposition

The sealing motion was granted. The motion papers contain an inconsistent reference in one request to paragraph 49, but the court’s order identifies paragraphs 45 and 50.