de Lacour v. Colgate-Palmolive Co.
- Kimba Wood
- 1:16-cv-08364
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In de Lacour v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., Judge Wood granted defendants’ request to seal narrowly tailored portions of case materials.
Colgate-Palmolive Co. and Tom’s of Maine Inc.; the plaintiffs; and members of the public seeking access to the specified court materials.
What happened
In de Lacour v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., Colgate-Palmolive Co. and Tom’s of Maine Inc. asked to seal parts of documents and exhibits filed with their summary-judgment motions and their response supporting class decertification. The plaintiffs did not object.
The court found that the proposed redactions were narrowly tailored to protect confidential sales and financial data and sensitive market and consumer research. It concluded that protecting this information outweighed the public’s right to access those materials.
Judge Kimba M. Wood granted the sealing request and directed the clerk to close the related motion. The court said it could reconsider the sealing decision later after notifying the parties.
The detailed version
- de Lacour v. Colgate-Palmolive Co. · No. 1:16-cv-08364
- Kimba Wood
- Nov. 30, 2022
Background
Colgate-Palmolive Co. and Tom’s of Maine Inc. asked to file under seal certain portions of documents and exhibits submitted with their motions for summary judgment and their reply memorandum supporting their motion to decertify the class. The plaintiffs did not object to the request.
Court’s analysis
The court applied the three-part test from Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga. Under that test, the court first determines whether the materials are “judicial documents,” then weighs the common-law presumption that court materials should be accessible, and finally balances competing interests against that presumption.
After reviewing the proposed redactions, the court found that they were narrowly tailored to protect proprietary business information, including confidential sales data, financial data, and competitively sensitive market and consumer research. The court concluded that the sensitivity of this information outweighed the presumption of public access.
Disposition
The court granted defendants’ request to file the specified portions under seal. It stated that it could reconsider its sealing decisions at any time, on notice to the parties, concerning any sealed or redacted portions of the plaintiffs’ or defendants’ materials. The clerk was directed to close the pending motion at ECF No. 226.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.