de Lacour v. Colgate-Palmolive Co.
- Kimba Wood
- 1:16-cv-08364
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
de Lacour v. Colgate-Palmolive Co.: Judge Wood granted Defendants’ request to seal narrowly tailored redactions protecting proprietary business information.
Colgate-Palmolive Co. and Tom’s of Maine Inc.; the order also limits public access to the specified information in the filings.
What happened
In de Lacour v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., Colgate-Palmolive Co. and Tom’s of Maine Inc. asked to seal portions of filings and exhibits related to Tom’s and Colgate’s summary-judgment motions.
The companies said the materials contained confidential sales and financial data, as well as sensitive market and consumer research. The plaintiffs did not object to the request.
Judge Kimba M. Wood granted the request. She found that the proposed redactions were narrowly tailored and that the sensitivity of the information outweighed the public’s general right to access court records.
The detailed version
- de Lacour v. Colgate-Palmolive Co. · No. 1:16-cv-08364
- Kimba Wood
- Dec. 23, 2022
Background
Defendants Colgate-Palmolive Co. and Tom’s of Maine Inc. asked for permission to file under seal portions of several documents and exhibits supporting their summary-judgment motions. The requested sealing covered portions of briefing, responses to the plaintiffs’ statements of additional material facts, and exhibits.
The defendants explained that the materials contained proprietary business information, including confidential sales and financial data and competitively sensitive market and consumer research. They said they had discussed the request with the plaintiffs and that the plaintiffs did not object. The defendants also proposed publicly filing redacted versions while filing unredacted copies under seal.
Ruling
The court granted the defendants’ request to seal the identified portions. After reviewing the proposed redactions, the court found that they were narrowly tailored to protect proprietary business information. The court also concluded that the sensitivity of the information outweighed the presumption that court records should be publicly accessible.
The court stated that it could reconsider the sealing decisions at any time, after giving the parties notice, as to any sealed or redacted portions of the defendants’ materials.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.