Zeta Global Corp. v. Maropost Marketing Cloud, Inc.
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:20-cv-03951
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Zeta Global Corp. v. Maropost Marketing Cloud, Judge Schofield allowed a sealing request conditionally and required Maropost to justify continued secrecy.
Zeta Global Corp. and Maropost Marketing Cloud, Inc., particularly their filings containing allegedly confidential source-code information.
What happened
In Zeta Global Corp. v. Maropost Marketing Cloud, Zeta asked to file under seal a document containing excerpts from Maropost’s source code. Maropost had labeled the excerpts for attorneys’ eyes only under a protective order.
The court directed Maropost to file a letter by January 6, 2023, explaining why the document should remain sealed. The letter had to address the legal standard for sealing court records and whether any confidential business information had become outdated. If Maropost did not file the letter, the document could be made public.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield entered the order on January 3, 2023. The order allowed the sealing request subject to Maropost’s required justification.
The detailed version
- Zeta Global Corp. v. Maropost Marketing Cloud, Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-03951
- Lorna Schofield
- Jan. 3, 2023
Background
Zeta Global Corp. asked the court for permission to file under seal its Second Supplemental Patent Disclosures of Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions. Zeta intended to submit the document as an exhibit to its opposition to Maropost Marketing Cloud, Inc.’s motion to have the case declared exceptional and to seek attorney’s fees. The exhibit contained excerpts from Maropost’s source code, which Maropost had designated as attorneys’-eyes-only information under the court’s protective order.
Court’s directive
The court directed Maropost to file a letter by January 6, 2023, stating the grounds for keeping the exhibit under seal. The letter had to address the standard for sealing judicial documents described in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, including the point that the sealing analysis does not depend on a protective-order designation. It also had to address whether any claimed confidential business information had become outdated. The court stated that if Maropost filed no letter, the document could be made public.
Disposition
Judge Lorna G. Schofield ordered that the sealing issue proceed subject to Maropost’s written justification. The opinion does not state that the exhibit was permanently sealed or unsealed; it sets a deadline and conditions continued sealing on Maropost’s response.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.