Cerveceria Modelo de Mexico, S. de R.L. de C.V. v. CB Brand Strategies, LLC
- Lewis Kaplan
- 1:21-cv-01317
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Cerveceria Modelo v. CB Brand Strategies, Judge Kaplan addressed Defendants’ request to seal confidential motion papers and file public versions.
The parties’ confidential business and litigation materials, the Defendants seeking to file them under seal, and the public’s access to the motion papers.
What happened
Cerveceria Modelo de Mexico, S. de R.L. de C.V. v. CB Brand Strategies, LLC concerns Defendants’ request about documents they planned to use in motions involving Plaintiffs’ proposed expert evidence.
Defense counsel asked to seal or redact confidential material, including documents, deposition testimony, and expert reports designated confidential under the parties’ protective order. Defendants also requested permission to file public versions of the motion papers within seven days after filing the sealed versions.
The document ends with a “SO ORDERED” line and Judge Lewis A. Kaplan’s signature, but the text provided does not clearly state whether the request was granted, denied, or granted in part.
The detailed version
- Cerveceria Modelo de Mexico, S. de R.L. de C.V. v. CB Brand Strategies, LLC · No. 1:21-cv-01317
- Lewis Kaplan
- Jan. 9, 2023
Background
The document is a letter from counsel for Defendants CB Brand Strategies, LLC, Crown Imports LLC, and Compafiia Cervecera de Coahuila, S. de R.L. de C.V. The letter concerns motion papers supporting various motions to exclude Plaintiffs’ proposed expert evidence and certain exhibits.
Request
Defendants asked for permission to seal or redact portions of the motion papers. The materials included documents produced by the parties and designated “Confidential” or “Highly Confidential” under a protective order, excerpts from fact and expert depositions, and expert reports. Defendants stated that public disclosure could cause financial harm and that the confidential materials were necessary to support their motions. They also requested permission to file public versions of the motion papers within seven days after filing the sealed versions.
Ruling
The letter discusses the presumption of public access to judicial documents and the court’s authority to balance public access against privacy and financial interests. The document ends with a “SO ORDERED” line and Judge Lewis A. Kaplan’s signature. However, the provided text does not clearly show the precise disposition of the sealing request. It therefore cannot establish from the visible text whether the request was granted, denied, or granted in part.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.