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 considered defendants’ request to seal filings containing confidential information, but the provided text does not clearly state a ruling.
The defendants seeking to seal or redact materials, the plaintiffs whose materials may be included, and members of the public seeking access to the filings.
What happened
Cerveceria Modelo de Mexico, S. de R.L. de C.V. v. CB Brand Strategies, LLC concerns a request by CB Brand Strategies, LLC, Crown Imports LLC, and Compania Cervecera de Coahuila, S. de R.L. de C.V. to seal or redact parts of their planned filings and exhibits.
The filings would oppose plaintiffs’ requests to exclude proposed expert evidence. Defense counsel said the materials included documents, deposition testimony, and expert reports designated confidential or highly confidential under a protective order, and argued that disclosure could cause financial harm.
The provided text is a letter addressed to Judge Lewis A. Kaplan, but it does not clearly state whether Judge Kaplan granted or denied the sealing request. The text therefore does not establish a final ruling.
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. 20, 2023
Nature of the Filing
The provided text is a letter from counsel for defendants CB Brand Strategies, LLC, Crown Imports LLC, and Compania Cervecera de Coahuila, S. de R.L. de C.V. The letter asks the court for permission to seal or redact portions of the defendants’ forthcoming memorandums opposing plaintiffs’ motions to exclude the defendants’ proposed expert evidence, along with certain exhibits.
Materials at Issue
The requested sealing or redaction covered documents produced in the case and designated confidential or highly confidential under a stipulated protective order, excerpts from fact and expert depositions bearing those designations, and portions or all of expert reports designated confidential or highly confidential under the protective order.
Arguments Described in the Letter
The defendants argued that the materials’ confidentiality outweighed the presumption that judicial documents should be publicly accessible. They asserted that disclosure could cause financial harm and cited cases involving confidential research and development information, marketing plans, revenue, pricing, product development, costs, and budgeting.
The letter stated that the defendants would file the motion papers under seal under the protective order, provide full unredacted versions of the exhibits, and seek permission to file public versions of the motion papers within seven days of the sealed filing.
Disposition
The provided text does not clearly identify a court ruling granting or denying the request. Although a judge’s signature and partially legible text appear at the end, the disposition cannot be determined reliably from the supplied text.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.