Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 25, 2023

Cerveceria Modelo de Mexico, S. de R.L. de C.V. v. CB Brand Strategies, LLC

Judge
Lewis Kaplan
Docket
1:21-cv-01317
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Cerveceria Modelo v. CB Brand Strategies, Judge Kaplan authorized defendants to seal confidential motion papers and file public versions within seven days.

Who this affects

The defendants, whose confidential materials may be filed under seal or with redactions, and members of the public seeking access to those court filings.

What happened

In Cerveceria Modelo de Mexico, S. de R.L. de C.V. v. CB Brand Strategies, LLC, the defendants asked to seal or redact confidential portions of their upcoming motions in limine and related exhibits. The materials included documents designated confidential under a protective order, deposition testimony, and expert reports.

The defendants argued that disclosure could cause financial harm and that their privacy interests outweighed the public’s presumptive access to court documents. They also asked to file unredacted exhibits under seal and public versions of the motion papers within seven days after the sealed filing.

The filing was approved by Judge Lewis A. Kaplan, as shown by the “SO ORDERED” notation. The ruling allowed the defendants to file the specified materials under seal and submit public versions within seven days.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Cerveceria Modelo de Mexico, S. de R.L. de C.V. v. CB Brand Strategies, LLC · No. 1:21-cv-01317
Judge
Lewis Kaplan
Date
Jan. 25, 2023

Background

Defendants CB Brand Strategies, LLC, Crown Imports LLC, and Compania Cervecera de Coahuila, S. de R.L. de C.V. asked the court for permission to seal or redact portions of their forthcoming motions in limine and certain exhibits. The requested materials included documents produced by the parties and designated “Confidential” or “Highly Confidential” under the stipulated protective order, excerpts from fact and expert depositions with those designations, and portions or all of expert reports designated under the protective order.

Arguments and governing standard

The defendants acknowledged the presumption that judicial documents are publicly accessible. They argued that the court had discretion to overcome that presumption when the parties’ privacy interests outweighed public access. They further argued that disclosure of the materials could cause financial harm because the documents contained sensitive business information. The defendants stated that they needed to refer to the materials in support of their motions and requested permission to file unredacted exhibits under seal and public versions of the motion papers within seven days after the sealed filing.

Ruling

The filing ends with the court’s “SO ORDERED” notation and Judge Lewis A. Kaplan’s signature. The order therefore approved the defendants’ request to file the specified motion papers and exhibits under seal or with redactions, and to file public versions of the motion papers within seven days. The excerpt does not provide a separately explained judicial analysis beyond the approval notation.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.