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 received a request to seal confidential filings; no ruling is stated.
The defendants seeking to seal or redact filings, the plaintiffs whose materials may be included, and the public’s access to the court papers could be affected.
What happened
Cerveceria Modelo de Mexico, S. de R.L. de C.V. v. CB Brand Strategies, LLC concerns defendants’ request to seal or redact parts of papers opposing 13 motions in limine. The requested materials included documents, deposition testimony, and expert reports designated confidential under a protective order.
The defendants argued that disclosure could cause financial harm and asked to file the papers under seal, followed by public versions within seven days. The text provided does not state whether the court granted or denied that request.
Judge Kaplan is identified as the judge, but the provided text does not clearly state a ruling or other final court action.
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
- Feb. 7, 2023
Background
Defendants CB Brand Strategies, LLC, Crown Imports LLC, and Compafia Cervecera de Coahuila, S. de R.L. de C.V., through their attorney, asked Judge Lewis A. Kaplan for permission to seal or redact portions of their memorandums opposing the plaintiffs’ 13 motions in limine and certain exhibits. The letter says the papers were to include material designated “Confidential” or “Highly Confidential” under the case’s stipulated protective order.
The identified material included documents produced by the parties, excerpts from fact and expert depositions, and portions of expert reports. The defendants said they needed to refer to these materials in opposing the motions and that public disclosure could cause financial harm.
Requested Relief
The defendants stated that they would file the motion papers under seal, provide full unredacted versions of the exhibits, and sought permission to file public versions of the papers within seven days. They relied on the presumption of public access to judicial documents and the court’s authority to balance that presumption against privacy and business interests.
Court Action
The provided text is a request letter rather than a clearly stated order. Although it ends with what appears to be a judicial signature, it does not clearly say that the request was granted, denied, or otherwise resolved. Accordingly, no disposition can be stated from this text.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.