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 defendants’ request to seal a forthcoming letter and file public versions within seven days.
The defendants’ request concerns the public’s access to the forthcoming letter and the privacy interests of the parties whose sensitive personal information may be discussed.
What happened
In Cerveceria Modelo de México, S. de R.L. de C.V. v. CB Brand Strategies, LLC, the defendants asked Judge Lewis A. Kaplan for permission to seal or redact parts of a forthcoming letter. They said the letter would refer to highly sensitive personal information.
The defendants cited the general presumption that court documents should be publicly accessible, while arguing that privacy interests justified sealing or redaction. They also asked to file public versions of the letter within seven days after filing the letter under seal.
The letter does not state that Judge Kaplan granted or denied the request. It only records the defendants’ request and their explanation for it.
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. 27, 2023
Document and request
This document is a letter from counsel for defendants CB Brand Strategies, LLC, Crown Imports LLC, and Compaiiia Cervecera de Coahuila, S. de R.L. de C.V. to Judge Lewis A. Kaplan. The defendants requested authorization to seal or redact portions of a forthcoming letter that would refer to highly sensitive personal information. They said the forthcoming letter would be filed on February 26, 2023, pursuant to the court’s December 19, 2022 order.
The defendants also asked for permission to file public versions of the forthcoming letter within seven days after filing it under seal.
Legal standard described
The letter acknowledged a presumption of public access to judicial documents. It stated that courts have discretion to overcome that presumption for good cause and must balance public access against the parties’ privacy interests. The defendants argued that this balancing favored sealing or redacting confidential portions of the forthcoming letter.
Disposition
The provided text does not include a ruling by Judge Kaplan. It therefore does not say whether the request to seal or redact was granted or denied.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.