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 or redact confidential material; the provided text contains no ruling.
The defendants’ planned court filing and the public’s access to the materials discussed in that filing.
What happened
In Cerveceria Modelo de Mexico, S. de R.L. de C.V. v. CB Brand Strategies, LLC, the defendants asked the court for permission to seal or redact confidential portions of a letter motion they planned to file. The request concerned deposition testimony, expert reports, confidential documents, and information related to attorney-client privilege.
The defendants argued that the private interests involved outweighed the public’s general right to access court documents. They also asked to file unredacted exhibits under seal and public versions of the letter motion within seven days.
The provided text does not contain a ruling by Judge Lewis A. Kaplan. It is a letter from defense counsel requesting permission to seal or redact materials, so no motion disposition can be stated from this text.
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 provided
The 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., addressed to Judge Lewis A. Kaplan. It is not a judicial opinion or order, and it does not state that the court granted or denied the request.
Request to seal or redact
Defense counsel asked for authorization to seal or redact portions of a forthcoming letter motion. The identified material included excerpts of fact-witness deposition testimony designated confidential or highly confidential; references to confidential documents; expert reports designated confidential or highly confidential under the parties’ protective order; and references to privileged information and related correspondence.
Counsel acknowledged the general presumption that judicial documents should be publicly accessible but argued that the relevant privacy and confidentiality interests justified sealing or redaction. Counsel said full, unredacted exhibits would be submitted under seal and requested permission to file public versions of the letter motion within seven days after the under-seal filing.
Disposition
The provided text contains only the defendants’ request and supporting argument. It does not include a ruling, so the court’s disposition is unknown.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.