Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 9, 2023

Lead Creation Inc. v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations…

Full caption

Lead Creation Inc. v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations identified on Schedule A

Judge
Jesse Furman
Docket
1:22-cv-10377
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
Civil ProcedureEvidence
In one sentence

Lead Creation v. Partnerships: Judge Furman temporarily granted defendants’ request to redact confidential financial data, pending Lead Creation’s response.

Who this affects

Shenzhen Sen Zhi Run Dian Zi Shang Wu Co., Ltd. and Haikoushi Lvxuan Trading Co., Ltd., whose financial information was temporarily sealed; Lead Creation Inc., which was given an opportunity to respond; and the public’s access to the filing.

What happened

In Lead Creation Inc. v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, two defendants asked to redact sales volumes, sales revenues, and profit margins from a declaration and exhibit filed in support of recovering losses allegedly caused by an earlier restraining order and preliminary injunction.

The defendants argued that revealing the financial information could harm their competitive position and that the redactions would not interfere significantly with public review of the case. The opinion text does not state that Lead Creation opposed the request.

Judge Furman temporarily granted the motion to seal and directed Lead Creation to respond within three business days. The text is unclear about the exact wording of that response directive, and it says the clerk should terminate ECF No. 122.

The detailed version

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

Case
Lead Creation Inc. v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations… · No. 1:22-cv-10377
Judge
Jesse Furman
Date
Mar. 9, 2023

Background

Counsel for Shenzhen Sen Zhi Run Dian Zi Shang Wu Co., Ltd. and Haikoushi Lvxuan Trading Co., Ltd., identified as two of five defendants, submitted a letter motion seeking permission to redact portions of Yingbin Li’s declaration and an accompanying exhibit. The requested redactions concerned sales volume, sales revenue, and profit-margin information.

The letter said the declaration supported a motion to recover against a bond. It stated that the financial information concerned losses allegedly resulting from a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction that, according to the defendants, stopped sales of their flashlight products through Amazon.com and froze proceeds from prior sales. The letter also referred to a March 8 order granting the defendants’ motion to vacate and terminating the restraining order and preliminary injunction. Those descriptions of the underlying events were made in the defendants’ submission.

Arguments

The defendants argued that the financial information was confidential business information whose disclosure could give competitors access to sales and profitability data and harm the defendants’ competitive standing. They also argued that the information played only a limited role in the court’s decision and that most of the declaration and exhibit would remain public.

The letter discussed the common-law right of access to judicial documents and the qualified First Amendment right of access. Under the standards cited in the letter, restricted access or redaction may be allowed when confidentiality interests outweigh public access, the restriction protects a sufficiently important interest, and the restriction is narrowly tailored.

Ruling

The court’s disposition states: “motion to seal is granted temporarily.” The court directed Lead Creation to file a response to the request within three business days, but the supplied opinion text is unclear about the exact wording of that directive. The text also states that the Clerk of Court was to terminate ECF No. 122. The order does not state that the temporary sealing was made permanent or specify any additional final ruling on the requested redactions.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-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.