Wee Care Nanny Agency, LLC v. WeeCare, Inc.
- Katharine Parker
- 1:23-cv-02117
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Wee Care Nanny Agency v. WeeCare: Judge Torres granted the motion to redact and seal confidential business information.
Wee Care Nanny Agency, LLC may keep the specified financial figures in its declaration from public view; the unredacted declaration is filed under seal, while the substantive portions remain publicly available in redacted form.
What happened
In Wee Care Nanny Agency, LLC v. WeeCare, Inc., the plaintiff asked to redact financial figures from a declaration supporting its requests for emergency and preliminary court orders, and to file the unredacted declaration under seal.
The plaintiff said the information included marketing costs and monthly revenues, and that disclosure could harm its business or help competitors. The court agreed that the need to protect this information outweighed the usual presumption that court filings should be public.
Judge Analisa Torres granted the plaintiff’s motion and directed the clerk to terminate the motion at docket entry 11.
The detailed version
- Wee Care Nanny Agency, LLC v. WeeCare, Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-02117
- Katharine Parker
- Mar. 15, 2023
Background
Wee Care Nanny Agency, LLC asked for permission to file a declaration with certain financial information redacted from the public version and to file an unredacted version under seal. The declaration supported the plaintiff’s ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order and motion for a preliminary injunction.
The plaintiff identified the proposed redactions as a few dollar figures concerning its marketing costs and monthly revenues. It argued that this information was confidential and proprietary, and that public disclosure could harm its business or allow competitors to exploit the information. The plaintiff filed a public letter explaining the request, a publicly redacted declaration, and an unredacted declaration under seal with the proposed redactions highlighted.
Ruling
The court concluded that the plaintiff had met its burden to show that the interests supporting redaction and filing the unredacted affidavit under seal outweighed the presumption of public access to court records. The court therefore granted the plaintiff’s motion. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion at docket entry 11.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.