Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 7, 2023

Clear Channel Outdoor, LLC v. City of New Rochelle

Judge
Nelson Roman
Docket
7:20-cv-09296
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
Civil ProcedureDiscovery
In one sentence

Clear Channel Outdoor v. City of New Rochelle: Judge Roman granted Clear Channel’s request to file specified business records under seal.

Who this affects

Clear Channel Outdoor, LLC, the City of New Rochelle, the other parties, and the public’s access to the specified court filings.

What happened

In Clear Channel Outdoor, LLC v. City of New Rochelle, Clear Channel asked to file certain materials connected to its summary-judgment motion under seal, meaning they would not be publicly available.

The materials included lease terms, landlord information, operating costs, billboard values, expert reports, customer lists, revenue information, and internal strategic communications. Clear Channel said the information was confidential and could harm its competitive position if disclosed. The City did not oppose the request.

Judge Nelson S. Roman granted Clear Channel’s request. He directed the Clerk of Court to place the listed docket entries under seal, accessible only to the court and the parties, and directed the Clerk to terminate the motions at docket entries 239 and 208.

The detailed version

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

Case
Clear Channel Outdoor, LLC v. City of New Rochelle · No. 7:20-cv-09296
Judge
Nelson Roman
Date
Apr. 7, 2023

Request

Clear Channel Outdoor, LLC asked the court for permission to file an unredacted statement of undisputed material facts and specified exhibits under seal in connection with its motion for summary judgment and its opposition to the defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment. The City did not oppose the request.

Reasons for Sealing

Clear Channel said the materials contained confidential and proprietary business information produced during discovery under a protective order. The listed information included terms of Clear Channel’s leases in New Rochelle, lessor and landlord information, billboard operating costs, sign values, expert analyses, its billboard inventory, customer lists, revenue information, and internal communications about strategic plans. Clear Channel argued that disclosure could cause commercial harm and undermine its competitive position. It did not seek to seal its briefs or most of its exhibits.

Ruling

The court granted the plaintiff’s request to file the identified documents under seal. It directed the Clerk of Court to place docket entries 214, 222, 229, 215-1, 215-2, 215-3, 215-4, 215-5, 215-6, 215-7, and 231-1 under seal, accessible only to the court and the parties. The court also directed the Clerk to terminate the motions at docket entries 239 and 208. The order addressed access to court filings and did not decide the parties’ underlying commercial dispute.

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.